21 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Roach v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Id. at 423 . 21 The Appellate Court concluded that the trial court correctly declined to provide the imperfect self-defense instruction, explaining that Roach could “not have believed that he was using a level of force necessary to defend himself by shooting the victim, because, as he testified, he did not know the victim had been shot.” Id. at 425 (footnote and internal quotations omitted). 2024Id. at 423 . 21 The Appellate Court concluded that the trial court correctly declined to provide the imperfect self-defense instruction, explaining that Roach could “not have believed that he was using a level of force necessary to defend himself by shooting the victim, because, as he testified, he did not know the victim had been shot.” Id. at 425 (footnote and internal quotations omitted). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Martingreen2 sentences2024As we have explained, a defendant’s state of mind “must be determined by a consideration of his [or her] acts, conduct and words” but “[o]rdinarily,” the source of that evidence “will be testimony by the defendant.” Martin, 329 Md. at 361, 363 (cleaned up). 12 While we recognize that, to properly generate the imperfect self-defense instruction, Petitioner needed to point to some evidence to satisfy all elements of imperfect self-defense, see Arthur, 420 Md. at 525 ; Dykes, 319 Md. at 215 , because we hold that there was no evidence as to Petitioner’s subjective belief that his use of force was 2024As we have explained, a defendant’s state of mind “must be determined by a consideration of his [or her] acts, conduct and words” but “[o]rdinarily,” the source of that evidence “will be testimony by the defendant.” Martin, 329 Md. at 361, 363 (cleaned up). 12 While we recognize that, to properly generate the imperfect self-defense instruction, Petitioner needed to point to some evidence to satisfy all elements of imperfect self-defense, see Arthur, 420 Md. at 525 ; Dykes, 319 Md. at 215 , because we hold that there was no evidence as to Petitioner’s subjective belief that his use of force was | 3 | 3 |
State v. Faulknergreen2 sentences2017Burch, 346 Md. at 284 , 696 A.2d 443 , In State v. Faulkner, 301 Md. 482 , 483 A.2d 759 (1984), we explained the legal theory supporting the imperfect self-defense doctrine. 2017Burch, 346 Md. at 284 , 696 A.2d 443 , In State v. Faulkner, 301 Md. 482 , 483 A.2d 759 (1984), we explained the legal theory supporting the imperfect self-defense doctrine. | 2 | 7 |
Lambert v. Stategreen2 sentences2010State v. Martin, 329 Md. 351, 360 , 619 A.2d 992 (1993) (“[T]he defendant must also produce some evidence that he was not the aggressor.”); Lambert v. State, 70 Md.App. 83, 97 , 519 A.2d 1340 (1987) (“One who is the aggressor in an encounter ... is not entitled to invoke the imperfect self-defense doctrine, even though he honestly (but unreasonably) believed that he was required to use the level of force employed in order to defend himself.”); Cunningham v. State, 58 Md.App. at 256 , 473 A.2d 40 (“An aggressor, faced even with the reasonable belief in the necessity to kill, cannot have the def 2010State v. Martin, 329 Md. 351, 360 , 619 A.2d 992 (1993) (“[T]he defendant must also produce some evidence that he was not the aggressor.”); Lambert v. State, 70 Md.App. 83, 97 , 519 A.2d 1340 (1987) (“One who is the aggressor in an encounter ... is not entitled to invoke the imperfect self-defense doctrine, even though he honestly (but unreasonably) believed that he was required to use the level of force employed in order to defend himself.”); Cunningham v. State, 58 Md.App. at 256 , 473 A.2d 40 (“An aggressor, faced even with the reasonable belief in the necessity to kill, cannot have the def | 2 | 3 |
Baker v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Perfect self-defense requires the following: (1) The accused must have had reasonable grounds to believe himself in apparent imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from his assailant or potential assailant; 6 See Baker v. State, 332 Md. 542, 556 (1993) (declining to “reach the harmless error issue” because this Court found “no error” on the part of the circuit court). 3 (2) The accused must have in fact believed himself in this danger; (3) The accused claiming the right of self-defense must not have been the aggressor or provoked the conflict; and (4) The force used must 2024Perfect self-defense requires the following: (1) The accused must have had reasonable grounds to believe himself in apparent imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from his assailant or potential assailant; 6 See Baker v. State, 332 Md. 542, 556 (1993) (declining to “reach the harmless error issue” because this Court found “no error” on the part of the circuit court). 3 (2) The accused must have in fact believed himself in this danger; (3) The accused claiming the right of self-defense must not have been the aggressor or provoked the conflict; and (4) The force used must | 2 | 2 |
Richmond v. Stategreen2 sentences2000The doctrine of imperfect self-defense applies only to “criminal homicide and its shadow forms, such as attempted murder.” Richmond v. State, 330 Md. 223, 233 , 623 A.2d 630, 634-35 (1993) (citations omitted). *423 It has no applicability to other assaultive crimes. 2000The doctrine of imperfect self-defense applies only to “criminal homicide and its shadow forms, such as attempted murder.” Richmond v. State, 330 Md. 223, 233 , 623 A.2d 630, 634-35 (1993) (citations omitted). *423 It has no applicability to other assaultive crimes. | 2 | 2 |
Cunningham v. Stategreen2 sentences2010State v. Martin, 329 Md. 351, 360 , 619 A.2d 992 (1993) (“[T]he defendant must also produce some evidence that he was not the aggressor.”); Lambert v. State, 70 Md.App. 83, 97 , 519 A.2d 1340 (1987) (“One who is the aggressor in an encounter ... is not entitled to invoke the imperfect self-defense doctrine, even though he honestly (but unreasonably) believed that he was required to use the level of force employed in order to defend himself.”); Cunningham v. State, 58 Md.App. at 256 , 473 A.2d 40 (“An aggressor, faced even with the reasonable belief in the necessity to kill, cannot have the def 2010State v. Martin, 329 Md. 351, 360 , 619 A.2d 992 (1993) (“[T]he defendant must also produce some evidence that he was not the aggressor.”); Lambert v. State, 70 Md.App. 83, 97 , 519 A.2d 1340 (1987) (“One who is the aggressor in an encounter ... is not entitled to invoke the imperfect self-defense doctrine, even though he honestly (but unreasonably) believed that he was required to use the level of force employed in order to defend himself.”); Cunningham v. State, 58 Md.App. at 256 , 473 A.2d 40 (“An aggressor, faced even with the reasonable belief in the necessity to kill, cannot have the def | 1 | 3 |
Porter v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See Porter v. State, 455 Md. at 245 (citation omitted) (noting that a defendant must show that they “actually feared imminent or immediate danger—not both” to generate an imperfect self-defense instruction). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Marylandgreen2 sentences2017See Jones v. State, 357 Md. 408, 422 , 745 A.2d 396, 403 (2000) (“The doctrine of imperfect self-defense applies only to ‘criminal homicide and its shadow forms, such as attempted murder.’ ”). . 2017See Jones v. State, 357 Md. 408, 422 , 745 A.2d 396, 403 (2000) (“The doctrine of imperfect self-defense applies only to ‘criminal homicide and its shadow forms, such as attempted murder.’ ”). . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smullengreen2 sentences2017See Jones v. State, 357 Md. 408, 422 , 745 A.2d 396, 403 (2000) (“The doctrine of imperfect self-defense applies only to ‘criminal homicide and its shadow forms, such as attempted murder.’”). 2 We explained in State v. Smullen, 380 Md. 233 , 250–51, 844 A.2d 429, 439 (2004), among other things, that the battered spouse syndrome statute permits the jury to analyze the elements of self-defense in a more sophisticated way. 2017See Jones v. State, 357 Md. 408, 422 , 745 A.2d 396, 403 (2000) (“The doctrine of imperfect self-defense applies only to ‘criminal homicide and its shadow forms, such as attempted murder.’”). 2 We explained in State v. Smullen, 380 Md. 233 , 250–51, 844 A.2d 429, 439 (2004), among other things, that the battered spouse syndrome statute permits the jury to analyze the elements of self-defense in a more sophisticated way. | 1 | 1 |
Allison v. Stategreen2 sentences2000See id. at.489, 483 A.2d at 763 (citing Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444 , 86 S.W. 409 (1984), Reed v. State, 11 Tex.App. 509 (1882), and State v. Flory, 40 Wyo. 184 , 276 P. 458 (Wyo.1929), as examples of cases indicating that the doctrine of imperfect self-defense is applicable "where the homicide would fall within the perfect self defense doctrine but for the fault of the defendant in provoking or initiating the difficulty at the non-deadly force level,” and citing State v. Clark, 69 Kan. 576 , 77 P. 287 (1904), as an example of cases recognizing the doctrine "when the defendant used unreasona 2000See id. at.489, 483 A.2d at 763 (citing Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444 , 86 S.W. 409 (1984), Reed v. State, 11 Tex.App. 509 (1882), and State v. Flory, 40 Wyo. 184 , 276 P. 458 (Wyo.1929), as examples of cases indicating that the doctrine of imperfect self-defense is applicable "where the homicide would fall within the perfect self defense doctrine but for the fault of the defendant in provoking or initiating the difficulty at the non-deadly force level,” and citing State v. Clark, 69 Kan. 576 , 77 P. 287 (1904), as an example of cases recognizing the doctrine "when the defendant used unreasona | 1 | 1 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2000See id. at.489, 483 A.2d at 763 (citing Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444 , 86 S.W. 409 (1984), Reed v. State, 11 Tex.App. 509 (1882), and State v. Flory, 40 Wyo. 184 , 276 P. 458 (Wyo.1929), as examples of cases indicating that the doctrine of imperfect self-defense is applicable "where the homicide would fall within the perfect self defense doctrine but for the fault of the defendant in provoking or initiating the difficulty at the non-deadly force level,” and citing State v. Clark, 69 Kan. 576 , 77 P. 287 (1904), as an example of cases recognizing the doctrine "when the defendant used unreasona 2000See id. at.489, 483 A.2d at 763 (citing Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444 , 86 S.W. 409 (1984), Reed v. State, 11 Tex.App. 509 (1882), and State v. Flory, 40 Wyo. 184 , 276 P. 458 (Wyo.1929), as examples of cases indicating that the doctrine of imperfect self-defense is applicable "where the homicide would fall within the perfect self defense doctrine but for the fault of the defendant in provoking or initiating the difficulty at the non-deadly force level,” and citing State v. Clark, 69 Kan. 576 , 77 P. 287 (1904), as an example of cases recognizing the doctrine "when the defendant used unreasona | 1 | 1 |
Bryant v. Stategreen2 sentences2000Bryant v. State, 83 Md.App. 237, 245 , 574 A.2d 29, 33 (1990). 2000Bryant v. State, 83 Md.App. 237, 245 , 574 A.2d 29, 33 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Florygreen2 sentences2000See id. at.489, 483 A.2d at 763 (citing Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444 , 86 S.W. 409 (1984), Reed v. State, 11 Tex.App. 509 (1882), and State v. Flory, 40 Wyo. 184 , 276 P. 458 (Wyo.1929), as examples of cases indicating that the doctrine of imperfect self-defense is applicable "where the homicide would fall within the perfect self defense doctrine but for the fault of the defendant in provoking or initiating the difficulty at the non-deadly force level,” and citing State v. Clark, 69 Kan. 576 , 77 P. 287 (1904), as an example of cases recognizing the doctrine "when the defendant used unreasona 2000See id. at.489, 483 A.2d at 763 (citing Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444 , 86 S.W. 409 (1984), Reed v. State, 11 Tex.App. 509 (1882), and State v. Flory, 40 Wyo. 184 , 276 P. 458 (Wyo.1929), as examples of cases indicating that the doctrine of imperfect self-defense is applicable "where the homicide would fall within the perfect self defense doctrine but for the fault of the defendant in provoking or initiating the difficulty at the non-deadly force level,” and citing State v. Clark, 69 Kan. 576 , 77 P. 287 (1904), as an example of cases recognizing the doctrine "when the defendant used unreasona | 1 | 1 |
Perry v. Stategreen2 sentences1990See Perry v. State, 234 Md. 48, 52 , 197 A.2d 833 (1964); Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361 , 190 A.2d 538 (1963); Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562, 567 , 188 A.2d 142 (1963); Gunther v. State, 228 Md. 404, 409 , 179 A.2d 880 (1962) (all to the effect that a person not seeking a fight but fearing an attack may arm himself in anticipation of the attack); Watkins v. State, 79 Md.App. 136, 139 , 555 A.2d 1087 (1989) (defendant may claim self-defense, even as initial aggressor, if victim escalated altercation to deadly level); Lambert v. State, 70 Md.App. 83, 93 , 519 A.2d 1340 , cert. denied, 309 1990See Perry v. State, 234 Md. 48, 52 , 197 A.2d 833 (1964); Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361 , 190 A.2d 538 (1963); Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562, 567 , 188 A.2d 142 (1963); Gunther v. State, 228 Md. 404, 409 , 179 A.2d 880 (1962) (all to the effect that a person not seeking a fight but fearing an attack may arm himself in anticipation of the attack); Watkins v. State, 79 Md.App. 136, 139 , 555 A.2d 1087 (1989) (defendant may claim self-defense, even as initial aggressor, if victim escalated altercation to deadly level); Lambert v. State, 70 Md.App. 83, 93 , 519 A.2d 1340 , cert. denied, 309 | 1 | 1 |
| Simmons v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dykes v. State
green
2 sentences2024As we have explained, a defendant’s state of mind “must be determined by a consideration of his [or her] acts, conduct and words” but “[o]rdinarily,” the source of that evidence “will be testimony by the defendant.” Martin, 329 Md. at 361, 363 (cleaned up). 12 While we recognize that, to properly generate the imperfect self-defense instruction, Petitioner needed to point to some evidence to satisfy all elements of imperfect self-defense, see Arthur, 420 Md. at 525 ; Dykes, 319 Md. at 215 , because we hold that there was no evidence as to Petitioner’s subjective belief that his use of force was 2024As we have explained, a defendant’s state of mind “must be determined by a consideration of his [or her] acts, conduct and words” but “[o]rdinarily,” the source of that evidence “will be testimony by the defendant.” Martin, 329 Md. at 361, 363 (cleaned up). 12 While we recognize that, to properly generate the imperfect self-defense instruction, Petitioner needed to point to some evidence to satisfy all elements of imperfect self-defense, see Arthur, 420 Md. at 525 ; Dykes, 319 Md. at 215 , because we hold that there was no evidence as to Petitioner’s subjective belief that his use of force was | 3 | 1993–2024 |
Simmons v. State
green
2 sentences2006As the intermediate appellate court pointed out, Hoey was followed by Simmons v. State, 313 Md. 33 , 542 A.2d 1258 (1988), where this Court determined that expert testimony is admissible for showing that a defendant had a subjective belief that the use of force was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury in support of the defendant’s imperfect self-defense claim. 2006As the intermediate appellate court pointed out, Hoey was followed by Simmons v. State, 313 Md. 33 , 542 A.2d 1258 (1988), where this Court determined that expert testimony is admissible for showing that a defendant had a subjective belief that the use of force was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury in support of the defendant’s imperfect self-defense claim. | 3 | 1992–2006 |
Arthur v. State
green
2 sentences2024As we have explained, a defendant’s state of mind “must be determined by a consideration of his [or her] acts, conduct and words” but “[o]rdinarily,” the source of that evidence “will be testimony by the defendant.” Martin, 329 Md. at 361, 363 (cleaned up). 12 While we recognize that, to properly generate the imperfect self-defense instruction, Petitioner needed to point to some evidence to satisfy all elements of imperfect self-defense, see Arthur, 420 Md. at 525 ; Dykes, 319 Md. at 215 , because we hold that there was no evidence as to Petitioner’s subjective belief that his use of force was 2024As we have explained, a defendant’s state of mind “must be determined by a consideration of his [or her] acts, conduct and words” but “[o]rdinarily,” the source of that evidence “will be testimony by the defendant.” Martin, 329 Md. at 361, 363 (cleaned up). 12 While we recognize that, to properly generate the imperfect self-defense instruction, Petitioner needed to point to some evidence to satisfy all elements of imperfect self-defense, see Arthur, 420 Md. at 525 ; Dykes, 319 Md. at 215 , because we hold that there was no evidence as to Petitioner’s subjective belief that his use of force was | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Gomaz
green
2 sentences2024Id. at 636 . 2024Id. at 636 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Peterson
green
2 sentences2016Ms. Peterson, who like Ms. Porter, presented evidence of a long history of spousal abuse, shot and killed her husband while he was watching television. 158 Md.App. at 565 , 857 A.2d 1132 . 2016Ms. Peterson, who like Ms. Porter, presented evidence of a long history of spousal abuse, shot and killed her husband while he was watching television. 158 Md.App. at 565 , 857 A.2d 1132 . | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Watkins v. State
green
2 sentences1990See Perry v. State, 234 Md. 48, 52 , 197 A.2d 833 (1964); Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361 , 190 A.2d 538 (1963); Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562, 567 , 188 A.2d 142 (1963); Gunther v. State, 228 Md. 404, 409 , 179 A.2d 880 (1962) (all to the effect that a person not seeking a fight but fearing an attack may arm himself in anticipation of the attack); Watkins v. State, 79 Md.App. 136, 139 , 555 A.2d 1087 (1989) (defendant may claim self-defense, even as initial aggressor, if victim escalated altercation to deadly level); Lambert v. State, 70 Md.App. 83, 93 , 519 A.2d 1340 , cert. denied, 309 1990See Perry v. State, 234 Md. 48, 52 , 197 A.2d 833 (1964); Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361 , 190 A.2d 538 (1963); Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562, 567 , 188 A.2d 142 (1963); Gunther v. State, 228 Md. 404, 409 , 179 A.2d 880 (1962) (all to the effect that a person not seeking a fight but fearing an attack may arm himself in anticipation of the attack); Watkins v. State, 79 Md.App. 136, 139 , 555 A.2d 1087 (1989) (defendant may claim self-defense, even as initial aggressor, if victim escalated altercation to deadly level); Lambert v. State, 70 Md.App. 83, 93 , 519 A.2d 1340 , cert. denied, 309 | 2 | 1990–1990 |
Burch v. State
green
2 sentences2017Burch, 346 Md. at 284 , 696 A.2d 443 , In State v. Faulkner, 301 Md. 482 , 483 A.2d 759 (1984), we explained the legal theory supporting the imperfect self-defense doctrine. 2017Burch, 346 Md. at 284 , 696 A.2d 443 , In State v. Faulkner, 301 Md. 482 , 483 A.2d 759 (1984), we explained the legal theory supporting the imperfect self-defense doctrine. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Porter v. State
green
2 sentences2017Porter v. State, 230 Md.App. 288, 327-28 , 148 A.3d 1 (2016). 2017Porter v. State, 230 Md.App. 288, 327-28 , 148 A.3d 1 (2016). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Roary v. State
green
2 sentences2008I disagree, however, with the majority’s rationale for so concluding, that, in light of Roary v. State, 385 Md. 217 , 867 A.2d 1095 (2005) and under the felony-murder framework, first degree assault may be deemed a shadow form of homicide. 2008I disagree, however, with the majority’s rationale for so concluding, that, in light of Roary v. State, 385 Md. 217 , 867 A.2d 1095 (2005) and under the felony-murder framework, first degree assault may be deemed a shadow form of homicide. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Hartless v. State
green
2 sentences2005Hartless, 327 Md. at 577 , 611 A.2d 581 (quoting Simmons, supra, 313 Md. at 48 , 542 A.2d 1258 ). 2005Hartless, 327 Md. at 577 , 611 A.2d 581 (quoting Simmons, supra, 313 Md. at 48 , 542 A.2d 1258 ). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Simpson
green
2 sentences1993The defendant relied on the testimony by two police officers of the defendant’s inculpatory statements made during custodial interrogation as evidence of his subjective belief of imminent peril. 84 Ill.Dec. at 961 , 473 N.E.2d at 362 . 1993The defendant relied on the testimony by two police officers of the defendant’s inculpatory statements made during custodial interrogation as evidence of his subjective belief of imminent peril. 84 Ill.Dec. at 961 , 473 N.E.2d at 362 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Crawford v. State
green
2 sentences1990See Perry v. State, 234 Md. 48, 52 , 197 A.2d 833 (1964); Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361 , 190 A.2d 538 (1963); Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562, 567 , 188 A.2d 142 (1963); Gunther v. State, 228 Md. 404, 409 , 179 A.2d 880 (1962) (all to the effect that a person not seeking a fight but fearing an attack may arm himself in anticipation of the attack); Watkins v. State, 79 Md.App. 136, 139 , 555 A.2d 1087 (1989) (defendant may claim self-defense, even as initial aggressor, if victim escalated altercation to deadly level); Lambert v. State, 70 Md.App. 83, 93 , 519 A.2d 1340 , cert. denied, 309 1990See Perry v. State, 234 Md. 48, 52 , 197 A.2d 833 (1964); Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361 , 190 A.2d 538 (1963); Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562, 567 , 188 A.2d 142 (1963); Gunther v. State, 228 Md. 404, 409 , 179 A.2d 880 (1962) (all to the effect that a person not seeking a fight but fearing an attack may arm himself in anticipation of the attack); Watkins v. State, 79 Md.App. 136, 139 , 555 A.2d 1087 (1989) (defendant may claim self-defense, even as initial aggressor, if victim escalated altercation to deadly level); Lambert v. State, 70 Md.App. 83, 93 , 519 A.2d 1340 , cert. denied, 309 | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Gunther v. State
green
2 sentences1990See Perry v. State, 234 Md. 48, 52 , 197 A.2d 833 (1964); Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361 , 190 A.2d 538 (1963); Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562, 567 , 188 A.2d 142 (1963); Gunther v. State, 228 Md. 404, 409 , 179 A.2d 880 (1962) (all to the effect that a person not seeking a fight but fearing an attack may arm himself in anticipation of the attack); Watkins v. State, 79 Md.App. 136, 139 , 555 A.2d 1087 (1989) (defendant may claim self-defense, even as initial aggressor, if victim escalated altercation to deadly level); Lambert v. State, 70 Md.App. 83, 93 , 519 A.2d 1340 , cert. denied, 309 1990See Perry v. State, 234 Md. 48, 52 , 197 A.2d 833 (1964); Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361 , 190 A.2d 538 (1963); Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562, 567 , 188 A.2d 142 (1963); Gunther v. State, 228 Md. 404, 409 , 179 A.2d 880 (1962) (all to the effect that a person not seeking a fight but fearing an attack may arm himself in anticipation of the attack); Watkins v. State, 79 Md.App. 136, 139 , 555 A.2d 1087 (1989) (defendant may claim self-defense, even as initial aggressor, if victim escalated altercation to deadly level); Lambert v. State, 70 Md.App. 83, 93 , 519 A.2d 1340 , cert. denied, 309 | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Bennett v. State
green
2 sentences1990See Perry v. State, 234 Md. 48, 52 , 197 A.2d 833 (1964); Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361 , 190 A.2d 538 (1963); Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562, 567 , 188 A.2d 142 (1963); Gunther v. State, 228 Md. 404, 409 , 179 A.2d 880 (1962) (all to the effect that a person not seeking a fight but fearing an attack may arm himself in anticipation of the attack); Watkins v. State, 79 Md.App. 136, 139 , 555 A.2d 1087 (1989) (defendant may claim self-defense, even as initial aggressor, if victim escalated altercation to deadly level); Lambert v. State, 70 Md.App. 83, 93 , 519 A.2d 1340 , cert. denied, 309 1990See Perry v. State, 234 Md. 48, 52 , 197 A.2d 833 (1964); Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361 , 190 A.2d 538 (1963); Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562, 567 , 188 A.2d 142 (1963); Gunther v. State, 228 Md. 404, 409 , 179 A.2d 880 (1962) (all to the effect that a person not seeking a fight but fearing an attack may arm himself in anticipation of the attack); Watkins v. State, 79 Md.App. 136, 139 , 555 A.2d 1087 (1989) (defendant may claim self-defense, even as initial aggressor, if victim escalated altercation to deadly level); Lambert v. State, 70 Md.App. 83, 93 , 519 A.2d 1340 , cert. denied, 309 | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Tipton v. State
green
2 sentences1990See Perry v. State, 234 Md. 48, 52 , 197 A.2d 833 (1964); Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361 , 190 A.2d 538 (1963); Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562, 567 , 188 A.2d 142 (1963); Gunther v. State, 228 Md. 404, 409 , 179 A.2d 880 (1962) (all to the effect that a person not seeking a fight but fearing an attack may arm himself in anticipation of the attack); Watkins v. State, 79 Md.App. 136, 139 , 555 A.2d 1087 (1989) (defendant may claim self-defense, even as initial aggressor, if victim escalated altercation to deadly level); Lambert v. State, 70 Md.App. 83, 93 , 519 A.2d 1340 , cert. denied, 309 1990See Perry v. State, 234 Md. 48, 52 , 197 A.2d 833 (1964); Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361 , 190 A.2d 538 (1963); Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562, 567 , 188 A.2d 142 (1963); Gunther v. State, 228 Md. 404, 409 , 179 A.2d 880 (1962) (all to the effect that a person not seeking a fight but fearing an attack may arm himself in anticipation of the attack); Watkins v. State, 79 Md.App. 136, 139 , 555 A.2d 1087 (1989) (defendant may claim self-defense, even as initial aggressor, if victim escalated altercation to deadly level); Lambert v. State, 70 Md.App. 83, 93 , 519 A.2d 1340 , cert. denied, 309 | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.