Tuesday, September 2, 2008
FRANKFORT — The Kentucky Supreme Court plans to review two cases involving the state's new self-defense law that allows people to shoot dangerous home invaders without fear of prosecution.
The National Rifle Association had championed the measure enacted in 2006, saying it simply codified a rule of law already observed by judges in Kentucky and elsewhere: That people have a right to use deadly force to defend themselves and their families when their lives are in danger.
NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said the so-called "no-retreat" self-defense laws enacted in 22 states over the past three years are important because some jurisdictions have held that crime victims have a responsibility to flee rather than to defend themselves.
"We think that's wrong," he said. "It is vital for these crime victims to have as many options as possible available to them."
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments Sept. 10 in appeals of two Jefferson County cases in which defense attorneys claimed their clients acted in self-defense.
Public defender Elizabeth McMahon is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the murder conviction of Phillip Leroy Wines and order a new trial. She says the trial judge should have instructed the jury that Wines, who is serving a 45-year sentence, had no duty to retreat when he stabbed James Lee Hamilton on June 12, 2005.
Assistant Attorney General Samuel J. Floyd Jr. filed a brief with the Supreme Court in which he points to "conflicting evidence" that he said raises questions about whether Wines acted in self-defense. Floyd also argued that the murder occurred before Kentucky's new self-defense law went into effect. [Mark Godsey]