WV Civil Rights Lawyer

Police Misconduct, Civil Rights Law

WV Supreme Court Acquits Woman Convicted of Murder

In a 4-1 decision, authored by Justice Menis Ketchum – a Justice with criminal defense experience – which was filed yesterday, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals actually acquitted a woman who had been convicted of murder in Cabell County, West Virginia.

A jury convicted Tanya D. Harden of first-degree murder in 2007, ignoring her argument that she acted in self-defense. She said Danuel Harden Jr., her husband of 11 years, told her that “nobody was going to walk out of the house that night,” including their two children.  She apparently shot her husband with a shotgun while he was sleeping on the couch.  

This was basically a “battered woman syndrome” self-defense case. 

The justices’ decision acquitted Harden of murder charges, and ordered her released from prison immediately. She had been serving a life sentence with a recommendation of mercy.

Syllabus Point 3 of the Opinion held that: 

Where a defendant has asserted a plea of self-defense, evidence showing 

that the decedent had previously abused or threatened the life of the defendant is relevant 

evidence of the defendant’s state of mind at the time deadly force was used.  In determining 

whether the circumstances formed a reasonable basis for the defendant to believe that he or 

she was at imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death at the hands of the decedent, the 

inquiry is two-fold. First, the defendant’s belief must be subjectively reasonable, which is 

to say that the defendant actually believed, based upon all the circumstances perceived by 

him or her at the time deadly force was used, that such force was necessary to prevent death 

or serious bodily injury. Second, the defendant’s belief must be objectively reasonable when 

considering all of the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s use of deadly force, which 

is to say that another person, similarly situated, could have reasonably formed the same 

belief. Our holding in Syllabus Point 6 of State v. McMillion, 104 W.Va. 1, 138 S.E. 732 

(1927), is expressly overruled. 

In Syllabus Point 4 of the Opinion, the Court held that:

Where it is determined that the defendant’s actions were not reasonably 

made in self-defense, evidence that the decedent had abused or threatened the life of the 

defendant is nonetheless relevant and may negate or tend to negate a necessary element of 

the offense(s) charged, such as malice or intent. 

In Syllabus Point 5 of the Opinion, the Court held that:    

An occupant who is, without provocation, attacked in his or her home, 

dwelling or place of temporary abode, by a co-occupant who also has a lawful right to be 

upon the premises, may invoke the law of self-defense and in such circumstances use deadly 

force, without retreating, where the occupant reasonably believes, and does believe, that he 

or she is at imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury.  In determining whether the 

circumstances formed a reasonable basis for the occupant to believe that he or she was at 

imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury at the hands of the co-occupant, the inquiry 

is two-fold. First, the occupant’s belief must be subjectively reasonable, which is to say that 

the occupant actually believed, based upon all the circumstances perceived by him or her at 

the time deadly force was used, that such force was necessary to prevent death or serious 

bodily injury. Second, the occupant’s belief must be objectively reasonable when 

considering all of the circumstances surrounding the occupant’s use of deadly force, which 

is to say that another person, similarly situated, could have reasonably formed the same  

belief.  Our decision in Syllabus Point 2, State v. Crawford, 66 W.Va. 114, 66 S.E. 110 

(1909), is expressly overruled. 

You know, sometimes prosecutors should come to the conclusion that the guy deserved it.  They should have given this woman a break.  She was protecting her children.  The police wouldn’t have stopped him from killing her, or the children.  That’s why we have guns for self defense.  It’s each of ours individuals responsibility to protect ourselves and our children.  The prosecutors were trying to victimize these children by turning them into orphans.  

As the Appellant/Defendant’s brief noted (caution: there are some gruesome photographs):
From Tanya Harden’s arrest to her sentencing, the State has never disputed an essential fact – that the decedent threatened to kill his wife and children and used his fists and shotgun to brutally beat his wife just before he died.  The injuries suffered by Tanya Harden, including facial fractures, were preserved on photographs taken the day of her arrest and made part of the record in this case, and were attested to by the State’s own witnesses.
This is our job as defense attorneys: to protect those of the Lord’s children who have fallen short of perfection from the wrath of those who believe they have attained it.  And by those, I am talking about prosecutors.  And Ms. Harding may have fallen short of perfection, but I can’t say that I wouldn’t have done the same thing given the circumstances.
 
– John H. Bryan, West Virginia Attorney
Advertisements

June 5, 2009 - Posted by | Appeals, Evidence, Murder, Prosecutors, Self Defense

1 Comment »

  1. Thanks for sharing this info 🙂 Will be linking to your site! Cheers! =)

    Comment by Steve | June 20, 2009 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: