Castle doctrine

A castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a <a href="/facts/Legal_doctrine/q6dS3t2d">legal doctrine</a> that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place (for example, an automobile or a home) as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including <a href="/facts/Deadly_force/wTY17cGB">deadly force</a>) to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used. The term is most commonly used in the <a href="/facts/United_States/P0sCdLe5">United States</a>, though many other countries invoke comparable principles in their laws.
Depending on the location, a person may have a <a href="/facts/Duty_to_retreat/qm8kW1lf">duty to retreat</a> to avoid violence if one can reasonably do so. Castle doctrines lessen the duty to retreat when an individual is assaulted within one's own home. Deadly force may either be <a href="/facts/Justifiable_homicide/30QVBWlw">justified</a>, the <a href="/facts/Prima_facie/S6wjxJk5">burdens of production</a> and <a href="/facts/Burden_of_proof_(law)/0vyE7MjA">proof</a> for charges impeded, or an <a href="/facts/Affirmative_defense/7Vz1Hvs8">affirmative defense</a> against <a href="/facts/Criminal_homicide/DshYlIoD">criminal homicide</a> applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears <a href="/facts/Imminent_peril/Ebn2rt2T">imminent peril</a> of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another." The castle doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which may be incorporated in some form in many jurisdictions. Castle doctrines may not provide civil immunity, such as from <a href="/facts/Wrongful_death/9Ua5NWGE">wrongful death</a> suits, which have a much lower <a href="/facts/Burden_of_proof_(law)/0vyE7MjA">burden of proof</a>.
Justifiable homicide, is a legally blameless killing in self-defense. A justifiable homicide that occurs within the home is distinct as <a href="/facts/Question_of_law/DwkWTbF3">a matter of law</a> from castle doctrine, because the mere occurrence of <a href="/facts/Trespassing/8SAH8dNB">trespassing</a>—and occasionally a <a href="/facts/Subjectivity/XVvftgCU">subjective</a> requirement of fear—is sufficient to invoke the castle doctrine, under which the <a href="/facts/Legal_burden_of_proof/0vyE7MjA">burden of proof</a> of <a href="/facts/Fact_(law)/DwkWTbF3">fact</a> is much less challenging than that of justifying homicide in self-defense. However, the existence in a legal code of such a provision (of justifiable homicide in self-defense pertaining to one's <a href="/facts/Domicile_(law)/K7Ba7Hs2">domicile</a>) does not imply the creation of a castle doctrine protecting the estate and exonerating any duty to retreat. The use of this legal principle in the United States has been controversial in relation to a number of cases in which it has been invoked, including the deaths of Japanese exchange student <a href="/facts/Yoshihiro_Hattori/Pae4M8CY">Yoshihiro Hattori</a> and Scottish businessman Andrew de Vries.

Castle doctrine open-in-new

Castle doctrine