Commonwealth v. Eberle explained

Commonwealth v. Eberle
Court:	Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Full Name:	Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Carol Eberle
Citations:	474 Pa. 548, 379 A.2d 90
Judges:	Michael J. Eagen, Henry X. O'Brien, Thomas W. Pomeroy Jr., Robert N. C. Nix, Jr., Louis L. Manderino
Number Of Judges:	5
Decision By:	Manderino
Dissenting:	O'Brien, Nix
Notparticipating:	Benjamin R. Jones and Samuel J. Roberts
Italic Title:	yes

Commonwealth v. Eberle, 474 Pa. 548, 379 A.2d 90 (1977),^[1] is a criminal case involving duty to retreat.^[2] The case established that in order to counter the justification or excuse of self defense, the prosecution must show that a defendant who used deadly force had a safe opportunity to escape.^{[3] [2]}

Notes and References

1. Commonwealth v. Eberle, 474 Pa. 548, 379 A.2d 90 (1977).
2. Justification:Self-Defense, Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice 948-49 (1983)
3. Eberle, 474 Pa. at 557-58 ("[T]he prosecution had a duty to establish that the appellant knew that she could avoid the necessity of using deadly force with complete safety by retreating... Because the prosecution has failed to show that the only escape route which appellant possibly could have used to avoid the confrontation could have been used without increasing the risk of injury to which she was already exposed, it has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant violated any duty to retreat.")