CLRC approves wording changes to deadly‑force statute to rely on defined Title 9 terms

The Criminal Law and Procedure Review Commission voted to approve proposed wording changes to the deadly‑force statute, 9 GCA §7.86(b), intended to rely on defined Title 9 terms and make the statute easier for courts to apply.

Part‑time research attorney Gordon Anderson presented the proposal, which recommended three edits: replace "serious bodily harm" with the defined term "serious bodily injury," substitute legacy wording for a defined "penetration" term in the sexual‑offense exception, and change "force or threats" to the defined phrase "force or coercion." Anderson said the aim was to "use a term that is more common" and to rely on definitions already in Title 9 so courts can refer to a single defined term rather than parse older language.

Commission members asked whether the edits might broaden or narrow the statute in unintended ways. One prosecutor raised a concern that the proposed language could exclude situations involving child victims who have stopped resisting: "So if you stop resisting, it's not it's no longer force or coercion under the current body of law," she said, noting factual circumstances can affect whether deadly force would apply. Other commissioners responded that many factual scenarios—such as assaults involving weapons or serious injury—would still allow deadly‑force defenses under the revised language. After discussion, the commission approved the proposal with no objections.