Also known as: justifiable homicide · justified homicide
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A category of homicide at common law consisting of killings that the law expressly commanded or authorized.
Justin Jarvis, a sheriff, receives a valid court order to carry out a capital sentence on a convicted murderer. He performs the execution precisely as directed by the warrant. Because the law expressly commanded the killing, the act falls into the category of justifiable homicide rather than excusable or criminal homicide.
Jacob Jennings, an infantry soldier under lawful military command during declared hostilities, shoots and kills an enemy combatant who is advancing on his unit. The order to engage the enemy was issued by a superior officer acting within his authority. The killing therefore qualifies as justifiable homicide because it was expressly authorized by law.
In June 1966, a jury convicted Stillman E. Wilbur, Jr. of murder in a Maine state court. The prosecution introduced Wilbur's pretrial statement describing how he fatally assaulted Claude Hebert in Hebert's hotel room after a homosexual advance, together with circumstantial evidence of the killing. Although the defense presented no evidence at trial, it argued that Wilbur lacked criminal intent or that the homicide amounted at most to manslaughter because it occurred in the heat of passion provoked by the advance. The trial court instructed the jury that an intentional and unlawful homicide would support a finding of malice aforethought unless the defendant proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he acted in the heat of passion on sudden provocation. After the jury twice returned for additional instructions on implied malice and the definition of heat of passion, it convicted Wilbur of murder. Wilbur appealed his conviction to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which upheld the trial court's instructions and affirmed the judgment. Wilbur then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court granted the petition, and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed that decision. After the Maine Supreme Judicial Court issued its opinion in State v. Lafferty reaffirming its view of state law, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case and remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration. On remand, that court again applied Winship, this time to the Maine law as construed by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari a second time to consider the constitutional question presented by the Maine homicide law as applied to Wilbur's case.
View caseJustifiable homicide covers killings the law expressly commanded or authorized. Excusable homicide covers killings for which the law recognizes a defense that eliminates criminal liability. Criminal homicide is the residual category of all other unlawful killings.
Supporting sources
No. An internal corporate guideline lacks the force of law required for classification as justifiable homicide. The killing remains criminal homicide unless a recognized defense such as necessity excuses it under the excusable category.
Supporting sources
It qualifies only if the law expressly commands or authorizes the killing. Employment duties to protect property or guests do not supply the required legal command, so the killing is criminal homicide unless a separate defense renders it excusable.
Supporting sources
No. Generalized advisories without an actual imminent threat or legal command to fire do not authorize the killing. The homicide is therefore criminal because it fits neither the justifiable nor excusable category.
Supporting sources
…a man attempting to burglarize the defendant's chicken coop at night. Brooks affirmed the judgment in the defendant's favor as justifiable homicide, noting evidence the defendant feared for his life and that the burglar might be armed. That case differs from the present one because here no one but the would-be burglar and his companion…