This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

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.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.