DE 5.12. JUSTIFICATION – USE OF FORCE TO PROTECT ANOTHER
DELAWARE PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
DE 5.12. JUSTIFICATION – USE OF FORCE TO PROTECT ANOTHER
The defendant has asserted as a defense to [charge] that the defendant was justified in using force to protect another person. This defense is available only if all three of the following conditions are met:
the defendant would have been justified in using such force to protect [himself/herself] against the unlawful force that the defendant believed to be threatened against the person the defendant sought to protect; and
the defendant believed that under the circumstances, the person the defendant sought to protect would have been justified in using such protective force; and
the defendant believed that intervention was necessary for the protection of the other person.
“Unlawful force” is force that is not justified; and force that is used against a person without that person’s consent.
The defendant is not obligated to retreat, to surrender possession of a thing, or to comply with a demand before using force for the protection of another person – unless the defendant knew that, by retreating, surrendering or complying, the defendant could have secured the complete safety of the other person.
If the person the defendant sought to protect would have been obligated to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing, or to comply with a demand, and the person knew that [he/she] could obtain complete safety by doing so, then the defendant was obligated to try to cause the person to retreat, surrender or comply, before using force in that person’s protection — if the defendant also knew that complete safety could be secured by retreating, surrendering or complying.
Neither the defendant nor the person the defendant sought to protect is obligated to retreat when in the other person’s dwelling or place of work. If, after considering all the evidence tending to support this defense, you find that the evidence raises a reasonable doubt in your mind about the defendant’s guilt, you must find the defendant not guilty of the crime. You must consider evidence of this defense along with all the other evidence in determining whether the State has satisfied its burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
