What is Castle Doctrine?
The Castle Doctrine derives from the common law "castle" or "dwelling" exception to the general duty-to-retreat-before-using-deadly force rule. The rule originated in England and was adopted in the United States in the 1800’s. The original versions of the exceptions were limited to protecting one’s home, business, or personal imperatives. Over time, however, the rationale of the privilege broadened. State legislatures gave their own interpretations, and many enacted "Stand Your Ground" laws allowing the use of deadly self-defense wherever there is a reasonable belief of an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury. Georgia’s law is essentially a hybrid version that preserves the duty-to-retreat-not-impede-innocents before applying the "Stand Your Ground" privilege—except when the encounter occurs in the defender’s "habitation."
Georgia enacted its "Stand Your Ground" self-defense law in 2006. The legislature included the Castle Doctrine elements within the context of that law while retaining the common law duty-to-retreat-not-impede-innocents provision where feasible. And so the doctrinal confusion still lingers.
The original version in the 1600’s was limited to living spaces. However , contemporary interpretations by Georgia courts have applied the Castle Doctrine to arm one’s vehicle or even one’s person as super personal "habitations." Though, really it should be needed only where the defender earns the right to be there. If so, the duty-to-retreat-not-impede-innocents generally does not apply, with the notable exception of where an encounter occurs in a public place of public accommodation. For that location, the duty remains without the Castle Doctrine’s protection.
Self-defense privileges protect a person’s subjective belief that his or her life is in danger of death or great bodily harm. These doctrines impose a duty on all of us to keep our composure and call the police. Being able to apply the homicide law to automobile debris and parking lots—specifically the Castle Doctrine—inappropriately encourages self-defense, especially among untrained and reckless persons.
Details of Georgia’s Castle Doctrine
The Castle Doctrine law in Georgia is found at code section § 16-3-23.1. In the state of Georgia, the Castle Doctrine allows for a person to use reasonable force if they reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to themselves or a third person, or in the course of a burglary, robbery, or other forcible entry, based on instruction within that code section, and defined below:
- (2) "Dwelling" means a dwelling house, an attached porch, and any appurtenant or detached building. Such term does not include any place of temporary lodging.
- (3) "Stand your ground" means that a person has no duty to retreat, and has the right to use force, including deadly force, if such person is in a place where such person is lawfully present and reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent a violent attack upon himself or herself.
- (4) "Occupied vehicle" means a motor vehicle, trailer, or watercraft in which a person is physically present and whose interior is partially or completely enclosed.
The language in this Georgia law is somewhat unique to other states with similar castle doctrine laws. It sets out more explicitly when one can use deadly force without first trying to retreat, and the kind of places where one is entitled to be (e.g., the home or the car or the watercraft, to name some examples).
Legal Protections Established by the Castle Doctrine
Individuals in Georgia enjoy legal protection under the Castle Doctrine Law when they are justified in using physical force to counter perceived threats. While it is generally not up to private citizens to enforce the law, there are a few notable exceptions. Section 3 of the law clearly indicates that individuals who use force are not protected if they leave the safety of their home in order to do so. The following are justifiable reasons to use such force if necessary:
• To prevent the violent entry of an attacker into their home or property (this also applies while at their workplace, vehicle or other place of business);
• To avoid the perceived infliction of severe bodily harm, for which the attacker could be presumed to act;
• To protect or defend another from the threat of injury, a crime involving force or violence or to protect a person who is harmless but is about to be attacked;
• To use force against an intruder into a building or vehicle that contains a person who has the legal right to be in that place. Once again, exceptions apply if the people have previously authorized the intruder to enter the premises or if the occupants caused the incident leading to the potential fight of which they needed to avoid.
In Georgia, people also have the right to use deadly force under the Castle Doctrine Law if they feel threatened or believe that they are in imminent danger. However, it is important to understand that they must also reasonably believe that they are not committing a crime during and immediately before the threat. Examples of "reasonably believes" include a spouse only using deadly force if a sword or knife is directly at their side; many feel this is because while deadly force can be used when under attack from stabbing weapons, it can be used while breaking or trying to break in. Using weapons like kitchen knives is still considered to be a deadly force that is only permitted based on the circumstances.
Limitations & Controversies
However, the Castle Doctrine is not without limitations and controversies. For instance, there has been debate on whether the Castle Doctrine applies only to one’s home or one’s car, or if it also applies to when a person is in a public space, such as a bar, and a confrontation occurs. In other words, what kind of legal protections does a concealed carry permit holder have if he or she is attacked unprovoked in a bar? Under Georgia law, an individual cannot use the Castle Doctrine to defend against an assault and battery when in a public place such as a bar.
Moreover, it does not apply outside of your home, land or car, and not if the person is negligently or recklessly being a bother. This means that the person cannot provoke the altercation with the threat of violence, provoke the victim with legal harassment and expect to reasonably claim self-defense, as again this is only if you are not the initial aggressor.
There has also been criticism that individuals can now claim self-defense when in fact, they may have had other motivations for their behavior in firing a gun. Unlike the "Stand Your Ground" law, which is less restrictive, there is actually a duty to retreat and avoid a confrontation unless one is in a place where they have a right to be and must confront, such as in one’s home. The question has been raised whether the person had the intent to kill the person in the first place in claiming self-defense as a way to gain immunity from prosecution.
There is a huge concern that people may now act recklessly and without forethought when possessing a gun, knowing that if they do end up using it, they may have some legal protection and not have to fully face the consequences of their actions.
Case Studies and Examples
Consider the case of Ancrum v. State, 291 Ga. App. 639 (2008). In the case Mr. Ancrum was confronting a crowd and Mr. Wallace shot and killed him with a gun. It was a gang related fight. Mr. Wallace was charged with murder. Wallace claimed that he acted in self-defense. The Georgia Court of Appeals found that there was plenty of evidence that the act was done with malice afterthought and Mr. Wallace was convicted of Aggravated Assault. In Jones v. State, 282 Ga. App. 486 (2007), the Appeal Court gave us a very good understanding of the Castle Doctrine law. In Jones, the Appellant, responded to a fight between his daughter and the victim of the case. When Mr. Jones arrived on the scene, he saw the victim leaving and Mr. Jones bumped the his car with his own car. An altercation commenced and Mr. Jones pulled out a gun and shot the man. The court found that the act solely occurred as it was the man’s intent to cause serious bodily injury and that the act constituted malice afterthought. In Smith v. State , 194 Ga. App. 757 (1990), a violent encounter arose over a drug deal. During the scuffle, Mr. Smith pulled out a gun and shot and killed the man. His defense was self-defense. The Court of Appeal found that there was no reasonable chance of acquittal and affirmed the trial court. In Joseph v. State, 288 Ga. App. 827 (2008), The Court of Appeals made another interesting decision. In this case, Mr. Joseph found his wife’s father in the residence and began to hit her father while she was attempting to separate the men. Mr. Joseph then pulled out a gun and shot and killed his wife’s father. Mr. Joseph further attempted to shoot his wife whom he claimed was holding a gun during the confrontation. It further appears that Mr. Joseph made prior threats against his wife and had a history of domestic violence. The Court affirmed the conviction on the basis of domestic violence and affirming the malice afterthought.
Strategies to Prepare Legally for the Use of Deadly Force
Georgia law provides a number of these defenses. The "Stand Your Ground" law states that in no instance do you have to retreat or pull back your force against an aggressor. If someone approaches and they break the law, you have just cause for meeting out lethal force in defense of your own safety.
The "Castle Doctrine" states that you have the right to protect yourself from an intruder in your home without having to flee, remove yourself from the situation, etc. As with any self-defense situation, there are some important legal considerations. As defined by OCGA § 16-3-23.1, you have the right to stand your ground without retreating when you have reasonable belief of imminent and unavoidable danger that demonstrates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death.
Self-defense situations can be tricky, but one thing that is clear from the onset is that a self-defense attorney Atlanta will be able to help you if you ever invoke these laws. This also extends to a "justifiable homicide" under OCGA § 16-3-21. It’s highly recommended that you seek out representation in these matters, as self-defense situations can get complicated quickly. Always consult with an experienced self-defense attorney before you invoke these defenses.
How Georgia’s Castle Doctrine Compares to Other States
Georgia’s Castle Doctrine law has some similarities, but some important differences, from those in other states throughout the nation. Some 23 states have enacted similar laws allowing individuals to use force, including deadly force, against an intruder without an obligation to retreat. However, even those states that have laws that fall under the general banner of the "Castle Doctrine" still employ unique legal language. The case law also varies from state to state.
Although individual state laws differ on the particulars, most Castle Doctrine statutes were passed to address the impacts of the so-called "duty to retreat." Under these laws, there is no obligation to retreat when an individual is threatened with unlawful force. The statutes have become even more far-reaching, however, given the recent trend of "stand your ground" laws which have eliminated the duty to retreat, even in non-home settings.
Although the presumption of reasonable fear and the right to use deadly force are similar under all such laws, each state provides certain exceptions. Many states do not allow individuals the presumption of reasonable fear or the right to use force if:
Some states also specify that their laws are not a "justification" or "defense" – a minor, but still significant, distinction between them and Georgia law. Moreover, some of the laws indicate that invoking the law does not create immunity from civil or criminal liability. Most agree, however, about how the use of force should be calculated:
Georgia law and case law are still being shaped, particularly in application of the law to specific factual situations. Even initial jurisprudence indicates that Georgia will not extend the protection of the doctrine if the defendant was able to retreat with complete safety. In this way, Georgia law appears more restrictive than some other states that have enacted the laws. Georgia’s statute, unlike those in many other states such as Texas, Florida, and Alabama, does not explicitly excuse individuals from criminal liability if they acted in self-defense. Georgia courts, however, have indicated that a presumption of a reasonable threat can be created.
The Future of the Castle Doctrine in Georgia
An ongoing debate regarding the Castle Doctrine in Georgia concerns whether it should extend beyond one’s home or occupied vehicle. The current law is somewhat more limited than laws otherwise, which define dwellings more broadly to include houseboats, mobile homes, trailers, tents, and occupied vehicles.
Some Georgia lawmakers have introduced bills to widen the scope of dwelling. They also might broaden the range of people who can potentially raise the defense and widen the scope of illegal entries protected by Castle Doctrine. In evaluating the current state of the law and its potential expansion, lawmakers look at several factors to determine whether the law reflects current social attitudes (and whether the law can be reversed without adverse consequences). These factors include:
- factors that make people feel less safe today than in the past,
- concepts that have prevailed for a long time, and
- the views of respected entities such as the legal community, civic leaders , and respected citizens.
If opinion surveys indicate that people believe it is less safe to walk the streets in Georgia today than several decades ago, lawmakers may conclude that the Castle Doctrine law should be broadened. Lawmakers may rely on data compiled by independent agencies such as the Uniform Crime Reporting program of the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Legislators might also seek the advice of respected authorities to determine if and how the law should be broadened. In 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee assembled a panel of legal experts to study the issue of whether the scope of Georgia’s Castle Doctrine law should be expanded. In 2008, the committee rejected a bill to expand the law to cover people entering vehicles and boat docks. Since then, lawmakers make still seek the advice of legal experts to determine whether Castle Doctrine laws in general reflect public attitudes and whether the law in Georgia should be broadened.