From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Eling v. Jones

U.S.
Mar 9, 1987
480 U.S. 917 (1987)

Summary

holding that in criminal cases, there is no constitutional right to self-defense founded in the Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and that a state may require a defendant to prove self-defense as an affirmative defense to obtain acquittal

Summary of this case from Rowe v. DeBruyn

Opinion

No. 86-926.

March 9, 1987.


ORDER

C.A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 797 F. 2d 697.


Summaries of

Eling v. Jones

U.S.
Mar 9, 1987
480 U.S. 917 (1987)

holding that in criminal cases, there is no constitutional right to self-defense founded in the Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and that a state may require a defendant to prove self-defense as an affirmative defense to obtain acquittal

Summary of this case from Rowe v. DeBruyn

applying the standard three-part test of the Supreme Court in ruling on the constitutionality of Police Department actions in regulating protests by Catholic homosexuals and counterdemonstrators in front of St. Patrick's Cathedral

Summary of this case from New Alliance Party v. Dinkins
Case details for

Eling v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:ELING ET AL. v. JONES, MINNESOTA CHIEF PUBLIC DEFENDER

Court:U.S.

Date published: Mar 9, 1987

Citations

480 U.S. 917 (1987)

Citing Cases

Rhodes v. Brigano

Rhodes argues that, under Ohio law, an affirmative defense is a "confession and avoidance," State v. Curry,…

Smart v. Leeke

In Ohio, in short, in the case of the statutory language involved in Martin v. Ohio, self-defense was an…