self-defense claim in Pennsylvania

2026Relevant factors for determining the reasonableness of a self-defense claim include: whether complainant was armed, any actual physical contact, size and strength disparities between the parties, prior dealings between the parties, threatening or menacing actions on the part of complainant, and general circumstances surrounding the incident[.] Id. at 788 (internal quotations and citations omitted). -8- J-S39002-25 Crucially, evidence that the victim was unarmed can be used to show that a defendant’s use of deadly force was unreasonable and therefore unjustified.

2025Likewise, the Commonwealth can negate a self-defense claim by proving the defendant “used more force than reasonably necessary to protect against death or serious bodily injury.” Id. at 787-88 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original omitted).

2025“If a defendant introduces evidence of self-defense, the Commonwealth bears the burden of disproving the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Steele, 234 A.3d 840, 846 (Pa.Super. 2020) (quoting Commonwealth v. Houser, 610 Pa. 264, 275 , 18 A.3d 1128, 1135 (2011)).

2025“If a defendant introduces evidence of self-defense, the Commonwealth bears the burden of disproving the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Hauser, 18 A.3d 1128, 1135 (Pa. 2011).

2025Id. at 1149 (formatting altered and citations omitted).

2019“The Commonwealth need only prove one of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt to sufficiently disprove a self-defense claim.” Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Burns, 765 A.2d 1144, 1149 (Pa.Super. 2000)).

2025“The Commonwealth can negate a self-defense claim if it proves the defendant did not reasonably believe he [or she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury and it was necessary to use deadly force to save himself [or herself] from that danger.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 97 A.3d 782, 787 (Pa. Super. 2014), relying on Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 55 A.3d 1108, 1124 (Pa. 2012).

2025Sepulveda, 55 A.3d at 1124 ; Knox, 219 A.3d at 196 ; [Commonwealth v.] Patterson, 180 A.3d [1217, 1231 (Pa. Super. 2018)].

2026The fact-finder is “free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.” Id. (citations omitted); see also Rivera, 983 A.2d at 1221 (self- defense claim must be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt); Torres, 766 A.2d at 345 (disproving a self-defense claim requires something more than mere disbelief in a defendant’s testimony).

2025In a per curiam order, the High Court stated it was reversing the decision “based on Commonwealth v. Torres, 564 Pa. 219 , 766 A.2d 342, 345 (Pa. 2001) (explaining that a fact-finder’s mere disbelief of the defendant’s testimony going forward with the evidence relative to a justification defense is ‘no substitute for the proof the Commonwealth was required to provide to disprove the self-defense claim’).” Lineman, 237 A.3d 963 (Pa. 2020) (Table) (per curiam order).

2025Similarly, “the Commonwealth negate[s] a self-defense claim by proving [the defendant] used greater force than was reasonably necessary to protect against death or serious bodily injury.” Commonwealth v. Truong, 36 A.3d 592, 599 (Pa. Super. 2012) (en banc), appeal denied, 57 A.3d 70 (Pa. 2012). -9- J-S30015-25 The requirement of a reasonable belief encompasses two aspects, one subjective and one objective.

2021Likewise, the Commonwealth can negate a self-defense claim by proving the defendant “used more force than reasonably necessary to protect against death or serious bodily injury.” Commonwealth v. Truong, 36 A.3d 592, 599 (Pa. Super. 2012) (en banc ).

2025The Commonwealth may also disprove the self-defense claim by proving the defendant “used more force than reasonably necessary[.]” Id. (citation omitted).

2023In denying Appellant’s request for a self-defense instruction, the trial court determined that Appellant failed to establish two of the three elements articulated in Mouzon, supra. First, it found that no evidence showed that Appellant “was free from fault in provoking or continuing the difficulty which resulted in victim’s injury.” Trial Court Opinion, 6/24/22, at 9.

2026To be entitled to a self-defense instruction, “a valid claim of self- defense must be made out as a matter of law, and this determination must be made by the trial judge.” Green, 273 A.3d at 1085 (cleaned up).

2025See Trial Court Opinion, 12/10/2024, at 4-5 (Trial Court found that Berry: “1) did not believe, or reasonably believe, that it was immediately necessary to use force to protect himself; 2) used substantially more force than was necessary to repel the alleged attack and 3) was not free from fault in provoking, continuing, and escalating the difficulty that culminated in his use of what the jury found to be deadly force.”); see also Commonwealth v. Green, 273 A.3d 1080, 1087 (Pa. Super. 2022) (concluding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a self-defense instruction appellan

2026The fact-finder is “free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.” Id. (citations omitted); see also Rivera, 983 A.2d at 1221 (self- defense claim must be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt); Torres, 766 A.2d at 345 (disproving a self-defense claim requires something more than mere disbelief in a defendant’s testimony).

2015“If a defendant introduces evidence of self-defense, the Commonwealth bears the burden of disproving the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211, 1221 (Pa. 2009).

2026“If a defendant introduces evidence of self-defense, the Commonwealth bears the burden of disproving the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Steele, 234 A.3d 840, 846 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted).

2025“If a defendant introduces evidence of self-defense, the Commonwealth bears the burden of disproving the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Steele, 234 A.3d 840, 846 (Pa.Super. 2020) (quoting Commonwealth v. Houser, 610 Pa. 264, 275 , 18 A.3d 1128, 1135 (2011)).

2026“Trial courts have long - 19 - J-A25039-25 been tasked with the responsibility of determining whether the facts evinced at trial permit a self-defense instruction.” Commonwealth v. Cannavo, 199 A.3d 1282, 1288 (Pa. Super. 2018).

2025Therefore, the trial court appropriately denied the castle doctrine instruction since the presumption in subsection 2.1 does not apply because: (1) Kilson’s “personal belief implicates only subsection 2.1(ii);” and (2) “[e]vidence supporting subsection 2.1(i) was also necessary . . ..” Cannavo, 199 A.3d at 1289 . - 17 - J-S44032-24 Although the evidence did not warrant a section 505(b)(2.1) castle doctrine instruction, the trial court did appropriately deliver a self-defense instruction in accordance with section 505(a).

2026See Commonwealth v. Harris, 665 A.2d 1172, 1175 (Pa. 1995) (affirming decision not to issue a self-defense instruction where the appellant’s testimony bore out that he confronted the victim first with an unloaded shotgun to scare him, and when the victim did not leave, the appellant proceeded to load his gun and shoot the victim).

2023Indeed, in Commonwealth v. Harris, 665 A.2d 1172, 1175 (Pa. 1995), our Supreme Court held that a defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction because he did not admit to shooting the victim.

2021Where the defendant successfully raises a self-defense claim, “the burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s act was not justifiable self-defense” by establishing “at least one of the following: (1) the accused did not reasonably believe that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury; or (2) the accused provoked or continued the use of force; or (3) the accused had a duty to retreat and the retreat was possible with complete safety.” Commonwealth v. McClendon, 874 A.2d 1223, 1229-30 (Pa. Super. 2005).

2019It is the Commonwealth’s burden to set forth sufficient evidence to rebut a defendant’s self-defense claim. - 10 - J-S65034-18 Commonwealth v. McClendon, 874 A.2d 1223, 1229-30 (Pa.Super. 2005).

2026See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Tilley, 595 A.2d 575, 581-82 (Pa. 1991) (affirming trial court's refusal to instruct jury on self-defense because defendant “was unquestionably the aggressor” and because of lack of sufficient evidence to support finding that defendant was protecting himself from unlawful force).

2023“This self-defense claim is imperfect in only one respect — an unreasonable rather than a reasonable belief that deadly force was required to save the actor’s life.” Id.

2025“In order for a defendant to successfully claim self-defense, he or she must meet the following three elements: (1) the defendant reasonably believed that he [or she] was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury and that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent such harm; (2) the defendant did not provoke the incident which resulted in the victim’s death; and (3) the defendant did not violate any duty to retreat.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 180 A.3d 1217, 1231 (Pa. Super. 2018), appeal denied, 229 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2020).

2023See Commonwealth v. Patterson, 180 A.3d 1217, 1231 (Pa. Super. 2018) (concluding that the Commonwealth disproved appellant’s self-defense claim, where after an argument and physical altercation, appellant shot the victim despite his ability to safely retreat).

2025Commonwealth v. Carbone, 574 A.2d 584, 589 (Pa. 1990) (citation omitted).

2018"When a defendant raises the issue of self-defense, the Commonwealth bears the burden to disprove such a defense beyond a reasonable doubt The Commonwealth sustains this burden if it establishes at least one of the following: (l) the accused did not reasonably believe that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury; (2) the accused provoked or continued the use of force; or (3) the accused had a duty to retreat and the retreat was possible with complete safety The Commonwealth need only prove one of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt to sufficiently disprove a self-defense claim.

2019Mayfield, supra. Accordingly, we conclude that there is arguable merit to Appellant’s claim that counsel should - 12 - J-S08005-19 have pursued a self-defense claim and, relatedly, that he should have sought a self-defense jury instruction.

2014Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Rittle, 428 A.2d 168 (Pa. Super. 1981)). - 13 - J-S07029-14 In Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 585 A.2d 1069 (Pa. Super. 1991), we explained at length the respective obligations of both a defendant and the trial court when a self-defense instruction is requested: Before the issue of self-defense may be submitted to a jury for consideration, a valid claim of self-defense must be made out as a matter of law, and this determination must be made out as a matter of law, and this determination must be made by the trial judge.

2021The Commonwealth can negate a self-defense claim by proving one of the following: “(1) the accused did not reasonably believe that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury; (2) the accused provoked or continued the use of force; or (3) the accused had a duty to retreat and the retreat was possible with complete safety.” Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1143 (Pa. Super. 2009).

2019“The Commonwealth need only [dis]prove one of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt to sufficiently disprove a self-defense claim.” Id.

2019To disprove a self-defense claim, the Commonwealth is required to prove at least one of the following: “1) the accused did not reasonably believe that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury; or 2) the accused provoked or continued the use of force; or 3) the accused had a duty to retreat and the retreat was possible with complete safety.” Commonwealth v. Hammond, 953 A.2d 544, 559 (Pa.Super. 2008).

2018Smith, at 787 (citing Commonwealth v. Hammond, 953 A.2d 544, 559 (Pa. Super. 2008), appeal denied, 964 A.2d 894 (Pa. 2009)). 41 N.T. pgs. 99, 101. 42 pgs. 101-103. 03 N.T. pgs. 104, 106. 44 N.T. pgs. 114-115. 6 In Commonwealth v. Torres, the Supreme Court held that the Commonwealth had not met its burden of disproving the defendant's self-defense claim where the only evidence regarding the assault was the defendant's testimony. 766 A.2d 342, 345 (Pa. 2001).

2017Although there is no burden upon a defendant to prove a self-defense claim, before such a defense is properly in issue, "there must be some evidence, from whatever source, to justify such a finding." Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 53 A.3d 738, 743 (Pa. 2012) (quoting Commonwealth v. Black, 376 A.2d 627 (Pa. 1977)).

2012See Commonwealth v. Torres, 564 Pa. 219, 224 , 766 A.2d 342, 345 (2001) (offering that, before the self-defense claim is properly at issue, “there must be some evidence, from whatever source, to justify such a finding,” citing Commonwealth v. Black, 474 Pa. 47, 53 , 376 A.2d 627, 630 (1977), and “[i]f there is any evidence that will support the claim, then the issue is properly before the fact finder” (emphasis added)); Commonwealth v. Light, 458 Pa. 328, 334-36 , 326 A.2d 288, 292 (1974) (permitting expert testimony to be employed to establish a defendant’s subjective beliefs regarding immine

2016Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 2003 PA Super 400 , 835 A.2d 720, 731 (Pa.Super. 2003) (quoting Torres, supra).

2016Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 2003 PA Super 400 , 835 A.2d 720, 731 (Pa.Super. 2003) (quoting Torres, supra).

2025Commonwealth v. Knox, 219 A.3d 186, 198 (Pa. Super. 2019).

2025Sepulveda, 55 A.3d at 1124 ; Knox, 219 A.3d at 196 ; [Commonwealth v.] Patterson, 180 A.3d [1217, 1231 (Pa. Super. 2018)].

2016A self-defense instruction must be given upon request “where the jury would have a possible basis for finding [self-defense].” Commonwealth v. Brown, 491 Pa. 507, 512 , 421 A.2d 660, 662 (1980). … In order to successfully invoke a claim of self-defense, the following three conditions must be satisfied: “[I]t must be shown that (a) the [actor] was free from fault in provoking or continuing the difficulty which resulted in the [injury]; (b) that the [actor] must have reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that there was a necessity to use such force

2016A self-defense instruction must be given upon request “where the jury would have a possible basis for finding [self-defense].” Commonwealth v. Brown, 491 Pa. 507, 512 , 421 A.2d 660, 662 (1980). … In order to successfully invoke a claim of self-defense, the following three conditions must be satisfied: “[I]t must be shown that (a) the [actor] was free from fault in provoking or continuing the difficulty which resulted in the [injury]; (b) that the [actor] must have reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that there was a necessity to use such force

2024Although the Commonwealth is required to disprove a claim of self-defense . . . a jury is not required to believe the testimony of the defendant who raises the claim.” Commonwealth v. Chine, 40 A.3d 1239, 1243 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting Commonwealth v. Houser, 18 A.3d 1128, 1135 (Pa. 2011)).

2024Although the Commonwealth is required to disprove a claim of self-defense . . . a jury is not required to believe the testimony of the defendant who raises the claim.” Commonwealth v. Chine, 40 A.3d 1239 , 1243 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting Commonwealth v. Houser, 18 A.3d 1128 , 1135 (Pa. 2011)).

2020Under the Crimes Code, a claim of self-defense requires evidence of the following three elements: “(a) [that the defendant] reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury and that it was necessary to use deadly force against the victim to prevent such harm; (b) that the defendant was free from fault in provoking the difficulty which culminated in the slaying; and (c) that the [defendant] did not violate any duty to retreat." Commonwealth v. Samuel, 590 A.2d 1245, 1247-48 (Pa. 1991); see also 18 Pa.C.S. § 505 (Crimes Code codification of use of force defens

2019Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 53 A.3d 738, 740 (Pa. 2012) (quoting Commonwealth v. Samuel, 590 A.2d 1245, 1247-48 (Pa. 1991)).

2026The fact-finder is “free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.” Id. (citations omitted); see also Rivera, 983 A.2d at 1221 (self- defense claim must be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt); Torres, 766 A.2d at 345 (disproving a self-defense claim requires something more than mere disbelief in a defendant’s testimony).

2026“Where the defendant has introduced evidence of self-defense, the burden is on the Commonwealth to disprove the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt by proving that at least one of those three elements is absent.” Id. (citation omitted).

2025However, if the Commonwealth fails to disprove the second and third elements, but successfully disproves that the defendant reasonably believed that it was necessary to use deadly force, “the defendant may be found guilty only of voluntary manslaughter under the defense of imperfect self-defense.” Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Rivera, 108 A.3d 779 , 787 n.2 (Pa. 2014).

2018Commonwealth v. Smith, 97 A.3d 782, 787 (Pa. Super. 2014) (internal brackets, citations, and quotation marks omitted) (some formatting); see also Commonwealth v. Rivera, 108 A.3d 779, 791 (Pa. 2014); Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 55 A.3d 1108, 1124 (Pa. 2012).