Porter v. State, 166 A.3d 1044

Background

Karla Porter endured decades of escalating physical and verbal abuse by her husband Ray and sought help from multiple acquaintances to kill him; she ultimately paid Walter Bishop $400 to kill Ray at their gas station on March 1, 2010.
Porter was arrested after admitting she arranged pay for someone to "beat up" her husband; charged with first‑degree murder, conspiracy, three counts of solicitation to commit murder, and use of a handgun in a crime of violence.
At trial Porter presented lay testimony documenting ongoing abuse and two experts who diagnosed PTSD/battered spouse syndrome and explained how it can heighten a victim’s perception of imminent danger and explain failure to leave or seek help.
The trial court gave an imperfect self‑defense instruction but misstated the law by imposing objective reasonableness for force and retreat; jury convicted on all counts and Porter appealed.
The Court of Special Appeals held Porter failed to produce evidence she believed she was in imminent danger at the moment of the killing, so any instructional error was harmless; the Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari.
The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed: it held Porter produced “some evidence” of a subjective belief of imminent danger, the imperfect self‑defense instruction should have been given correctly, the trial court’s misstatement was not harmless, and all convictions were vacated and remanded for retrial.

Issues

Issue	Porter’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether Porter generated the issue of imperfect self‑defense (some evidence she subjectively believed she faced imminent danger at time of killing)	Expert and lay testimony + Porter’s testimony that she "knew he was going to kill me at any point" sufficed to generate the issue	Evidence did not show Porter actually believed she was in imminent danger at the precise moment of the killing	Porter produced "some evidence"; issue was generated and a self‑defense instruction was warranted
Whether a defendant who hires a third party can assert imperfect self‑defense	Battered spouse syndrome can make a planned defensive act still based on subjective belief of imminent danger; hiring help doesn't forfeit the defense	Contract killing planning negates the immediacy required for self‑defense; courts often refuse self‑defense in murder‑for‑hire cases	Hiring a third party does not categorically bar imperfect self‑defense; means of carrying out defensive act is not dispositive
Whether the trial court’s imperfect self‑defense instruction error (imposing objective standards for force and retreat) was harmless	The error was central to Porter’s defense—improperly shifted to objective standard—and likely affected the verdict	Instruction was superfluous because Porter was not entitled to the issue; any error harmless	Error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; reversal required and retrial ordered
Effect on inchoate offenses (conspiracy, solicitation) if imperfect self‑defense applies	Imperfect self‑defense negates malice; if Porter subjectively feared imminent danger when soliciting/conspiring, malice element fails, so convictions cannot stand without retrial	Inchoate convictions should survive regardless of homicide instruction error	Convictions for conspiracy and solicitation vacated and remanded because imperfect self‑defense negates malice and affects those specific intent offenses

Key Cases Cited

State v. Smullen, 380 Md. 233 (2004) (explains battered spouse syndrome relevance to self‑defense and distinguishes subjective vs. objective elements)
Dykes v. State, 319 Md. 206 (1990) (defines "some evidence" standard to generate self‑defense instruction)
State v. Faulkner, 301 Md. 482 (1984) (articulates imperfect self‑defense negates malice but not culpability for killing)
Burch v. State, 346 Md. 253 (1997) (duty to retreat outside the home and subjective belief as to safety for imperfect self‑defense)
State v. Martin, 329 Md. 351 (1993) (discusses requirement that subjective belief be shown at the moment of the lethal act)
Fowler v. State, 237 Md. 508 (1965) (error in instruction on an issue to which defendant was not entitled can be harmless)
Dionas v. State, 436 Md. 97 (2013) (harmless‑error burden on State and standard applied)
State v. Peterson, 158 Md. App. 558 (2004) (Court of Special Appeals recognizing battered spouse evidence can support inference of imminent fear in non‑confrontational killings)