Missouri prosecutors are concerned that a recent decision by the state Court of Appeals could open self-defense laws so broadly that the slightest threat of a minor attack could justify a person responding with deadly violence.
The Nov. 12 ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, would threaten public safety by making it difficult to charge, try or resolve violent crimes, Robert W. Russell, president of the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, wrote in an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief.
“If the opinion becomes law, mere shoving matches could justifiably be escalated to gun battles,” Russell wrote.
The ruling was made on a case that involved a fight between two women outside Anchor House, a veterans’ homeless shelter in Warren County, west of St. Louis, in November 2022.
Danielle Lechocki, a former Marine with several medical issues, said she felt “extremely threatened” after another shelter resident threatened to “mollywock” her, meaning hit her. Lechocki pulled a knife from her backpack, according to court documents, after the other woman lunged at her.
The other woman denied she went after Lechocki, who said she was just trying to show she wasn’t a “pushover.” A third person stepped in between the two women and no one was hurt.
But the county judge denied Lechocki’s request to use self-defense to justify her actions, agreeing with the prosecutor who argued that as a matter of law, deadly force cannot be used to repel a simple assault and battery.
The jury ultimately found Lechocki guilty of attempted unlawful use of a weapon but acquitted her of fourth-degree assault. Lechocki was sentenced to two days in jail and a fine of $1,000, which would be waived if she served 25 hours of community service.
The appellate court ruled that the judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense. The lower court’s ruling was reversed and the case was sent back for a retrial.
The Missouri Legislature changed the law on deadly force in 2007, the appeals court ruling said, allowing the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to protect himself or herself or a third person “against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony,” which was defined as “included but not limited to murder, robbery, burglary, arson, kidnapping, assault, and any forcible sexual offense.”
“Thus, this language allows for the possibility that a person could use deadly force to protect from a forcible felony, separate from the risk of death or serious physical injury,” Judge Gary M. Gaertner Jr. wrote in the appellate court’s opinion.
That said, Gaertner wrote that state law also requires “reasonableness and proportionality” when someone uses force in defending themselves, so “the force actually used matches the level of threat actually present.”
Christian Lehmberg, an assistant public defender who represented Lechocki's appeal, said he believes the appellate court made the right decision.
"The Eastern District is correct that even when someone uses deadly force to protect against a forcible felony, that force still must be reasonable, and whether it is reasonable is for the jury to decide, not the prosecutor, judge, or defendant," Lehmberg said.
The prosecutors' concerns about broadening the use of deadly force on forcible felonies like assault should be directed to the state legislature, not the courts, he said.
The prosecutors' group countered that the ruling, if it became law, would have a “profound effect on the victims of violent crimes.” A 2018 ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court made no exception for simple assaults that are also felonies, the brief said.
The ruling could also make the state’s Castle Doctrine, a version of “stand your ground” laws, “meaningless,” Russell wrote. Missouri's Castle Doctrine says a person is justified in using deadly force to defend himself in his home, or castle.
“If the opinion becomes law, to defeat a self-defense claim in a murder case, the state will have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not have a reasonable fear of being shoved,” Russell wrote. “That would be an almost impossible burden, and numerous homicides would go unfiled or dismissed because the prosecutor lacked the evidence to meet it.”
The prosecutors’ group wants the case to be heard by the Missouri Supreme Court.
