Self-Defense in Pennsylvania-College Campus Dispute Turns Deadly

I have been practicing law for over 30 years. I have done over a hundred self defense cases and many times I have heard clients say, “there is no right to self defense in Pennsylvania”.  I do not know where this idea comes from, but it is completely inaccurate. The case law in Pennsylvania permitting the use of deadly force in self defense goes back hundreds of years.  The statutory law permitting the use of deadly force in self defense goes back to the early 1970’s.  The statute is titled “Justification” and can be found at 18 PA Section 505. It was amended, and expanded, in 2011 eliminating the duty to retreat in one’s home, or on the street if licensed to carry a firearm, in certain circumstances; known as the “castle doctrine” and the “stand your ground” doctrine respectively.

The following is about a recent case in which I represented someone charged with murder and where self defense was our defense at trial. This case provides a good illustration of how self defense cases work from beginning to end.

Wednesday, February 16, 2022, was a normal day for the Defendant, Ms. Smith. At approximately 7 p.m. she finished work and went to a restaurant in the Manayunk section of Philadelphia to order sushi takeout. She received a telephone call from her brother and she immediately knew there was a problem. He was enrolled in college in Chester County PA, lived on campus and did not typically call his sister unless it was important. The brother said, “my roommate got rolled on by a group of guys – they now outside my room and they threatened to get a gun.” The Defendant called their sister and they agreed to meet, drive to their brother’s dorm, pick him up and drive him to their mother’s home in Philly.

During the hour drive, the Defendant, sister and brother communicated about the incident. The brother stated in a text message to the sisters, “I think they getting or got a gun” and said he did not feel safe. They replied “we are taking your ass home”. They told him to stay in his room and to pack his things.

The Defendant called campus police at 7:32 pm. During the call with campus police, the Defendant identified herself, provided her cell phone number and reported that her brother had been assaulted. She also asked the police to go to her brother’s dorm room to check on him.  Campus police called the Defendant back at 7:40 pm and told her that they went to her brother’s dorm room and “there was no one in the hallway.” The Defendant advised that she was on her way to pick up her brother and that she would be there shortly.

When the Defendant arrived she checked in at a security gate and she was waved onto the campus. She parked near the brother’s dorm building in a loading area near the door. She and her sister went to the bathroom while the brother began carrying his stuff to the car. While in the bathroom, the Defendant heard yelling and arguing. As a result she and her sister ran out of the bathroom. Upon exiting the bathroom they observed several young men threatening to attack the brother and his roommate in the hallway outside of his dorm. Assuming it was the young men who attacked the brother earlier and threatened to get a gun, the Defendant and her sister ran to his aid.

The Defendant tried to deescalate the situation. She got in between her brother and roommate and the young men. She demanded that they refrain from fighting. While doing so she was sucker punched. She went down and quickly realized that a knife, which she customarily carried, had fallen from her hoodie pocket and onto the floor. She customarily carried a knife for self protection because she was raped at gunpoint. The Defendant got up and blindly swung the knife and unbeknownst to her struck a young man in the carotid artery. He ran outside and fell on the grass where he bled to death within minutes. All persons (except Defendant – an alumni – and sister) involved were students of the college and residents on campus.

After the stabbing the Defendant, her sister, brother and brother’s roommate, ran out to the car. The Defendant was driving. In the car, the Defendant realized that several fingers were bleeding profusely – a self inflicted knife wound. Her sister gave her paper towels and napkins to clean the wounds. The Defendant gave her sister the knife and she threw it out of the window.  While driving back to Philadelphia the Defendant learned through campus notifications received by her brother that someone was stabbed – the Defendant was shocked. When she arrived at her mother’s house, they learned again through the brother’s campus notifications, that the young man died – the Defendant was horrified.

The news – and video – of this incident was widely publicized. The Defendant was quickly identified from cell phone video footage as a target of a murder investigation; she could be seen in the video stabbing the deceased. She had never been arrested before and she did not know what to do. She was hysterical. Her initial thought was to surrender to the police and give her side of the story. She spoke to a family friend who was a Philadelphia Police Officer who advised her to get a lawyer before going to the police.

Before an arrest warrant was issued, homicide detectives were looking for the Defendant to take her statement. The Defendant was looking for an attorney. She was referred to me by her friend and she retained me within 48 hours of the incident. My general advice to her was as follows; to tell me the truth and to tell me everything; if police found her before she surrendered to exercise her 5th Amendment right to silence; that the District Attorney’s Office in Chester County would be charging her and issuing a warrant charging murder generally as the lead charge; that she should surrender when an arrest warrant was issued; that she would be held without bail since murder generally includes first degree murder, and in PA persons charged with first degree murder are held without bail; that we hire a local esteemed criminal defense attorney to serve as co-counsel on the case.

The Defendant followed my advice and the case proceeded as expected. On February 23, 2022, the Chester County DA Office issued an arrest warrant for Ms. Smith on murder generally and other charges and I surrendered her to the Chester County assigned detective at the Courthouse at around 6 pm. She invoked her right to silence and she was held without bail. We hired a very good and respected local attorney whose help and skill was invaluable.

In the months that followed we reviewed the discovery, we investigated and we and prepared for trial. “Discovery” is a legal term for evidence. Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure the prosecution in a criminal case must provide to the defense all evidence collected and produced by police and detectives. It is called “discovery” or the “discovery process”. We also conducted our own investigation; interviewed witnesses, reviewed social media, surveillance footage, etc.

In preparation for trial we conducted legal research and explored relevant evidentiary issues. Evidence issues are either resolved by the parties by agreement and if the parties cannot agree a motion is filed with the court for a ruling and resolution. These pretrial evidence motions are called “motions in limine”. One pretrial evidence issue which frequently comes up in self defense cases is the victim’s past. In Pennsylvania self defense cases, the victim’s past may be admissible to prove that he started the fight that led to his death; what is known as the “initial aggressor” under the law.

The victim’s past history – reputation, arrests and convictions – for quarrelsome or assaultive behavior should be thoroughly investigated pretrial; “[t]he introduction of evidence to show a defendant’s knowledge of the victim’s quarrelsome or violent character has historically been allowed to prove that the defendant reasonably believed his life to be in danger”, Commonwealth v. Amos, 445 Pa. 297, 284 A.2d 748 (1971). Obviously the admission of such evidence is important in self defense cases and can make or break the case. In this case we filed motions to admit evidence of bad character of the deceased and to admit evidence of bad character of the deceased’s friends who participated in the fight.

On September 21, 2023, the Judge scheduled a hearing on the pretrial motions to admit evidence. We argued that the evidence was admissible to show that they were the initial aggressors, and that the Defendant had a reasonable belief that she was in danger of death or serious injury to herself or others. The defense investigation revealed that the deceased had a permit to carry a concealed firearm and that he carried the firearm on the campus before the fight. The deceased and another person involved in the fight posed with firearms and marijuana – on campus – in a video posted on an Instagram account. Our investigation revealed that one of the Commonwealth witnesses had pending criminal charges in Philadelphia at the time of trial.  Most of this evidence was ruled to be admissible at trial.

After about 18 months in custody, on October 2, 2023, trial by jury commenced. It was a contentious trial and lasted about 10 days. The prosecutor fought hard to convict on first degree murder. The prosecutor’s theory was that the Defendant traveled to the campus with the intention to seek revenge and that she killed the victim with malice and premeditation. The defense theory was self defense and defense of others and that the killing was justifiable. The defense evidence consisted of witnesses and text messages showing that in the days leading up to the fight there was a preexisting feud between the deceased and his friends and the Defendant’s brother and roommate.

The defense theory was that the others were the initial aggressors and started the confrontation that led to the killing. The defense ended with the testimony of the Defendant who presented well despite the prosecutor’s aggressive cross examination. After closing arguments, the judge instructed the jury on the relevant Pennsylvania law; the various charges and crimes which the jury could consider from First Degree Murder to Involuntary Manslaughter. She also instructed the jury on the law of self defense and defense of others; Pennsylvania statute on “justification”.

On October 11, 2023, the jury rendered its verdict. As to the charge of homicide the jury found Ms. Smith not guilty of all murder charges. The jury also found her not guilty of voluntary manslaughter which is a felony in Pennsylvania. For stabbing and killing the deceased, the jury found Ms. Smith guilty of involuntary manslaughter, a misdemeanor.

The verdict in this case – and subsequent sentence – was a very good outcome for the Defendant. It was possible because the Defendant retained an attorney very early in the process.  It was also possible because the Defendant hired attorneys who were experienced with self defense cases. Early preparation, careful and thorough investigation and proper presentation of the evidence is vital in all murder cases – especially self defense cases. In Pennsylvania the law permits persons to use deadly force to protect themselves or others, but only in certain limited circumstances.