Commonwealth v. Eberle, 474 Pa. 548, 379 A.2d 90 (1977),[1] is a criminal case involving duty to retreat.[2] The case established that in order to counter the justification or excuse of self defense, the prosecution must show that a defendant who used deadly force had a safe opportunity to escape.[3][2]
| Commonwealth v. Eberle | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
| Full case name | Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Carol Eberle |
| Decided | October 7, 1977 |
| Citation | 474 Pa. 548, 379 A.2d 90 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Michael J. Eagen, Henry X. O'Brien, Thomas W. Pomeroy Jr., Robert N. C. Nix, Jr., Louis L. Manderino |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Manderino |
| Dissent | O'Brien, Nix |
| Benjamin R. Jones and Samuel J. Roberts took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Keywords | |
References
edit- ^ Commonwealth v. Eberle, 474 Pa. 548, 379 A.2d 90 (1977).
- ^ a b Justification:Self-Defense, Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice 948-49 (1983)
- ^ Eberle, 474 Pa. at 557-58 ("[T]he prosecution had a duty to establish that the appellant knew that she could avoid the necessity of using deadly force with complete safety by retreating... Because the prosecution has failed to show that the only escape route which appellant possibly could have used to avoid the confrontation could have been used without increasing the risk of injury to which she was already exposed, it has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant violated any duty to retreat.")
 | This article relating to case law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |