As a responsible gun owner, it is important to be familiar with the various laws, legal theories, and legal terms related to self-defense. “Castle Doctrine” is one such legal theory. The belief you always have the right to defend yourself in your own home might naturally seem correct, but it often is not that simple. Your state’s law will tell you what your defense rights are within your castle. Your state’s law will also define “castle,” which in some states might include locations other than your home.
What Is the Castle Doctrine?
Castle Doctrine is the legal theory that may allow residents or occupants of a home to use deadly force to defend against violent home invaders. The law will always depend on the state in which you live, which is why it is vital to know and understand the self-defense laws in your area. Castle Doctrine laws can broaden existing self-defense rights and justification under the law. This means it may give the person who defended themselves an expansion of legal justification in court, offering protection they might not have in a state without a strong Castle Doctrine law.
Many Castle Doctrine laws also contain a legal presumption. This is used to direct the jury to presume, under certain circumstances, that the person was reasonable in their use of force or deadly force. A legal presumption can help prevent the second-guessing of actions after the fact that many people and jurors are prone to participating in during a self-defense case.
In the most common self-defense cases, if a person is attacked and must use force or deadly force to defend their life or lives of loved ones, the person may likely be justified if the self-defense situation fits certain parameters. These parameters generally include meeting the reasonable person standard and reasonableness under the totality of circumstances. At their simplest, these terms mean the person acting in self-defense must be defending against an immediate, qualifying threat with a reasonable degree of force. To be covered under Castle Doctrine law, the act of self-defense must occur in one of the locations listed in the law of the state where the action occurred (the “castle”) and must happen under certain circumstances and conditions.
What Is the “Reasonable Person Standard”?
The reasonable person standard asks whether a hypothetical, reasonable person in the same situation would have used the same force or deadly force. Would a reasonable person have responded with the same degree of force, or would they have used lesser force? Would a reasonable person have used mere force, but not deadly force? Would a reasonable person have believed there was, in fact, no immediate threat at all? There are nuances to this standard, but the basics of reasonable behavior always apply.
What Is the “Totality of Circumstances”?
The totality of circumstances refers to the need to consider a large number of factors in a set of circumstances. This includes obvious details, such as the location or type of weapons wielded by the attacker, or your physical size and health compared to the size and health of your attacker. The difference in physical fitness or vulnerability between you and your attacker is often referred to as disparity of force, and it will often be considered by your jury. Every detail can be considered and investigated, including your state of mind and what medications you might be taking.
What Is the Origin of the Castle Doctrine?
The phrase “a man’s home is his castle” is commonly known, but it is not the complete original wording. In 1628, a jurist named Sir Edward Coke wrote in The Institutes of the Laws of England:
For a man’s house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium [and each man’s home is his safest refuge].
The words “Castle Doctrine” almost never appear in a state’s statute, but this idea is generally codified in the state’s “justification” section of their code. We typically feel a person has a right to protect themselves in their own “castle.”
When not in a castle, a person using force or deadly force is generally evaluated under other standards for justification. Justification typically comes down to reasonableness. Generally, this means to be found not guilty, the person must have been reasonable in their use of force or deadly force. Of course, depending on the state, many other factors may come into play in order to be justified in using force or deadly force.
What Counts as a “Castle”?
First and foremost, your home is your castle; this is the broadly accepted definition of a castle in the United States. Modern interpretations of what may constitute a castle have evolved to sometimes include a vehicle, workplace, or even a hotel room. Whether the Castle Doctrine extends beyond your home depends on your state’s law. There are also other factors that must be taken into consideration.
To be considered a castle under the law, your home, vehicle, or workplace generally must be occupied. An unoccupied structure is usually not covered under the Castle Doctrine. And if you reside in a state where the only structure covered by the Castle Doctrine law is your house, your unattached shed or carport will usually not be considered a part of that law at all (but other self-defense laws may apply).
Does the Castle Doctrine Cover Self-Defense While In Your Vehicle?
Whether the Castle Doctrine extends to your occupied vehicle depends on the state in which you live. Some states include places other than occupied homes, and some do not. How “vehicle” is defined also depends on the state.
What Is the Difference Between “Castle Doctrine” and “Stand Your Ground” Laws?
The Castle Doctrine outlines the circumstances in which you may be justified to defend yourself from physical harm and threats to your life in your home or other locations as covered by your state’s law. Stand Your Ground refers to the legal right to fail to retreat under certain circumstances (generally codified as “no duty to retreat”). In states where there is a duty to retreat, or if you do not meet the standards laid out in the law, you are legally required to attempt to escape before defending yourself.
A common misconception is that Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws are the same thing. They are not. However, Castle Doctrine almost always includes a Stand Your Ground component, such that no person has to flee the castle before using force or deadly force. It is vital to understand that even if your state has a Castle Doctrine law, there is no guarantee that it has a generally available Stand Your Ground law. From a legal perspective, people will often have an easier time supporting their right to self-defense in states with both a Castle Doctrine and a Stand Your Ground law in place. But don’t be foolhardy; if you are in a state with a strong Castle Doctrine presumption, even one supported by Stand Your Ground, the Castle Doctrine only provides a presumption. It is possible for a presumption to be rebutted by a prosecutor and stripped from you in court, often by a prosecutor proving beyond a reasonable doubtthat you did not act reasonably in your use of force or deadly force.
Enjoying this content? Find out how you can get more essential updates and self-defense information just like this sent straight to your inbox.
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” and Use of Force?
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.
What is Texas Castle Law?
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 requirements for their Castle Doctrines.
Castle Doctrine According to Some States
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).
Your Protection Starts Here!
There’s nothing more important than protecting yourself and your family. By joining our community of members, you can count on our self-defense coverage, with meaningful options and benefits that make a real difference.
The information provided in this publication is intended to provide general information to individuals and is not legal advice. The information included in this publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication without the prior written consent of U.S. LawShield, to be given or withheld at our discretion. The information is not a substitute for, and does not replace the advice or representation of a licensed attorney. We strive to ensure the information included in this publication is accurate and current, however, no claim is made to the accuracy of the information and we are not responsible for any consequences that may result from the use of information in this publication. The use of this publication does not create an attorney-client relationship between U.S. LawShield, any independent program attorney, and any individual.
SOS * 911 * HELP
A man in Nevada is going to be sentenced to assault with potential bodily harm on December 1, 2021, because his PD wants him to take a plea of convenience. Not convenience for the defendant but for the convenience of the lawyer. This case clearly falls under the Stand Your Ground Law, however, it has become convoluted due to societies’ short attention span and need to stay stuck.
THIS IS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION AT ITS FINEST. This is a man that has suffered premeditated abuse from a narcissistic woman who knowingly and unlawfully filed false allegations against him. He has been turned away from and not taken seriously by the very institutions put in place to protect him. Domestic Violence does not just happen to women. This woman’s actions are not just an incident but an established pattern of behavior with victims that cross state lines.
I SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!
Do we have a justice system that works at all or is there a prerequisite of having six figures in an account somewhere? For everyone else, it is merely a formality. Anyone who can’t cough up at least a $35,00 retainer is at the mercy of a PD that may or may not feel like obtaining justice for you. Since they are awarded a bonus to keep you from going to trial then justice isn’t really in their best interest Keeping the courts moving which equates to money flowing into the city/county is where the bottom line falls.
A man was defending himself in his home from people who had promised to hurt him. The system failed at least 6 times that are documented errors provable with video, recorded conversation, JPEG, or email on the part of law enforcement and no one wants to address these errors. The blue curtain has been drawn and this man has been left with a life destroyed up to and including having to change the name his father gave to him.
This case is the perfect example of what is broken and needs to be addressed with our system. Someone needs to step up and take responsibility for their action or inaction and do something before someone who is quite capable of making a difference in this world becomes more collateral damage!
ARE WE GOING TO CONTINUE TO PRETEND THAT OUR SYSTEM DOES NOT FAVOR THE RICH AND DOES LITTLE FOR THE POOR? ARE WE GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE COMPLACENT AND BURY OUR HEADS IN THE SAND ACTING AS THOUGH THIS DOESN’T AFFECT US PERSONALLY SO IT DOESN’T AFFECT US AT ALL?
That’s all good until it does. Then it will be too late.
If you care at all about the constitution of the United States, if your Civil Rights matter, if your countries history and very foundation mean anything to you at all then you must care about this case, Not every case is simple, they are not all cut and dry. There are times when it is going to take longer than a 60-second window to ascertain all the facts. This is one of those times.
Aristotle spoke about practical wisdom being the highest intellectual virtue, I would like to think in the year 2021 we have evolved enough to at the very least shoot for the highest virtues.
In CA, If i have alcohol in my system and someone breaks into my home wielding a weapon (gun, knife, etc.) do i have the ability to retrieve my firearm or do i have to grab son in one hand, wife in the other, and try to flea or does the castle doctrine still give me the ability to defend my family? I see that it says the justification differs depending on my state (drugs and what not regardless of legality). Would me protecting the life of myself, wife and newborn constitute solid ground for deadly force or would it be “some drunk trigger happy dude”. obviously it would be very circumstantial, but dont know if there is any guidance on how to handle it. if there was a way for us to safely exit the castle we would, but if not would i be held to possible time for defending the family?
This is a great question. If you’re a member, please call our non-emergency line to get an answer from an independent program attorney at 877-448-6839.