Com. v. Ledford, W. ( 2014 )

J-S07029-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
WILLIAM TERRY LEDFORD
Appellant No. 966 MDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of December 6, 2012
In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-31-CR-0000260-2011
BEFORE: MUNDY, J., WECHT, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
DISSENTING STATEMENT BY MUNDY, J.: FILED AUGUST 05, 2014
remand for a new trial. In my view, the trial court did not abuse its
t for a self-defense instruction.
Traditionally, to receive a self-defense instruction, a defendant must
present some evidence from any source that satisfies each of the following
three elements.
[A]s provided by statute and as interpreted through
our case law, to establish the defense of self-defense
it must be shown that[:] a) the slayer was free from
fault in provoking or continuing the difficulty which
resulted in the slaying; b) that the slayer 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 in order to save
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S07029-14
himself therefrom; and c) the slayer did not violate
any duty to retreat or to avoid the danger.
Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 585 A.2d 1069, 1071 (Pa. Super. 1991) (en
banc) (emphases added); accord Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d
410, 421 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa. 2011). Here,
the Commonwealth acknowledges, and the Majority correctly notes that
Appellant had no duty to retreat
Brief at 30 n.2; Majority Memorandum at 18. However, I must disagree with
that the slayer 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 in order to save himself
Id.The Majority concludes that there was sufficient evidence from
Specifically, the Majo
terrified, that Appellant told Cuff that Shoop had previously threatened to kill
them, that they were planning to buy additional locks for the door having
and his friends had shut themselves inside his apartment. N.T, 9/21/12, at
100. They further secured themselves inside by barricading the door and
-2-
J-S07029-14
securing it with a belt. Id.the belt was getting tighter, there is no evidence in the record to suggest
apartment. Id.pre-emptive, not defensive. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Harris, 281
A.2d 879, 880 (Pa. 1971) (concluding that self-defense did not exist where
the defendant shot a milkman through his closed front door after hearing a
Commonwealth v. Correa, 648 A.2d
[the defendant] could not have
abrogated on other grounds, Commonwealth v. Weston, 749 A.2d 458,
460-462 (Pa. 2000).
Based on the foregoing, I conclude that Appellant did not, as a matter
of law, present evide reasonably believed that he was in
Hansley, supra.Therefore, Appellant was not entitled to the self-defense instruction in this
case.1 s decision to the
contrary and from its decision to reverse and remand for a new trial.
____________________________________________
1
note that as an appellate court, we may affirm the trial court on any legal
basis supported by the record. Commonwealth v. Doty, 48 A.3d 451, 456
(Pa. Super. 2012).
-3-