In general, most people know that self-defense is a possible legal criminal defense to being convicted of murder, assault and battery, or other types of crimes. Self-defense is a legal defense that must be asserted in the criminal courts of Maryland, and in general, the person accused of the crime must prove the legal defense.

What is less well known to most people is that, in Maryland, there are actually TWO types of self-defense that can be asserted. One is called “perfect self-defense,” and the other is called “imperfect self-defense.” This sounds legally complicated — and it is. This is one reason — among many — that you need to hire experienced and well-trained Maryland criminal defense attorneys if you have been arrested and charged with a crime. You want a tough and aggressive criminal defense that knows about ALL of the possible defenses. If you have been arrested or charged, call us at the Law Office of Robert Castro at (301) 705-5137. We are available around the clock, 24/7, and have offices in Waldorf, Maryland. Here is more information about perfect and imperfect self-defense.

How are Perfect and Imperfect Self-Defense Legal Defenses Different?

Most States in the U.S. only allow the criminally accused to assert a legal criminal defense of “perfect self-defense.” Maryland is one of the few States that allow a defendant to claim two varieties. If proven, a criminal defense of “perfect self-defense” will completely “win” the case and result in a “not-guilty” verdict. This is the reason it is called a “perfect” criminal defense. By contrast, if proven, the criminal defense of “imperfect self-defense” will not result in a “not guilty” verdict but, instead, will result in a lowering of the level of the charges. As an example, a murder charge will be reduced to a manslaughter charge.

In Maryland, the criminal defense of “perfect self-defense” requires proof of the following:

(1) The accused must have had reasonable grounds to believe him or herself in apparent imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from the assailant or potential assailant

(2) The accused must have, in fact, believed him or herself in this danger

(3) The accused claiming the right of self-defense must not have been the aggressor or provoked the conflict

(4) The force used in self-defense must have not been unreasonable and excessive

(5) In the case of deadly force outside of one’s home, the accused must have made a reasonable effort to retreat before using such force

As for the criminal defense of imperfect self-defense, the difference is that, essentially, the “reasonable” requirements are removed. Thus, for the first requirement — where “reasonable grounds” are required — the criminal defense of “imperfect self-defense” only requires that a defendant show that he or she actually believed there was imminent danger, even if that belief was unreasonable.

Likewise, with the fourth requirement, the criminal defendant’s level of force used need not be “reasonable” as long as the defendant subjectively believed the force used was necessary.

Finally, if the deadly force was used outside of the home, a defendant need not have made an effort to retreat so long as the defendant subjectively believed that retreat was not safe, however reasonable or unreasonable that belief.

From this, the criminal defense of “imperfect self-defense” can be summarized as follows:

(1) The accused must have believed — however reasonable or unreasonable — that he or she was in apparent imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from the assailant or potential assailant

(2) The accused must have, in fact, believed him or herself in this danger

(3) The amount of force used was necessary and

(4) retreat was not safe

This criminal defense was used successfully in the case of Jarvis v. State, 321 A. 3d 1 (Md. Sup. Court, 2024).

Legal Perspectives on Imperfect Self-Defense in Maryland

When Imperfect Self-Defense Applies During Trial

Imperfect self-defense is typically used when the defendant genuinely believed they were in danger, but that belief does not meet the legal standard of reasonableness. This often arises in heightened emotions, unclear threats, or complex interpersonal dynamics. For example, if someone reacts violently because they misunderstood another person’s actions as a threat, they may still be held criminally liable, but not at the highest offense level.

Maryland courts do not accept imperfect self-defense as a complete justification for violent acts. Instead, the doctrine is treated as a partial excuse that may reduce a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter. This distinction can significantly affect sentencing outcomes and plea negotiations.

How Prosecutors Respond to Imperfect Self-Defense Claims

Disputes often try to discredit the defendant’s belief when imperfect self-defense is raised. They may highlight facts suggesting that the accused had other options, misinterpreted the situation, or contributed to the escalation. Prosecutors may also argue that the defendant acted with premeditation, undermining claims of fear.

The success of this defense frequently depends on the strength of supporting evidence. Witness statements, video footage, and expert behavior analysis can all help show how the defendant perceived the threat. A skilled defense attorney must clearly and reasonably explain the defendant’s perspective during the incident.

Imperfect Self-Defense vs. Other Mitigating Defenses

Imperfect self-defense may be compared with other partial defenses such as heat of passion or diminished capacity. Each is distinct in how it applies and what it requires. Heat of passion relates to provocation, while imperfect self-defense focuses on the accused’s belief in imminent danger.

An experienced attorney can assess whether this defense best fits the facts or another strategy might offer a stronger legal position. In some cases, a combination of defenses may be presented to give the jury a fuller understanding of the situation without fully excusing the act.

The Importance of Jury Instructions in These Cases

Jury instructions are essential when imperfect self-defense is involved. Courts must carefully define how it differs from perfect self-defense so jurors can apply the correct legal standard. A precise explanation helps avoid confusion about whether the defense justifies or mitigates the charge.

Defense lawyers should review and, if needed, request changes to jury instructions. This ensures the jury evaluates the defense correctly, particularly when the facts support multiple interpretations.

Strategic Use of Imperfect Self-Defense in Negotiations

Because this defense can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter, it may play a key role in plea negotiations. If the defense presents convincing evidence of a genuine, though unreasonable, belief of harm, prosecutors may agree to lesser charges before trial.

Raising this defense early in the case, supported by legal precedent and fact development, can shift the direction of the case. This strategy works best when the attorney is familiar with Maryland criminal procedure and understands how to present the theory effectively in negotiations and court.

Contact Waldorf, Maryland Criminal Defense Lawyer Robert Castro Today

This article has been provided by the Law Office of Robert Castro. For more information or questions, contact our office to speak to an experienced Maryland criminal defense lawyer at (301) 870-1200. We are Waldorf, MD, Criminal Defense lawyers. Our address is 2670 Crain Highway, Waldorf, MD 20601.