5

This is specifically about Colorado (US), but I'll take an answer for other US states with similar laws.

I know that the castle doctrine says that I can protect my "castle", that is to say, my home. So if an intruder breaks into my house, I have the right to shoot them. I read the relevant 'stand your ground' law (CRS 18-1-704.5) and it's pretty clear that the right extends to any occupant against "another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling." - subsection (2)

The hypothetical situation is this: Alice is woken up by a noise in the middle of the night. She looks out the windows and sees Bob trespassing in her backyard. Bob has with him a red gasoline can and a lighter. He is in the process of pouring the gasoline against the side of Alice's house. Alice comes to the conclusion that Bob is attempting to burn her house down, with her and her family in it. Alice gets her gun and shoots Bob from her bedroom window.

Is Alice immune from prosecution for her use of deadly force due to Colorado's stand your ground rules?

  • Since Bob had not "made an unlawful entry into the dwelling", it seems like CRS 18-1-704.5 should not apply. He has trespassed in the yard, but not the house; the house is the dwelling, the yard is not. So while Alice may have been in fear for her life (and that of her family), she is not necessarily immune to prosecution for her use of deadly force based on this law.

  • However, subsection (1) of this law says: "The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes." If Bob had succeeded in setting the house on fire, Alice's "right to ... absolute safety" would have been violated. So it seems like the legislators' intent was that Alice has the right to protect her house, to preserve her safety within it, and therefore it should apply to the situation where the other party's actions are directly threatening it.

Can someone shed light on this scenario? Does my right to protect my "castle" only extend to people who break into it, and not people who are attacking it directly from outside?

Improve this question
New contributor
Roddy of the Frozen Peas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
11

Generally speaking, the "findings" that may precede a law provide valuable context but don't override the plain language of that law. It's possible that one could argue that setting fire to a dwelling is in some way "entering" it, but in the absence of that element, 18-1-704.5 does not apply.

The good news for Alice is that there are other elements to Colorado's self-defense law. 18-1-705 "Use of physical force in defense of premises" expressly authorizes the use of force, up to deadly force, to prevent arson or serious injury to a person inside a structure. And there is also a generalized defense of self-defense (18-1-704) and the catch-all doctrine of "choice of evils" (18-1-702).

The distinction is that the "castle doctrine" law offers the strongest possible protection for the defendant - the prosecutor is barred from bringing charges in the first place. General self-defense is a lesser protection but still potent; the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor to demonstrate that the use of force was not justified.

In practice, I suspect that a combination of the strong case for self-defense along with skirting the edge of the castle doctrine (to the point that a judge could plausibly rule that the prosecution was not in fact permitted) would prevent the prosecutor from bringing charges in the first place. However, that would be up to their discretion.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.