State v. Chiarello
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
174 A.2d 506 (1961)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
John Chiarello (defendant) worked at a campground. Late one night, Chiarello heard someone shouting for help. Chiarello went outside with a loaded rifle and saw two coworkers kicking and choking a third coworker, William Edwards, who was on the ground. Chiarello shouted for the attackers to stop, but they did not. One of the attackers appeared to pull something out of a pocket. Chiarello then saw blood coming from Edwards’s body, and Edwards stopped moving. Chiarello fired two shots and again yelled for the attackers to stop. When the attackers did not stop, Chiarello fired two more shots. All four bullets hit the attackers, who both lived. Chiarello was charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Chiarello’s defense was that he had been trying to save Edwards. At trial, the court instructed the jury that Chiarello should be treated as Edwards’s alter ego, which meant that Chiarello was allowed to use deadly force to defend Edwards only if Edwards could have lawfully used deadly force in self-defense. The jury found that Edwards could not have lawfully used deadly force and convicted Chiarello. Chiarello appealed, arguing that even if he had been mistaken about the amount of force needed to defend Edwards, he had acted in good faith and not with the mens rea, i.e., guilty mind, necessary to commit a crime.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Conford, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
