68 N.M. 271, 361 P.2d 152 (1961).
Chief Justice Moise delivered opinion
Facts:
- Sept. 18, 1954, 15-yr old boy and 2 others went to steal watermelons from def.'s property
- Next evening (Sept. 19, 1954), 15-yr old boy returned w/ several boys to steal melons
- 2 boys enter melon patch; appellant goes to SE corner near hwy
- Appellee hears boys, comes out w/ rifle, calls out, and shoots opposite direction of where boys were running (they were heading SW) to try and scare them
- Appellee accidentally shoots boy standing in SE corner of property by fence (no intent)
Is it reasonable to use a firearm to prevent trespass?
Holding: No, value life over property.
Reasoning:
- law marked out limitations on using force in self-defense
- life valued more than property
- "no privilege to use any force calculated to cause death or serious bodily injury where only property is threatened"
- no proof appellee felt safety was threatened
- appellee acted improperly and is liable for using gun in manner he did
Opinions: N/A
Thoughts: Transferred intent case; facts described do not equal battery. Court wanted to make clear its stance on folks shooting firearms to protect property (possible had no one been shot court might have decided differently)
2 comments:
But the real question in this case is was it regular or seedless watermelon? That just might change things.
Excellent point, counselor. I shall ask the professor today to see what he thinks. :)
Post a Comment