Castle Doctrine Laws by State (2026)
How each state's castle doctrine treats force used to defend your home, vehicle or workplace.
| State | Castle doctrine (defending your home) |
|---|---|
| Alabama | A person is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force if he or she reasonably believes another person is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, business property, or occupied vehicle, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any of those places, and knows or has reason to believe an unlawful and forcible entry or act is occurring. Deadly force is also justified against someone using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting burglary, and against someone using force against an owner, employee or other authorized person on business property closed to the public while committing certain violent crimes. The presumption does not apply if the person against whom force is used has the right to be in or lawfully lives in the dwelling, residence or vehicle (such as an owner or lessee) and there is no domestic violence protection injunction or written no-contact pretrial order against that person; if the person being removed is a child or grandchild or otherwise in the lawful custody of the person against whom force is used; if the person using force is engaged in unlawful activity or using the place to further unlawful activity; or if the person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of official duties. Ala. Code 1975 § 13A-3-23(a) |
| Alaska | A person justified in using deadly force in self-defense (against imminent death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, first- or second-degree sexual assault, first-degree sexual abuse of a minor, or robbery in any degree) has no duty to leave the area if he or she is on premises that he or she owns or leases, where he or she resides temporarily or permanently, or as a guest or express or implied agent of the owner, lessor or resident; is in a building where he or she works in the ordinary course of employment; or is protecting a child or a member of his or her household. Peace officers and persons assisting them in an arrest or preventing escape also have no duty to retreat. Unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense, the jury must find the defendant not guilty. AS 11.81.335; Alaska Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 11.81.335 (Revised 2014) |
| Arizona | A person is presumed to reasonably believe that force, including deadly force, is immediately necessary if the person knows or has reason to believe that someone is unlawfully or forcefully entering, or has unlawfully or forcefully entered and is present in, the person's residential structure or occupied vehicle; such an intruder is presumed to pose an imminent threat of unlawful deadly harm. The presumptions do not apply if the person against whom force is used has a right to be there or is a lawful resident (such as an owner, lessee, invitee or titleholder) and no order of protection or injunction against harassment has been filed against that person; if that person is a parent, grandparent or legal custodian or guardian of a child or grandchild being removed; if the person using force is engaged in unlawful activity or using the structure or vehicle to further it; or if the person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer entering in the performance of official duties. A person is also presumed to act reasonably when using force to prevent listed serious crimes in a home, business, owned or leased land or conveyance. Civil immunity: no person shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified under the justification chapter. A.R.S. §§ 13-419, 13-411(C)-(D), 13-413 |
| Arkansas | Deadly physical force is justified if a person reasonably believes another person is committing or about to commit a felony involving physical force or violence, is using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force, or is imminently endangering the person's life from the continuation of a pattern of domestic abuse. Under the 2021 no-retreat rule a lawfully present person need not retreat anywhere, including the home; the exception for a person committing felon-in-possession does not apply when the person is in or at his or her dwelling or in the curtilage (the land adjoining a dwelling habitually used for residential purposes, including closely connected outbuildings). Ark. Code § 5-2-607(a)-(c) (Act 250 of 2021) |
| California | "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." Great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury. Separately, Penal Code § 197 makes homicide justifiable when committed in defense of habitation, property, or person against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit certain crimes. Cal. Penal Code §§ 197, 198.5 |
| Colorado | "The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes." Any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, when the occupant reasonably believes the intruder has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and reasonably believes the intruder might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant. An occupant who uses force under these conditions is immune from criminal prosecution and from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the force. 'Dwelling' does not include a place of habitation in a detention facility. C.R.S. § 18-1-704.5 |
| Connecticut | No duty to retreat applies in one's dwelling or place of work if the person was not the initial aggressor (§ 53a-19(b)). A person in possession or control of premises (or licensed or privileged to be there) may use reasonable physical force to prevent or end a criminal trespass, but may use deadly physical force only (1) in defense of a person as provided in § 53a-19, (2) when reasonably believed necessary to prevent the trespasser's attempt to commit arson or any crime of violence, or (3) to the extent reasonably believed necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry by force into his dwelling or place of work, and for the sole purpose of such prevention or termination. Deadly force may not be used merely to defend property against larceny or criminal mischief (§ 53a-21). Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-19, 53a-20, 53a-21 |
| Delaware | No duty to retreat in or from one's dwelling, and no duty to retreat in or from one's place of work unless the person was the initial aggressor (§ 464(e)). When an occupant of a dwelling is prosecuted for killing or injuring an intruder who was unlawfully in the dwelling, it is a defense that the occupant was in the occupant's own dwelling and: (1) the encounter was sudden and unexpected, compelling the occupant to act instantly; or (2) the occupant reasonably believed the intruder would inflict personal injury upon the occupant or others in the dwelling; or (3) the occupant demanded that the intruder disarm or surrender and the intruder refused (§ 469). Deadly force to protect property is justifiable only in limited cases, including against a person attempting to dispossess the defendant of the defendant's dwelling without a claim of right (§ 466(c)). Civil immunity: a person who used force for the protection of property and has not been convicted of any crime connected with that use of force is not liable for damages to the one against whom the force was used (§ 466(d)). 11 Del. C. §§ 464(e), 466(c)-(d), 469 |
| Florida | A person in a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle has no duty to retreat and is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm when using defensive force against a person who was unlawfully and forcibly entering or had entered the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle, if the person knew or had reason to believe this was occurring. The presumption does not apply if, among other exceptions, the person against whom force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence or vehicle (absent an injunction or no-contact order), or the person using force is engaged in criminal activity or using the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle to further criminal activity. Justified force brings immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action, except against a law enforcement officer acting in official duties who was identified or should have been known as an officer. Fla. Stat. §§ 776.013, 776.032 |
| Georgia | A person may threaten or use force to prevent or end another's unlawful entry into or attack on a habitation (defined as 'any dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business' in § 16-3-24.1). Deadly force is justified only if: (1) the entry is 'made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner' and the person reasonably believes it is to assault someone inside and force is needed to prevent it; (2) the force is used against someone 'who is not a member of the family or household' who 'unlawfully and forcibly enters' the residence and the person knew or had reason to believe an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or (3) the person reasonably believes the entry is to commit a felony inside and force is needed to prevent it. There is no duty to retreat (§ 16-3-23.1), justified force brings immunity from criminal prosecution (§ 16-3-24.2), and a person justified in using such force cannot be held liable in a civil lawsuit arising from it (§ 51-11-9). O.C.G.A. §§ 16-3-23; 16-3-23.1; 16-3-24.1; 16-3-24.2; 51-11-9 |
| Hawaii | No duty to retreat from one's dwelling or place of work unless the actor was the initial aggressor (or, at work, is assailed by a co-worker at their shared place of work) (§ 703-304(5)(b)(i)). Deadly force for the protection of property is justifiable only if the person is attempting to dispossess the actor of the actor's dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession, or is attempting to commit felonious property damage, burglary, robbery or felonious theft and either has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor, or using less than deadly force would expose the actor or another person present to substantial danger of serious bodily injury (§ 703-306(3)). Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 703-304(5), 703-306(3) |
| Idaho | A person who uses force in a habitation (including its curtilage), place of business or employment, or occupied vehicle is presumed to have acted reasonably and to have had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury when the intruder's entry is unlawful and made or attempted by force, in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously or by stealth, or to commit a felony. Homicide is justifiable in defense of habitation, place of business or employment, occupied vehicle, property or person, and a person who unlawfully and forcibly or by stealth enters these places is presumed to intend a felony. A person whose use of force is justified is immune from civil liability for that force (unless they knew or should have known the person was an on-duty law enforcement officer), and the court must award the defendant reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Idaho Code §§ 19-202A(5), 18-4009(1)(b), (2), (3), 6-808 |
| Illinois | A person is justified in using force when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent or end another's unlawful entry into or attack on a dwelling. Force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified only if (1) the entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner and the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to prevent an assault on or personal violence to someone in the dwelling, or (2) the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to prevent a felony in the dwelling. A home dweller does not have to wait for the unlawful entry to be completed before using justifiable force. 720 ILCS 5/7-2 (as stated in Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions (Criminal) 24-25.07, approved 2023); People v. Yanez, 2022 IL App (3d) 200007, ¶ 29 |
| Indiana | A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle. Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(d), as described in English v. State, No. 25A-CR-1087 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2026) (mem.), n.3 |
| Iowa | A person is presumed to reasonably believe deadly force is necessary to avoid injury or risk to life or safety when the person against whom force is used is unlawfully entering by force or stealth (or has so entered and remains in) the dwelling, place of business or employment, or occupied vehicle of the person using force, or is unlawfully removing or attempting to remove another person against their will from such a place, and the person using force knows or has reason to believe this is occurring. The presumption does not apply if the person using force is engaged in a criminal offense or using the place to further one; the person being removed is a child or grandchild or in the lawful custody of the person against whom force is used; the person against whom force is used is a peace officer lawfully performing official duties; or that person has a right to be in or lawfully resides in the place and no protective or no-contact order is in effect. A person justified in using reasonable force against an aggressor in defense of oneself, another person or property is immune from criminal or civil liability for all damages incurred by the aggressor. Iowa Code §§ 704.2A(1), (2), 704.13 (Iowa Code 2026) |
| Kansas | A person is presumed to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary when the person against whom force is used is unlawfully or forcefully entering, or has unlawfully or forcefully entered and is present within, the dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle of the person using force, and the person using force knows or has reason to believe this is occurring or has occurred. The presumption does not apply if the other person has a right to be in or lawfully lives there (and is not subject to a protective order); the person being removed is a child, grandchild or in the lawful custody of the other person; the person using force is committing a crime, escaping from a crime or using the place to further a crime; or the other person is a law enforcement officer lawfully entering whom the person knows or reasonably should know is an officer. A person whose use of force is justified "is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force," unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer who identified themself or whom the person knew or reasonably should have known was an officer. K.S.A. 21-5224(a), (b); 21-5231(a) |
| Kentucky | A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm when using deadly defensive force if the other person was unlawfully and forcibly entering (or had entered) a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or was removing or attempting to remove another person from it against that person's will, and the defender knew or had reason to believe this was occurring. The presumption does not apply if the person against whom force is used has a right to be there (owner, lessee, titleholder) and there is no domestic-violence protective injunction or no-contact pretrial order against that person; if the person being removed is a child or grandchild in that person's lawful custody; if the defender is engaged in unlawful activity; or against a peace officer performing official duties who identified himself or herself (or whom the defender knew or should have known was an officer). A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter is presumed to intend an unlawful act involving force or violence (§ 503.055). Deadly force to protect property is justifiable against a person attempting to dispossess the defendant of a dwelling without a claim of right, or committing burglary, robbery, other forcible felony or arson of the dwelling (§ 503.080(2)). Immunity: a person who uses force as permitted is immune from criminal prosecution (including arrest, detention and charging) and civil action, except against an identified peace officer acting in official duties; the court shall award attorney's fees, costs, lost income and expenses to a defendant found immune in a civil action (§ 503.085). KRS 503.055; KRS 503.080; KRS 503.085 |
| Louisiana | A homicide is justifiable when committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle against a person attempting to make or who has made an unlawful entry, if the person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave; also against a person reasonably believed to be about to use unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling, business or vehicle while committing or attempting a burglary or robbery of it (R.S. 14:20(A)(3)-(4)). Non-deadly force may likewise be used by a person lawfully in a dwelling, business, place of worship or motor vehicle against an unlawful entrant (R.S. 14:19(A)(1)(b)). The person is presumed to have held a reasonable belief that force was necessary if the intruder was unlawfully and forcibly entering or had entered and the person knew or had reason to believe that (R.S. 14:19(B), 14:20(B)). These protections do not apply to a person engaged in acquiring, distributing, or possessing with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance. Civil immunity: a person who uses reasonable and apparently necessary force or violence, including deadly force, under R.S. 14:19 or 14:20 to prevent a forcible offense against the person or the person's property is immune from civil action, and a court finding immunity shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, lost income and all expenses (R.S. 9:2800.19). La. R.S. 14:19, 14:20; R.S. 9:2800.19 |
| Maine | No duty to retreat in one's own dwelling place unless the person was the initial aggressor (§ 108(2)(C)(3)(a)). A person may use deadly force when the person reasonably believes another has entered or is attempting to enter a dwelling place, or has surreptitiously remained within it, without a license or privilege, and that deadly force is necessary to prevent the infliction of bodily injury on the person or a third person present in the dwelling place (§ 108(2)(B)). A person in possession or control of a dwelling place (or licensed or privileged to be there) may also use deadly force when the person reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent or terminate a criminal trespass by someone who has entered or is attempting to enter (or surreptitiously remained) and is committing or likely to commit some other crime in the dwelling place — but only after first demanding that the trespasser stop and the trespasser fails to immediately comply, unless making the demand would be dangerous (§ 104(3)-(4)). Deadly force is also justified to prevent an attempt to commit arson on premises (§ 104(2)). 17-A M.R.S. §§ 104, 108(2) |
| Maryland | Criminal law: under Maryland case law 'the most common exception to the retreat rule is the “castle doctrine”: there is no duty to retreat if one is attacked in his or her own home' (Redcross v. State, citing Gainer, 40 Md. App. at 388). Civil immunity: a person is not liable for damages for the injury or death of an individual who enters the person's dwelling or place of business if the person reasonably believes force or deadly force is necessary to repel an attack by that individual and the force used is reasonable under the circumstances; the immunity does not apply to a person convicted of a crime of violence, second-degree assault, or reckless endangerment arising from the same circumstances, and a court may award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant (Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-808). Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-808; Redcross v. State (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1998) |
| Massachusetts | In the prosecution of a person who was an occupant of a dwelling for killing or injuring another person who was unlawfully in the dwelling, 'it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense' and acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in the dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon the occupant or another person lawfully in the dwelling, and that the occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person. 'There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.' G.L. c. 278, § 8A |
| Michigan | In a civil or criminal case, a person who uses deadly force or other force under the Self-Defense Act is presumed to have an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death, sexual assault or great bodily harm will occur if the other person is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion (or has done so and is still present), or is unlawfully attempting to remove a person from a dwelling, business premises or occupied vehicle against that person's will, and the person using force honestly and reasonably believes that is occurring. The presumption does not apply if the other person has a legal right to be there (owner, lessee, titleholder) and no domestic-violence injunction or no-contact order applies to that person; if the person being removed is the user's child or grandchild or in the user's lawful custody; if the user is committing a crime or using the place to further one; against a peace officer lawfully entering in official duties; or against a current or former spouse, dating partner, co-parent or household member when the user has a prior history of domestic violence as the aggressor (MCL 780.951). Civil immunity: a person who uses deadly or non-deadly force in compliance with section 2 of the Self-Defense Act is 'immune from civil liability for damages' caused to the person against whom the force was used (MCL 600.2922b). MCL 780.951; MCL 600.2922b |
| Minnesota | There is no duty to retreat from one's own home when acting in self-defense in the home, 'regardless of whether the aggressor is a co-resident' (State v. Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392, 402 (Minn. 2001), as quoted in Blevins). The lack of a duty to retreat does not remove the requirement that force be reasonable. In State v. Devens (Minn. 2014) the court declined to extend the castle doctrine to an apartment hallway. By statute, deadly force may be used to prevent 'the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode' (§ 609.065). A person lawfully in possession of property may use reasonable force to resist a trespass or unlawful interference (§ 609.06, subd. 1(4)). State v. Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392 (Minn. 2001); State v. Devens, 852 N.W.2d 255 (Minn. 2014); Minn. Stat. §§ 609.06, 609.065 |
| Mississippi | A person who uses defensive force 'shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm' when the person against whom force was used was unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had entered, a dwelling, an occupied vehicle, a place of business or place of employment, or its immediate premises, and the defender knew or had reason to believe this (§ 97-3-15(3)). The presumption does not apply if the person against whom force was used has a right to be there or is a lawful resident or owner, if the defender is engaged in unlawful activity, or against a law enforcement officer performing official duties. The presumption also applies in civil cases; a court must award fees, costs and lost income to a defendant it finds acted in justified self-defense, and a person found not guilty on that basis is immune from civil suits for damages from the same conduct (§ 97-3-15(5)). Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-15(3), (5) |
| Missouri | Deadly force may be used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by the person; and against a person who unlawfully enters or attempts to enter private property owned or leased by an individual, or occupied by an individual with the owner's authority (§ 563.031.2(2)-(3)). When a defendant claims the dwelling/residence/vehicle justification, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe the use of force was necessary (§ 563.031.5). Immunity: a person who uses force as described in §§ 563.031 to 563.061 'is justified in using such force and such fact shall be an absolute defense to criminal prosecution or civil liability'; in a civil action where the court finds this defense applies, the court shall award the defendant attorney's fees, court costs and all reasonable expenses (§ 563.074). RSMo §§ 563.031, 563.074 |
| Montana | Defense of an occupied structure: force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm is justified only if the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure, or the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure (§ 45-3-103(2)). 'Occupied structure' means 'any building, vehicle, or other place suitable for human occupancy or night lodging of persons or for carrying on business, whether or not a person is actually present,' including adjacent outbuildings habitually used for personal use or employment; each separately secured or occupied unit is a separate occupied structure (§ 45-2-101(47)). No duty to retreat applies (§ 45-3-110). MCA §§ 45-2-101(47), 45-3-103, 45-3-110 |
| Nebraska | 'The actor shall not be obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be' (§ 28-1409(4)(b)(i)). Deadly force in the dwelling is still limited to situations where the actor believes it is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat (§ 28-1409(4)). Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1409(4) |
| Nevada | Justifiable homicide includes killing in defense of an occupied habitation or an occupied motor vehicle against any person who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter it for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to anyone inside (NRS 200.120(1)). 'There is a rebuttable presumption that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person' if the killer knew or reasonably believed the person killed was unlawfully entering or attempting to enter an occupied habitation or occupied motor vehicle and was committing or attempting a crime of violence, and the killer did not provoke the person (NRS 200.130(2)). Civil: a person lawfully in a residence, transient lodging or motor vehicle who uses force intended or likely to cause death or bodily injury against a person committing burglary, invasion of the home, or grand larceny of a motor vehicle with a deadly weapon is presumed to have had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury, rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence; such force is immune from civil liability for personal injury or wrongful death if justified under NRS chapter 200 (NRS 41.095). NRS 41.095, 200.120, 200.130 |
| New Hampshire | No duty to retreat within one's dwelling or its curtilage (unless the initial aggressor) (§ 627:4, III). Deadly force is justified against a person reasonably believed likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary (§ 627:4, II(b)), or likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within the actor's dwelling or its curtilage (§ 627:4, II(d)); effective January 1, 2027, II(d) also covers force against 'a third person' (2026, 323:1). Civil immunity: a person who uses force as permitted for self-protection, protection of others, protection of premises and property, law enforcement, or care of a minor is immune from civil liability for personal injuries sustained by a perpetrator, and if a perpetrator sues, the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs (§ 627:1-a). RSA 627:1-a; RSA 627:4, II-III |
| New Jersey | Notwithstanding the general self-defense limits, the use of force or deadly force upon or toward an intruder who is unlawfully in a dwelling is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself or other persons in the dwelling against the use of unlawful force by the intruder on the present occasion (§ 2C:3-4(c)(1)). A reasonable belief exists when the actor, to protect himself or a third person, was in his own dwelling and the encounter with the intruder was sudden and unexpected, compelling the actor to act instantly, or the actor reasonably believed the intruder would inflict personal injury on the actor or others in the dwelling, or the actor demanded that the intruder disarm, surrender or withdraw, and the intruder refused to do so (§ 2C:3-4(c)(2)). The actor may estimate the necessity of using force without retreating, surrendering possession, withdrawing or doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do (§ 2C:3-4(c)(3)). N.J.S. 2C:3-4(c) |
| New Mexico | Under the defense-of-habitation jury instruction, a killing in defense of the defendant's dwelling is justified if the place was being used as the defendant's dwelling; it appeared to the defendant that the commission of a violent felony was immediately at hand and that it was necessary to kill the intruder to prevent it; and a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have acted as the defendant did. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not kill in defense of habitation. The committee commentary notes that NMSA 1978, § 30-2-7(A) makes homicide justifiable when committed in the necessary defense of property, but that one cannot defend property, other than one's habitation, from a mere trespass to the extent of killing the aggressor; in defense of habitation one does not have to fear for one's life or believe great bodily harm will result, but an apparent necessity to kill to prevent a violent felony is required (State v. Couch, 1946-NMSC-047; State v. Boyett, 2008-NMSC-030). UJI 14-5170 NMRA; NMSA 1978, § 30-2-7 |
| New York | No duty to retreat in one's dwelling if not the initial aggressor (§ 35.15(2)(a)). A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary (§ 35.20(3)). N.Y. Penal Law §§ 35.15(2)(a), 35.20(3) |
| North Carolina | A lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm when using defensive force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, if the person against whom force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering (or had entered) and the occupant knew or had reason to believe that was occurring (§ 14-51.2(b)). The presumption is rebuttable and does not apply in listed cases, including where the person against whom force is used has a right to be there (such as an owner or lessee with no protective order against them), is a child or grandchild or in the lawful custody of the defender, where the defender is engaged in a violent crime, against a lawfully acting officer or bail bondsman who identified themselves, or after the intruder has discontinued all efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter and has exited (§ 14-51.2(c)). A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a home, motor vehicle or workplace is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence (§ 14-51.2(d)). The occupant does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder (§ 14-51.2(f)) and is immune from civil or criminal liability for force used as permitted (§ 14-51.2(e)). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-51.2 |
| North Dakota | Deadly force is justified when used by an individual in possession or control of a dwelling, place of work, motor vehicle, or an occupied motor home or travel trailer (or by one licensed or privileged to be there) if necessary to prevent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, or a felony involving violence there, and force other than deadly force would expose any individual to substantial danger of serious bodily injury. An individual using deadly force is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the person against whom it was used was unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered and remained within, a dwelling, place of work, or occupied motor home or travel trailer (or was removing or attempting to remove someone against their will from it), and the user knew or had reason to believe this was occurring. The presumption may be rebutted by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and it does not apply if the person against whom force is used has a right to be there or is a lawful resident (such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder) with no domestic violence protection order or other no-contact order against them; if the person removed is a child or grandchild or in the lawful custody or guardianship of the person against whom force is used; if the user is committing a crime or using the place to further a crime; or if the person is a law enforcement officer entering in the performance of official duties as described in the statute. Civil immunity: an individual who uses force as permitted under the chapter is immune from civil liability to the person against whom force was used or that person's estate (with a law-enforcement-officer exception), and the court shall award loss of income, reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and disbursements to a defendant found immune. N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-05-07(2)(c), 12.1-05-07.1, 12.1-05-07.2 |
| Ohio | A person is allowed to act in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person's residence; if evidence tends to support this, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not. A person is presumed to have acted in self-defense or defense of another when using defensive force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm if the person against whom force is used is in the process of unlawfully and without privilege entering, or has unlawfully and without privilege entered, the residence or vehicle occupied by the person using the force. The presumption does not apply if the person against whom force is used has a right to be in, or is a lawful resident of, the residence or vehicle, or if the person using force is unlawfully, and without privilege to be, in that residence or vehicle. The presumption is rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence. R.C. 2901.05(B) |
| Oklahoma | A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm when using defensive force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm if the person against whom it was used was unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, place of business, occupied premises, or place of worship (or was removing or attempting to remove someone against their will), and the defender knew or had reason to believe this was occurring; or if the defender reasonably believed the intruder was entering to commit a forcible felony and force was necessary to prevent it. The presumption does not apply if the person against whom force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle (such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder) and there is no domestic-violence protective order or written pretrial no-contact order against that person; if the persons sought to be removed are children or grandchildren or in the lawful custody or guardianship of the person against whom force is used; or if the defender is engaged in an unlawful activity or using the place to further one. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter is presumed to intend an unlawful act involving force or violence. A person using defensive force as permitted is justified and is immune from criminal prosecution (including charging) and civil action; police may not arrest unless there is probable cause the force was unlawful; and the court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and expenses to a defendant found immune in a civil action. 21 O.S. § 1289.25(B), (C), (E)-(H) |
| Oregon | A person in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in using physical force upon another person to defend the premises against a trespasser as provided in ORS 161.225(1). Deadly physical force may be used in that situation only in defense of a person as provided in ORS 161.219, or when the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson or a felony by force and violence by the trespasser. Under ORS 161.219, deadly physical force is justified only if the person reasonably believes the other person is committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person, committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling, or using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. ORS 161.225, 161.219 |
| Pennsylvania | An actor is presumed to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary if the person against whom force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered and is present within, a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle, or is unlawfully and forcefully removing or attempting to remove another against that other's will from it, and the actor knows or has reason to believe this is occurring or has occurred. The presumption does not apply if the person against whom force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence or vehicle (such as an owner or lessee); if the person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild or otherwise in the lawful custody or guardianship of the person against whom force is used; if the actor is engaged in criminal activity or using the dwelling, residence or vehicle to further it; or if the person is a peace officer acting in the performance of official duties whom the actor knew or reasonably should have known to be one. A person who unlawfully and by force enters a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle (or removes another from one against their will) is presumed to intend to commit an act resulting in death or serious bodily injury, or kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat. There is no duty to retreat from one's dwelling or place of work (with the exceptions above). Civil immunity: an actor who uses force as justified under 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 505-508 is immune from civil liability for personal injuries sustained by a perpetrator, and if the actor prevails in a civil action the court shall award reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, expert witness fees, court costs and compensation for loss of income. 18 Pa.C.S. § 505(b)(2), (2.1), (2.2), (2.5); 42 Pa.C.S. § 8340.2 |
| Rhode Island | If any person dies or is injured while committing one of the offenses listed in §§ 11-8-2 through 11-8-6 (burglary and breaking-and-entering offenses), it is rebuttably presumed as a matter of law in any civil or criminal proceeding that the owner, tenant, or occupier of the place where the offense was committed acted by reasonable means in self-defense and in the reasonable belief that the person engaged in the offense was about to inflict great bodily harm or death upon that person or any other individual lawfully in the place. There shall be no duty on the part of an owner, tenant, or occupier to retreat from any person engaged in the commission of any of those listed offenses. R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-8-8 |
| South Carolina | A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury when using deadly force against another person who is unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or who is removing or attempting to remove another person against his will from it, if the person using force knows or has reason to believe the unlawful and forcible entry or act is occurring or has occurred. The presumption does not apply if the person against whom force is used has the right to be there or is a lawful resident (such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder); if the person being removed is a child or grandchild of, or otherwise in the lawful custody or guardianship of, the person against whom force is used; if the person using force is engaged in unlawful activity or using the place to further it; or if the person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer entering in the performance of official duties who identified himself as required or whom the person knew or reasonably should have known was an officer. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle (including in violation of an order of protection, restraining order, or bond condition) is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force. A person who uses deadly force as permitted by the Act is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for that use of force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the line of duty who identified himself as an officer; if a court finds a defendant immune in a civil suit, it shall award reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and expenses. S.C. Code §§ 16-11-440(A), (B), (D), (E); 16-11-450 |
| South Dakota | A person lawfully in his or her dwelling or residence has no duty to retreat and may use or threaten force reasonably believed necessary to defend against imminent unlawful force, and deadly force reasonably believed necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm or the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm is presumed when the person against whom force is used was in the process of unlawfully entering, or had unlawfully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or was removing or attempting to remove another person against that person's will from it, and the person using force knew or had reason to believe this was occurring or had occurred. The presumption does not apply if the person against whom force is used has the right to be there or is a lawful resident (such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder) and is not subject to a protection order; if the person being removed is a child or grandchild of, or in the lawful custody or guardianship of, the person against whom force is used; if the person using force is engaged in criminal activity or using the place to further it; or if the person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer performing official duties who identified himself or whom the person knew or reasonably should have known was an officer. Immunity: a person who uses or threatens force as permitted by §§ 22-18-4 to 22-18-4.7 is immune from criminal prosecution (including arrest, detention, charging and prosecution) and from civil action by the person against whom force was used or that person's heirs or representatives, except against an on-duty law enforcement officer as described; a court finding a defendant immune in a civil action shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and expenses. Once a defendant makes a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity in a criminal case, the party seeking to overcome it must do so by clear and convincing evidence. SDCL 22-18-4.2, 22-18-4.3, 22-18-4.4, 22-18-4.8 |
| Tennessee | A person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or an invited guest when the force is used against someone who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has entered, and the person knew or had reason to believe an unlawful and forcible entry occurred. The presumption does not apply if the person against whom force is used has a right to be there or lives there (unless barred by an order of protection, injunction or no-contact order); is removing a child or grandchild in his or her lawful custody; if the person using force is engaged in a felony or Class A misdemeanor or is using the place to further unlawful activity; or if the person entering is a law enforcement officer performing official duties who identified himself or herself or whom the person knew or reasonably should have known was an officer. A person who uses force as permitted by these self-defense laws is justified and immune from civil liability, unless the force was used against an identified on-duty law enforcement officer or harmed an innocent bystander or other person against whom force was not justified. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-11-611(c)(1), (d); 39-11-622(a) |
| Texas | The actor's belief that force (or deadly force) was immediately necessary is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom force was used unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove, the actor from it; or was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. The presumption also requires that the actor did not provoke the person and was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic. Civil immunity: a defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 of the Penal Code is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force. Tex. Penal Code §§ 9.31(a), 9.32(b); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 83.001 |
| Utah | An actor is justified in using force when and to the extent the actor reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate an individual's unlawful entry into the actor's vehicle or unlawful entry or attack upon the actor's habitation or place of business or employment. Deadly force is justified only if the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth and the actor reasonably believes it is for the purpose of assaulting or perpetrating personal violence against someone present and that force is necessary to prevent it, or if the actor reasonably believes the entry is for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and the force is necessary to prevent it. An actor who uses force or deadly force to defend the actor's habitation is presumed, for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases, to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony. A similar presumption applies to defending the actor's occupied vehicle or place of business or employment against unlawful and forcible entry or removal, if the actor did not provoke the individual and was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity other than a traffic offense. Utah Code § 76-2-405 |
| Vermont | Under the justifiable homicide statute, a person who kills or wounds another is guiltless in the just and necessary defense of the person's own life or the life of another, or if the person reasonably believed that the person or another was in imminent peril and that it was necessary to repel that peril with deadly force when the other was attempting to commit murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, burglary, or robbery. The statute does not limit defenses granted at common law. 13 V.S.A. § 2305 |
| Virginia | Common-law castle doctrine (no statute). It has two principles: (1) persons within the home or its curtilage have no duty to retreat and may exercise all needful force, including deadly force, to keep aggressors out, but deadly force is permissible only if the intruder is trespassing and it is necessary to prevent a felonious destruction of property or the commission of a felony in the home; the doctrine does not apply to someone peaceably present under an implied license; (2) a person attacked in his own home or its curtilage, if free from fault, has no duty to retreat and may use reasonable force, including deadly force, to eject or subdue the attacker. For a mere trespass upon land, the owner has no right to assault the trespasser with a deadly weapon. Fortune v. Commonwealth, 133 Va. 669, 686-87 (1922); Bausell v. Commonwealth, 165 Va. 669, 688 (1935); Hines v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 674, 679-81 (2016); as summarized in Horne v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2023) |
| Washington | Homicide is justifiable when committed in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is. No person in Washington shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime. A person found not guilty by reason of self-defense must be reimbursed by the state for reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees and other expenses (the claim must be sustained by a preponderance of the evidence; the judge may deny or reduce the award if the defendant engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events). RCW 9A.16.050(2), 9A.16.110 |
| West Virginia | A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using reasonable and proportionate force, including deadly force, against an intruder or attacker to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's or attacker's unlawful entry, if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder or attacker may kill or inflict serious bodily harm upon the occupant or others in the home, or reasonably believes the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home and deadly force is necessary. The lawful occupant has no duty to retreat. Justified use of force is a full and complete defense to any civil action brought by the intruder or attacker, except against a person who was attempting, committing or escaping from a felony, who initially provoked the use of force intending to use it as an excuse to injure the assailant, or who otherwise provoked force and did not withdraw and clearly indicate a desire to end the confrontation. The section does not cover setting hazardous conditions (booby traps) on property. W. Va. Code § 55-7-22(a)-(b), (d)-(f) |
| Wisconsin | If an actor claims self-defense for force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat, and shall presume the actor reasonably believed the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, if the actor was present in his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business (one the actor owns or operates) and knew or reasonably believed that the person against whom force was used was unlawfully and forcibly entering it, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered it. The presumption does not apply if the actor was engaged in criminal activity or using the dwelling, vehicle or business to further criminal activity, or if the person was a public safety worker entering in the performance of official duties who identified himself or herself or whom the actor knew or reasonably should have known was a public safety worker. Wis. Stat. § 939.48(1m) |
| Wyoming | A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury when using defensive force, including deadly force, if the intruder was unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, another's home or habitation (or was removing or attempting to remove another against his will from it), and the person using force knew or had reason to believe an unlawful and forcible entry or act was occurring. The presumption does not apply if the person against whom force is used has a right to be in or is a lawful resident of the home (such as an owner, lessee or titleholder) and there is no domestic-violence protection injunction or written pretrial no-contact order against that person; if the person being removed is a child or grandchild or in the lawful custody or guardianship of the person against whom force is used; or if that person is a peace officer or Department of Corrections employee entering in the performance of official duties. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another's home or habitation is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. 'Habitation' includes any structure designed or adapted for overnight accommodation, including buildings, modular units, trailers, campers and tents. Civil immunity: a person who uses reasonable defensive force under W.S. 6-2-602 is immune from civil action for that force; the person may obtain a pretrial hearing and the court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, lost income and other expenses if it finds the person immune. W.S. 6-2-602(b)-(d), (g); 6-1-204 |
General legal information, not legal advice. Laws change and local rules can differ; check the linked official source or talk to a lawyer about your situation.