Maryland Law Review
Volume 68, Issue 4
Christian v. State: An Unnecessary Overcorrection Threatens the Law of Criminal Assault
By Christopher Dahl [Full Text]
In Christian v. State, the Court of Appeals considered whether the mitigation defenses of imperfect self-defense and hot-blooded response could apply to the statutory crime of first degree assault. As the court had previously decided that first degree assault could serve as a predicate felony for felony murder, the court was compelled to extend these defenses to first degree assault. Otherwise, each felony assault that resulted in death would be murder, falling under the strict liability felony murder rule. While this conclusion solved the felony murder dilemma, allowing these defenses for every first degree assault, whether or not that assault resulted in death, is an unnecessary overcorrection. In so holding, the court undermined the doctrinal underpinnings of homicide mitigation defenses, while at the same time frustrating the common law deterrence goals and legislative intent behind the assault statute. The court should have instead applied the State of Georgia’s “modified merger” approach, which would correct the felony murder problem without sacrificing these vital interests.
Citation: Christopher Dahl, Christian v. State: An Unnecessary Overcorrection Threatens the Law of Criminal Assault, 68 Md. L. Rev. 987 (2009).
More on the Maryland Law Review
- About Us
- Print Publications
- Endnotes
- Survey of Maryland and Fourth Circuit Law
- Subscriptions
- Submissions
