Also known as: excusable homicide · excusable killing
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A classification of homicide at common law that encompasses killings for which the law recognizes a complete defense eliminating criminal liability.
Emily Ellis drove a city bus when a passenger refused to pay and brandished a knife. She slammed the brakes and struggled to disarm him, inadvertently pushing him through the open door to his death. Because her conduct qualified for the complete defense of self-defense and defense of others, the killing fell into the excusable category rather than criminal homicide.
Erika Echevarria watched a parent corner the school principal and raise a metal chair overhead while threatening to strike. She shoved the parent away to protect the principal and nearby students. The parent fell through a glass door and died. The complete defense of others removed the killing from criminal liability and placed it in the excusable homicide category.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Justifiable homicide covers killings the law expressly commands or authorizes, such as executions or authorized use of deadly force by officers. Excusable homicide covers killings that would otherwise be unlawful but for a complete defense that eliminates criminal liability, such as perfect self-defense or defense of others.
Supporting sources
Yes. When a person engages in a lawful act such as reasonable self-defense or defense of others and an unintended death results, the killing is excusable at common law because the defense eliminates criminal liability.
Supporting sources
No. Deadly force used only to protect property once any immediate threat to personal safety has ended falls outside both justifiable and excusable categories and is classified as criminal homicide.
Supporting sources
The killing is classified as justifiable homicide because the law affirmatively authorizes the underlying use of deadly force, even if an innocent bystander is unintentionally struck.
Supporting sources
…principles to homicide prosecution, and the "will-of-the-wisp" distinction drawn by the Almeida court between justifiable and excusable homicides. 261 A.2d at 553-558 . It concluded, "beyond a shadow of a doubt Almeida and Thomas [ Commonwealth v. Thomas , 382 Pa. 639, 117 A.2d 204] constituted iberrations [sic] in the…