The People v. Kelsey Dru Gleghorn

Facts

Melody Downes shared her house with several persons, including the defendant. She rented her garage to Michael Fairall for $150 per month. She believed he was to give her a stereo as part of the rent. He believed her intent was only to borrow it. He asked for the return of the stereo; she said she sold it. Fairall then smashed all the windows of her automobile, slashed the tires, dented the body, kicked in her locked door, scattered her belongings in the bedroom, and broke an aquarium.

Ms. Downes advised the defendant of Fairall’s behavior. On the night in question, Fairall was rudely awakened by a pounding on the garage door accompanied by the defendant’s request that he come out so that the defendant might kill him. Fairall wisely advised him that they could exchange pleasantries in the morning.

Undeterred, the defendant opened the garage door, entered with stick in hand and began beating on the rafters, yelling for Fairall to come down. In the darkness, Fairall claimed he could see sparks where the board hit the rafters. The defendant said that if Fairall did not come down, he would burn him out. No sooner said than done, the defendant set a small fire to some of Fairall’s clothes.

Fairall got out his bow and arrow and launched an arrow. He did not know where it landed and attempted to extinguish the fire with his hands. Meanwhile, the defendant beat him, causing a two-inch-wide vertical break in Fairall’s lower jaw, tearing his lips, knocking out six to ten teeth, mangling two fingers, and lacerating his arm, stomach and back. Fairall also suffered burns on the palms of his hands.

The defendant was convicted of simple assault for the acts that happened prior to Fairall shooting the bow and arrow and battery with the infliction of serious bodily injury for the acts that happened after. The defendant filed a motion for a mistrial, arguing that since the jury found his acts prior to being shot with the arrow constituted only simple assault, Fairall was not justified in replying with deadly force. Since the victim responded with deadly force, he continues, he was entitled to defend himself with deadly force. Ergo, he could not be convicted of battery with the infliction of serious bodily injury.