Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Courvoisier (D) lived on the second level of a jewelry store that he owned. One night, intruders tried to enter his store. D chased the intruders outside with his revolver and fired a shot in the air to scare them. The intruders did not run away but continued to bombard D with bricks and stones. Raymond (P), a police officer, heard the shots and came to the scene. P walked toward D, telling him not to shoot because he was an officer. D thought P was one of the rioters, and deliberately shot him. D thought P was approaching him in a threatening way and shot in self-defense. P sued for damages resulting from the shooting. P claimed he was duly authorized to approach D for a breach of the peace, and that D, knowing him to be a police officer, recklessly shot him. D claimed P was approaching him in a threatening manner and the surrounding circumstances were enough for him to believe that his life was in danger and it was necessary to shoot in self-defense. The trial court ruled for P. D appealed based on a jury instruction stating that if they believed that at the time the D shot P, P was not assaulting D, then the verdict should be for P. D believed this instruction eliminated the possibility for the jurors to consider that D believed that he was shooting one of the rioters.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co