Maryland’s liberal tilt has led to some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation; including bans on “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines, a plethora of “gun-free zones” designated by lawmakers, and even a permit-to-purchase for handguns that requires a training class and the passing of a live-fire test. From Gov. Wes Moore to Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott and a host of Democratic lawmakers in between, the state’s political class is overwhelmingly hostile to our right to keep and bear arms, whether in self defense or for other lawful purposes.
Maryland’s Supreme Court, though, has taken a major step in recognizing the fundamental nature of our right to armed self-defense by vacating a man’s murder conviction and ordering that he receive a new trial.
Sergey Danshin was convicted in the death of 39-year-old Javier Gonzalez-Mena, who was staying at the Red Roof Inn on Shady Grove Road on June 22, 2022. Danshin was sentenced to life in prison plus 20 years in May 2023, and the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the conviction last September.
But Maryland’s Supreme Court reversed the decision, saying jurors should have been instructed that they were allowed to consider whether Danshin was acting in defense of Gonzalez-Mena’s girlfriend, Christina Jones.
Danshin never admitted to the shooting, but trial testimony included his discussion with a detective, in which he said, “It looked like he was going to cut her … head off with the machete because he had chased me with that same machete away from the room when I knocked on the door.”
Prosecutors argued that because Danshin never admitted to shooting Gonzalez-Mena, the jury wasn’t allowed to consider whether there was a reasonable belief he or Christina Jones were in imminent danger and Gonzalez-Mena’s death was a justifiable homicide.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion handed down Friday, said the trial court and appeals court erred, because the discussions with the detectives met the “some evidence” hurdle, that if jurors believed, would have allowed them to determine that Danshin acted in lawful defense of Jones.
“The jury should have had the opportunity to consider whether they believed Mr. Danshin was acting in defense of Ms. Jones,” ruled the High Court.
The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court ruling and remanded the case to Montgomery County for a new trial.
If a defendant has to admit to a shooting in order to offer up a self-defense argument, the jury left with one of two choices: the shooting was or wasn’t a justified use of force. The Maryland Supreme Court has now given jurors another option; first deciding whether the defendant actually fired the shots, and then determining whether or not they were justified.
That does probably make prosecutors’ jobs more difficult in some murder trials, but in a system where we’re presumed innocent and it’s up to the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed, I think the Supreme Court’s decision is entirely just. A defendant shouldn’t have to aid the prosecution in order to mount their own defense, but that’s what the lower court decisions would have led to if the state Supreme Court upheld Danshin’s conviction.
I don’t know enough about the details of this case to have an opinion about whether or not Danshin’s next jury should convict him after considering his self-defense claim, but I’m glad that he’s allowed to offer one. In a state rife with officials who regularly demonstrate their contempt for the Second Amendment, it’s good to know that Maryland’s high court understands the fundamental importance of being able to protect ourselves and others with a firearm.
Read the full article here
