This is the fourth article in a multi-part series on Firearms and Self-defense Law.  In this article, we will discuss the Castle Doctrine and explain why I believe the typical broad interpretation of the statute is risky.

To reiterate, I am not an attorney and anything written in these articles should not be construed as legal advice.  While I have taken a number of law classes, done extensive research and vetted this information through an attorney, I am not an expert and in no way should be considered one.  If you have any questions regarding what I have written or desire legal advice, I recommend you seek a competent firearms and self-defense attorney.  Furthermore, if any attorney reads these articles and would like to add their input, please feel free and I will pass on the information in subsequent articles.  I only ask that you include legal references with your comments so we may all learn.  These articles are intended to help educate current and future gun owners so they can make better and more informed decisions regarding gun ownership and the application of force in self-defense.

To begin with, we need to frame out the current legal environment as regards the Castle Doctrine.  By now, if you have kept up with this series, you would know that there are two types of law; Common Law and Statutory Law.  You would also know that Legislatures define Statutory Law but Common Law is defined by tradition and prior legal cases.  In the case of the NC Castle Doctrine, to date there have been no legal cases that define the scope of the statute.  Thus, when it comes to defining our right to self-defense as it pertains to the Castle Doctrine, we have no prior court opinions to guide our actions.  This is the primary reason that I caution students against broadly interpreting the Castle Doctrine.  Rather, I recommend we use a more conservative interpretation to guide our actions.

Before we go into the details, let’s review the Castle Doctrine statute.  NC General Statute 14-51.3 states;

The 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 if

• The person against whom defensive force was used had unlawfully entered or was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering a home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or
  • That person had or was attempting to remove another against their will, and
  • The person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful act was occurring.

Upon initial reading, one could easily come to the conclusion that if an individual unlawfully and forceably entered one’s domicile, deadly force is justified.  This is the interpretation that I often hear from other instructors or firearms owners.  However, I think is this a risky interpretation and let me explain why.  The interpretation that one has the right to use deadly force if someone unlawfully and forcibly enters your domicile can only be justified if one ignores all other parts of NC use of force law.  Remember back the to four requirements for justified use of deadly force that we discussed in the previous article.

• The individual being attacked believes that they are under imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault.
• Other individuals, being of sound mind, would hold the same belief.
• The individual claiming self-defense was not the instigator or aggressor in the situation.
• The defender used only such force as necessary to stop the attack and did not use excessive force.

All four of these MUST be satisfied before deadly force is justified.  Based on the statutory definition of the Castle Doctrine, only the first of these four is satisfied.  The remaining three must be proven.

Let me give you an example that demonstrates how a broad interpretation could be risky.  First let’s describe the environment.  The house is two stories with master bedroom upstairs and family room downstairs.  The occupants are husband and wife only.  Time is middle of the night.  Both husband and wife are asleep upstairs in the master bedroom.  Now the situation.  An intruder unlawfully and forcibly enters the domicile through the front door and proceeds to the family room with the intention of stealing electronics.  The occupants of the home are awakened by the noise and conclude one or more individuals have broken into the home.

At this point, the Castle Doctrine is applicable and as stated in the statute, it is presumed the occupants have a “reasonable fear” of grievous bodily harm.

Continuing, the husband acquires his shotgun, proceeds downstairs, confronts the intruder, and shoots and kills the intruder.

Here is where we have to take a quick jump to the next article on the requirements for claiming self-defense.  Two of the five requirements that must be present to claim self-defense are Imminence (imminent threat of death….) and Reasonableness.  When assessing Imminence, the three components are Ability, Opportunity, and Intent and all three of these must be present to have Imminence.  When assessing Reasonableness, one asks would another person of sound mind (typically the jury) do the same thing?

Now back to our intruder and the problems I see with the broad interpretation of the Castle Doctrine.

1. Although the statute assumes the occupant(s) “held a reasonable fear”, an argument can be made that Imminence has not been satisfied due to lack of Opportunity.  The intruder is downstairs and the husband and wife are upstairs.  Thus, the intruder does not have the Opportunity to do grievous bodily harm.
2. The second requirement for the use of deadly force is that other people would agree that the action to use deadly force was reasonable and appropriate.  In our situation, it can be argued that the husband “going hunting” for the intruder is not what most people would view as reasonable and appropriate.  If the jury then agrees with this argument, the husband fails on the standard of Reasonableness for claiming self-defense.
3. Again, referring back to the four requirements for use of deadly force, the individual claiming self-defense cannot be the instigator or aggressor in the fight.  In this situation, it can be argued that the husband was the aggressor because he left his safe confines of the master bedroom with the intent to confront the intruder.

In this situation, I think the more prudent course of action would be to close the bedroom door, get behind cover, call the police, and engage the intruder only if he proceeds upstairs and enters the bedroom.  In which case, a strong argument can be made for satisfying the four requirements for use of deadly force and deadly force was used only as a last resort.

In conclusion, please understand that this is my interpretation given the situation I defined.  If the situation changes, then the response may change, however, the requirements to articulate the reason for use of deadly force based on the legal standard does not change.

Copyright Neblett & Associates, LLC 2021