HINTON 1

Melissa Jean Hinton Professor Courtney Joiner Criminal Justice 2093 Chapter 5 Project 29 September 2013
Castle Doctrine/Exception Castle Exception is a retreat rule that recognizes a persons fundamental right to be in his or her home and also recognizes the home as a final and inviolable place to retreat. It is not necessary to retreat from ones home in the face of an immediate threat, even where retreat is possible, before resorting to deadly force in protection of the home. (Criminal Law Today: An Introduction With Capstone Cases). This protects a victim against the retreat rule in which they are required to avoid any necessary force if they can get away completely safely. By 2007, fifteen states had adopted the Castle Doctrine, now 47 other states have enacted these Castle Laws. Generally speaking, they had at least one of these requirements: 1. They remove the duty to retreat from an aggressor using force or deadly force under certain circumstances. The states vary in how broadly this applies. For example, Alaska expands the types of premises where a person does not have a duty to retreat when using force in defense of self to include any place the person resides, a place where he is a guest, and his workplace. The Alaska law also applies to protecting a child or member of the person's household, regardless of location. 2. Kansas removes the duty to retreat from its use of force statutes and adds a general statement that a person not engaged in illegal activity who is attacked in a place where he has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force.

HINTON 2 3. Some states add a legal presumption about when a person is justified in using force against intruders. For example, Florida added a presumption that a person using force had a reasonable fear of death or serious injury to himself or another if (a) the person against whom he used force was illegally and forcefully entering a dwelling or occupied vehicle, was in the process of doing so, or removed or was attempting to remove a person against his will and (b) the person using force knew or had reason to believe this was occurring. These presumptions, which vary by state, have exceptions and do not apply under specified circumstances, such as when (a) the person force is used against had a right to be in the dwelling or was a lawful resident, (b) the person using force was engaged in illegal activity, or (c) the person force is used against is a law enforcement officer performing his duties who identified himself or the person using force knew or should have known the person was an officer. 4. Some states, such as Florida, include a presumption that a person who illegally or forcefully enters or attempts to enter a dwelling or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with intent to commit an illegal act involving force or violence. 5. Many of the bills provide immunity from criminal prosecution for a person who legally uses force or deadly force. This can apply to arrest, detention in custody, charging, and prosecuting. Some also specify that law enforcement is authorized to use standard procedures to investigate but cannot arrest the person unless there is probable cause that the use of force was unlawful. 6. Many also provide immunity from civil actions for a person who is justified in using force or deadly physical force. They require a court to award reasonable attorney's fees, costs, compensation for lost income, and expenses if the court finds that the person acted lawfully and is immune from prosecution. (Christopher Reinhart). Under Connecticut laws, a person may protect himself or a third party (reasonable force) in his home or office or property. However, they may not use physical force to resist arrest by a reasonably identifiable peace officer, whether the arrest is illegal or not. (CGS 53a-23) Barnes V. State: The Castle Doctrine was a case in which Mary Barnes called 911 to report that she was being physically abused by her husband, Richard Barnes. When officers arrived, Richard acted hostile towards officers during which time he indicated that he and his wife were not in need of a police presence. Officers were physically blocked by Richard and one officer was pushed into a wall. At that time officers tased Richard and his reaction to it required his hospitalization. Richard argued that his rights were violated when the police officers entered his home unlawfully. However, according to the Attorney General:

HINTON 3 While a citizen has a right to reasonably resist unlawful entry that right, does not include battery or other violent acts against law enforcement. The court also adopted the Attorney Generals assertion that encounters between law enforcement officers and suspected criminals must be judged on their individual facts and maintained its position that the Castle Doctrine is not a defense to the crime of battery or other violent acts on a police officer. The court explicitly left open the door for the General Assembly to create additional statutory defenses that would apply in cases like this one. (Indiana Code sections 35-42-2-1(a)(1)(B), 35-41-3-2(b)) (Laramore) While the Castle Doctrine is meant to protect homeowners from a life threatening situation inside of their dwelling, it does not mean that their cases will not have to be proved in court. This is a type of justifiable defense that can be used during home or office and property invasions where the victim is genuinely afraid for their, or others, life or well-being.

HINTON 4

Works Cited
Christopher Reinhart, Senior Attorney. Connecticut General Assembly. n.d. <http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-r-0052.htm>. "Criminal Law Today: An Introduction With Capstone Cases." Schmalleger. Pearson, 2006. 176. Laramore, Jon. "Indiana Constitutional Developments: Debtors, Placements, and The Castle Doctrine." Indiana Law Review Vol. 45.1043 (2012): 1049-1050. <http://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/ilr/pdf/vol45p1043.pdf>.