 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Prescott5/22/2002
78) 84 Cal.App.3d 1016, the court upheld the giving of instructions concerning the duties of a correctional officer in escorting an inmate, which included a modified instruction (taken from CALJIC No. 16.106) addressing the right of an inmate to use reasonable force to resist excessive force employed by the correctional officer. The court, in concluding the instruction was properly given and applicable to the offense, stated " t accurately described the respective rights and duties of a correctional officer and a prisoner with regard to force." (Id. at p. 1023.) In response to the defendant's claims the instruction was inconsistent with the instructions given on self-defense, the court stated:
"Reading the instructions together as a whole there was no inconsistency. The instructions regarding self-defense referred to the rights of a `person who is being assaulted' and a `person who is threatened with an attack that justifies the exercise of the right of self-defense.' Thus, the self-defense instructions made clear that they applied only to a prisoner who was faced with the improper use of force. The instructions quoted above regarding the rights of a correctional officer and a prisoner to use force were entirely consistent; they informed the jury when the prisoner's right to defend himself arose, while the self-defense instructions informed the jury as to the extent of this right." (People v. Coleman, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 1023, italics omitted.)
Respondent asserts that determination of whether Officers Bicknell and Garrett used excessive force, must be determined in light of Hudson v. McMillian (1992) 503 U.S. 1 and Whitley v. Albers (1986) 475 U.S. 312, which considered such claims under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in the context of civil rights actions filed by inmates against prison guards. Appellant contends the standards articulated by the Supreme Court are inapplicable to a criminal prosecution as both decisions involved civil claims brought by prisoners seeking monetary damages.
In Brown v. Smith (11th Cir. 1987) 813 F.2d 1187, the court of appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment against an inmate who claimed he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and sought monetary damages in a civil action against a prison guard. The inmate had refused to enter his cell when directed to by the prison guard. When the prison guard attempted to grab onto the inmate's arm, the inmate resisted. In order to compel his compliance, the prison guard placed his baton against the inmate's neck and forcefully pushed him against a wall. Another prison guard came to the first guard's assistance and helped put the inmate into his cell. "Under these circumstances, the use of an appropriate degree of force was justified to compel compliance with a valid order and to accomplish the security interest of putting Brown back into his cell." (Id. at p. 1189.) In affirming the grant of summary judgment, the court of appeals applied the analysis set forth in Whitley v. Albers, supra, 475 U.S. 312, to determine whether the force used constituted cruel and unusual punishment justifying a personal injury claim under title 42 United States Code section 1983. "In evaluating the propriety of a prison guard's actions, the Supreme Court suggested several relevant factors which are helpful in resolving this case: the need for the application of force; the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used; and the extent of the injury inflicted upon the prisoner." (Brown v. Smith, supra, 813 F.2d at. p. 1188.)
This standard is applicable in a civil rights action, because the plaintiff/prisoner has the burden of proof that the con
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|