Castle Doctrine

Relation to Common Law

Under the common-law Castle Doctrine, a person does not have a duty to retreat from his home and may use reasonable force, even deadly force, to defend it and himself against forcible entry and felonies. The early English common law rule of self-defense, which fostered the development of the Castle Doctrine, included a duty to retreat if the nonaggressor's life was not in jeopardy or imminent danger of serious bodily injury and if it would be possible to avoid the use of deadly force in getting to a place of safety. To deter unjustified killings, common law self-defense required the nonaggressor to have his “back against the wall” with nowhere to escape from an attack before use of deadly force was justified.

Under English common law it was widely accepted that the sanctuary of one's home is the safest place from attack; therefore, no man or woman shall have to retreat from his or her own home. American common law jurisprudence has established under the Castle Doctrine a person's right to stand his ground and meet force with force in his dwelling. Under English and American common law, the “no duty to retreat” exception was applicable only in the home because the home is viewed as having special sanctity as a person's “castle.” Still, for deadly force to be justified under the Castle Doctrine, the person must have a reasonable belief that he is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury from an intruder. An alternative justification for use of deadly force is if a person reasonably believes he is defending himself and/or others against an intruder who is illegally entering the home by force with the intent to commit a felony. The Castle Doctrine defense cannot be used against a person unless he or she is reasonably believed to be acting illegally; consequently, it cannot be invoked against someone who has a legal right to enter the dwelling.

Under the common law, the test to determine justifiable use of force, including use of deadly force, was a reasonable prudent person standard. This “reasonableness” test asked what a reasonable prudent person in similar circumstances would do under the same attack or threat. The definition of reasonableness has been developed through established case law. Prosecutors, through their own discretion, have been in the best position to determine if a person's use of force was reasonable or justified. The legal standard of reasonableness is an objective standard, so even if the homeowner subjectively believes he or she is in imminent danger or defending against a forcible felony, the circumstances must be viewed from the perspective of a person with average skill, knowledge, and judgment in the same situation.

...