It didn't.
The House of Delegates passed the statute in this form:
§ 18.2-91.1. Use of physical force, including deadly force, against an intruder; justified self-defense.
Any person who lawfully occupies a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling [ without the permission of said occupant ] , having committed an overt act toward the occupant or another person in the dwelling, and the occupant reasonably believes he or another person in the dwelling is in imminent danger of bodily injury.STRUCK
[However, the Senate passed a slightly different version of the statute:Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, as provided in this section shall be immune from civil liability for injuries to or death of the other person who has unlawfully entered the dwelling that results from the use of such force.]
§ 18.2-91.1. Use of physical force, including deadly force, against an intruder; justified self-defense
Any person who lawfully occupies a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when (i) the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling and has committed an overt act toward the occupant or another person in the dwelling and (ii) the occupant reasonably believes he or another person in the dwelling is in imminent danger of bodily injury.
Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, as provided in this section shall be immune from civil liability for injuries or death of the other person who has unlawfully entered the dwelling that results from the use of such force.The House of Delegates refused to pass the Senate version by a vote of 97 against and 2 in favor. Then the Senate refused to accept the House's version 40 against and 0 in favor. The Senate has now sent the bill back down to the Courts of Justice Committee and put it off to next year.
Obviously, the difficulty has got to be in the last paragraph. The House does not want it for some reason. The strange thing about that is that a bill which has passed both the House and Senate already does what the second paragraph aims toward.
§ 8.01-223.3. Immunity for persons acting in defense of property.
Any person who lawfully occupies a dwelling and uses any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when the other person has unlawfully entered the dwelling without the permission of said occupant, having committed an overt act toward the occupant or another person in the dwelling, and the occupant reasonably believes he or another person in the dwelling is in imminent danger of bodily injury, shall be immune from civil liability for injuries to or death of the other person who has unlawfully entered the dwelling that results from the use of such force.
Nothing in this section shall either form the basis for a jury instruction or be offered as evidence of criminal liability or lack thereof in a criminal proceeding.
So, in Virginia, as of 01 July 2012, the General Assembly has said that a person cannot be sued for killing or injuring someone in his house when he acts in defense of self or others. There's not exactly anything new about this. If you kill someone in self defense you should win your law suit right now. It's just that now there will be a statute backing you up. Of course, since "[n]othing in this section shall . . . form the basis for a jury instruction" you won't be able to use the statute to tell the jury you shouldn't be found guilty, so I'm not sure what the statute accomplishes.
Anyway, the Castle Doctrine drama is put to bed for 2012. There's always next year.
No comments:
Post a Comment