Hagopian v. Fuchs - 66 N.J. Super. 374, 169 A.2d 172 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 1961)

Rule:

The self-defense plea is an affirmative one and, therefore, he who asserts it carries the burden of proof.

Facts:

Plaintiff guild member and defendant non-guild member were both dairy farmers. The guild was on strike for three or four days prior to the incident where defendant threw a wedge at plaintiff. In a prior incident that culminated in a police report, several guild members approached defendant. Defendant claimed that he struck plaintiff in self-defense, even though plaintiff had his back turned to defendant. Plaintiff instituted a suit for damages against defendant. The trial court entered judgment after the jury returned a verdict of no cause of action. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to charge plaintiff’s written request that the defendant has to prove by a preponderance of credible evidence that the conduct of the plaintiff was such as to cause a reasonably prudent person in defendant's position to be put in fear of his own safety.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, should the trial court have instructed the jury regarding defendant’s burden to prove the circumstances that would have given rise to the privilege of self-defense? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the trial court committed prejudicial error because it did not instruct the jury that defendant had the burden of proving the facts that gave rise to the privilege of self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. With respect to plaintiff's objection as to the relevancy of the incident that occurred with guild members three or four days before defendant injured plaintiff, the court opined that the evidence was relevant if it established that defendant was under a reasonable belief that he was threatened with bodily harm.