Is the Castle Doctrine Absolute?
No, a Castle Doctrine law is not a free pass for use of force or deadly force in your home, vehicle, workplace, or other location as covered by your state’s law. Generally, you will still have to prove that you acted in a reasonable manner, especially if your state does not have a legal presumption of reasonableness in place. Suppose your state does give you a presumption of reasonableness; in that case, it can still be overcome by a prosecutor proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not act in accordance with the reasonable person standard. For example, suppose you had reason to know that the person who unlawfully entered your dwelling was a non-violent elderly person suffering from Alzheimer’s who posed absolutely no immediate threat. In that case, there is a good possibility you will be found guilty at trial even with a Castle Doctrine law in place.
What Should You Know About the Castle Doctrine?
- You must be legally allowed to be at that location, at that time.
- To be covered by the Castle Doctrine, you must be in a location included in your state’s law.
- Being under the influence of alcohol or drugs will generally be a factor in the totality of circumstances, even if they are not illegal substances or illegal due to age.
- You should react in a reasonable way to a specific set of circumstances.
To ensure you act in accordance with your state’s applicable Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground laws, take the time to familiarize yourself with your state’s laws.
The Castle Doctrine is an expansion of legal justification or, in some cases, a legal presumption of reasonableness that people are awarded in a trial, directing the jury to consider or presume that someone was reasonable in using force or deadly force to protect themselves or others in certain situations. This powerful tool may protect you from the wavering minds of an unpredictable jury and the artful arguments of prosecutors.
What Else Should You Know About “Castle Doctrine”?
In some states, like Texas, the Castle Doctrine is a strong presumption that is intertwined with Stand Your Ground laws. There, the law will presume a person’s reasonableness in believing that force or deadly force was immediately necessary to defend against another’s use of unlawful force or deadly force. And generally, states with strong Castle Doctrine statutes will read similarly to Texas’s, where a person is awarded the strong presumption of the Castle Doctrine when:
- a person has unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter your: occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
- a person has unlawfully and with force removed, or is attempting to remove you from your occupied habitation, vehicle, place of business, or employment.
As you can see, there are two types of attacks that fall under this type of Castle Doctrine: (1) intrusions to your castle, and (2) attempts to remove you from your castle.
Castle Doctrine by State
Castle Doctrine in Texas:
In Texas, the Castle Doctrine is very clear, and a person can easily (and intuitively) operate within its bounds. As long as you are in a place you have a right to be, you are not committing a criminal act, you did not provoke the interaction, and your use of force is justified, you are awarded the Castle Doctrine presumption. And in regard to committing criminal acts, the Texas Castle Doctrine still applies when you are committing a Class C misdemeanor regulating traffic, but cuts off with anything higher. So, if you happen to have a lead foot, it will not preclude your ability to protect yourself under the Castle Doctrine. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 9.31- .32 .
Even other states that generally have vastly different approaches from Texas—like Illinois and California—have very similar Castle Doctrine requirements.
Castle Doctrine in Illinois:
Illinois has a Castle Doctrine, but it pertains only to the dwelling. Defending yourself in an otherwise occupied vehicle or workplace will not qualify you for the presumption in Illinois. However, for the home, this Castle Doctrine—comprised of two corresponding laws—still provides a strong justification, which allows a person to defend themselves in the home. Illinois Statute 720 ILCS 5/7-1(a) reads:
A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
As with most states, a person can usually only use deadly force in Illinois to protect a human life. This self-defense statute, which allows a person to defend themselves against an attacker when the person’s life is at stake, supports Illinois Statute 720 ILCS 5/7-2(a), which pertains to the defense of a dwelling:
A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other’s unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if: (1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or (2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
These two statutes together create the Castle Doctrine justification. The first statute says you are justified in using deadly force against another when a human life is at stake or when the attacker is in the commission of a forcible felony. Forcible felonies include murder, aggravated criminal sexual assault, burglary, kidnapping, etc. The second statute supports the defense of a dwelling, which allows a person to be justified in using deadly force when entry into the home is in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, which he believes requires deadly force, or he seeks to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling. Therefore, when a person seeks to protect themselves in their dwelling, they have two statutes on which to rely: the general rule of 720 ILCS 5/7-1(a) and the allowance of statute 720 ILCS 5/7-2(a).
Castle Doctrine in California:
California also provides strong Castle Doctrine protections. Under California Penal Code § 198.5:
Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
First, as the statute provides, this special justification for the use of deadly force only applies when an intruder unlawfully and forcibly enters a home. In essence, this usually occurs when there is a “break in.” As such, this law does not apply to trespassers on private property outside the home. Nor does it apply to family squabbles that develop inside the home, or even to a previously welcomed guest who is then ordered to leave. There would be no Castle Doctrine defense in any of these situations. However, just like with Texas, this is a strong presumption of reasonableness.
Castle Doctrine in New Jersey:
Although the Castle Doctrine exists in New Jersey within the confines of the dwelling, your actions can always be challenged as unreasonable. To employ the protections of the Castle Doctrine, a number of factors are considered: what you did, where you are, who the other party is, and what they are doing. While there is no statutory duty to retreat or withdraw, it is only if the following conditions are met.
As typical, you must not be the initial aggressor nor have provoked the use of force against yourself in the same encounter with the purpose of death or serious bodily injury. You must be in your dwelling, which is generally your home where you sleep. Older, pre-code cases defined a dwelling to include not just the house itself, but also the doorway, threshold, and porch. Later cases, however, stop at the threshold and even query if a home may constitute multiple dwellings within (such as a bedroom exclusive to you).
The status of the person against whom force or deadly force is being used further affects the conditions for use offorce. For example, if an intruder is unlawfully in the dwelling, you must reasonably believe that force is immediately necessary to protect yourself or others within the dwelling. For cohabitants or someone otherwise privileged to be in the dwelling, the encounter must be sudden, unexpected, and compel you to act instantly to protect yourself. The extension of the Castle Doctrine to cohabitants was the Legislative response in 1999 to State v. Gartland, a case in which a victim of domestic abuse was obligated to retreat under the then-law because she was attacked by a cohabitant. Now, you can remain in the dwelling but the reasonableness of your actions is always in play.
Regardless of the other party’s status, use of force is only permitted if there is a finding of reasonable belief,which can be established by the immediacy of the action and the harm threatened by the other person; or by statute, if you demand the intruder to disarm, surrender, or withdraw, and the intruder refuses to do so. See N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4.This does not mean you must do the latter in all circumstances, but the Legislature provided this as one way to establish reasonable belief by statute. New Jersey’s more narrowed application of the Castle Doctrine serves as a reminder to always know the law of the state you are in.
Castle Doctrine in New Mexico:
Sometimes, statutory Castle Doctrine is not what it appears on its face. For example, the New Mexico Castle Doctrine statutes have been substantially limited by case law and the uniform jury instructions. The Castle Doctrine in New Mexico applies when:
- The place where the killing occurred was being used as the defendant’s dwelling;
- It appeared to the defendant that the commission of the violent felony was immediately at hand and that it was necessary to kill the intruder to prevent the commission of the violent felony; and
- A reasonable person in the same circumstances as the defendant would have acted the same way the defendant did. UJI 14-5170 NMRA.
Note that all of the aforementioned conditions must exist to have this legal defense work in court. Additionally, this does not create a presumption for the actor, but merely allows for the justification of deadly force. In other words, this is an additional path to justify deadly force beyond the general rules listed above. Even then, it is a question for the jury to decide at trial—which has its obvious risks.
Still, New Mexico’s Castle Doctrine is a good example of how some states are able to construct the concept outside of statutory language. In fact, New Mexico’s Castle Doctrine does not exist in statutory language or legislation; rather, it is provided through jury instruction.
The States Summarized
In short, the Castle Doctrine is strengthened when there is no legal duty to retreat; however, even states that have enacted Castle Doctrine legislation may place more restrictions on what constitutes lawful conduct or reasonable actions, thereby offering weaker protections.
But remember that if you are in a state with a strong Castle Doctrine presumption, even one that is supported with Stand Your Ground laws, the Castle Doctrine only provides a presumption. A presumption can be rebutted by a prosecutor and stripped from you.
The Castle Doctrine Is Not Absolute!
Just because you used force or deadly force in your castle, it does not mean you will automatically be found justified by a jury. If your state does not provide a legal presumption, you will likely still have to prove that you acted reasonably. If your state does give you a presumption of reasonableness, this presumption can be overcome by a prosecutor beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, if the person who unlawfully and forcefully entered your dwelling is a uniformed Girl Scout with an armful of cookies, you are likely to be found guilty at trial, even with your Castle Doctrine presumption.
Castle Doctrine protections, especially when bolstered by Stand Your Ground laws, are a wonderful relief to the law-abiding gun owner. In order to make sure you are complying with your state’s version of the Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground, check your state’s laws.
Castle Doctrine Legal Terminology*
Burden of persuasion. (1923) A party’s duty to convince the fact-finder to view the facts in a way that favors that party. • In civil cases, the plaintiff’s burden is usu. “by a preponderance of the evidence,” while in criminal cases the prosecution’s burden is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” (p. 244)
Burden of production. (1893) A party’s duty to introduce enough evidence on an issue to have that issue decided by the fact-finder, rather than decided against the party in a peremptory ruling such as a summary judgment or a directed verdict. (p. 244)
Castle Doctrine. (1892) Criminal law. An exception to the retreat rule allowing the use of deadly force to protect one’s own home and its inhabitants from attack, esp. from a trespasser who intends to commit a felony or inflict serious bodily harm. (p. 270)
Deadly force. (16c) Violent action known to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm. •Generally, a person may use deadly force in self-defense or in defense of another only if retaliating against another’s deadly force. (p. 788)
Disparity. (16c) Inequality; a difference in quantity or quality between two or more things. (p. 591)
Force. (14c) Power, violence, or pressure directed against a person or thing. (p. 787)
Presumption. (15c) 1. Something that is thought to be true because it is highly probable. 2. A legal inference or assumption that a fact exists because of the known or proven existence of some other fact or group of facts. • Most presumptions are rules of evidence calling for a certain result in a given case unless the adversely affected party overcomes it with other evidence. A presumption shifts the burden of production or persuasion to the opposing party, who can then attempt to overcome the presumption. (p. 1435)
Probable cause. (16 c.) 1. Criminal law. A reasonable ground to suspect that a person has committed or is committing a crime or that a place contains specific items connected with a crime. • Under the Fourth Amendment, probable cause—which amounts to more than a bare suspicion but less than evidence that would justify a conviction—must be shown before an arrest warrant or search warrant may be issued. (p. 1454)
Reasonable doubt. (18c) The doubt that prevents one from being firmly convinced of a defendant’s guilt, or the belief that there is a real possibility that a defendant is not guilty. • “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the standard used by a jury to determine whether a criminal defendant is guilty. See Model Penal Code § 1.2. In deciding whether guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must begin with the presumption that the defendant is innocent.
Reasonable doubt…is a term often used, probably pretty well understood, but not easily defined. It is not a mere possible doubt; because every thing relating to human affairs, and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge. Commonwealth v. Webster, 59 Mass. (5 Cush.) 295, 320 (1850). (p. 1518)
Reasonable person. (1856) 1. A hypothetical person used as a legal standard, esp. to determine whether someone acted with negligence; specif., a person who exercises the degree of attention, knowledge, intelligence, and judgment that society requires of its members for the protection of their own and of others’ interests. • The reasonable person acts sensibly, does things without serious delay, and takes proper but not excessive precautions. (p. 1519)
Totality-of-the-circumstances test. (1959) Criminal procedure. A standard for determining whether hearsay (such as an informant’s tip) is sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause for an arrest or search warrant. • Under this test—which replaced Aguilar-Spinelli’s two-pronged approach—the reliability of the hearsay is weighed by focusing on the entire situation as described in the probable-cause affidavit, and not on any one specific factor. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (1983). (p. 1795)
*Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).