Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Carter

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 1982No. 13040Published

1DissentShepard, Justice

My view of the record indicates insufficient evidence to support the conviction of Carter and hence I dissent.

The majority correctly indicates that a person has a right to use deadly force to defend his spouse and child as well as himself from the infliction of great bodily injury provided that he be under a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm and reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to protect against this harm. I.C. § 18-4009; People v. Pierson, 2 Idaho 76, 3 P. 688 (1884). I believe there is no question, even in the mind of the majority, that Carter initially had the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. ErwinIdaho Supreme Court · 1977
  2. State v. WilsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1941
  3. People v. PiersonIdaho Supreme Court · 1884

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API