EnglishEspañol

Self-Defense Laws by State: Stand Your Ground & Castle Doctrine (2026)

Independently fact-checked Editor-reviewed Law current as of August 17, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished June 2, 2026Reviewed August 17, 202617 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 41 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Self-Defense Laws by State: Stand Your Ground & Castle Doctrine (2026)

Key Takeaways

1About 38 states are stand-your-ground states (by statute or case law), meaning a person has no duty to retreat before using force in any place they are lawfully present.
2The remaining states (CT, DE, HI, ME, MD, MA, MN, NE, NJ, NY, RI, WI, plus mixed/conditional rules in PA, VT, and DC) impose some duty to retreat in public spaces.
3Castle doctrine protects the right to use force, including deadly force, inside the home without retreating; many states extend this to occupied vehicles and workplaces.
4Deadly force is generally justified when a person reasonably believes they face imminent death or great bodily harm; aggressors and initial provokers generally cannot claim self-defense.
5About 30 states grant statutory civil and criminal immunity from prosecution and civil suit when a use-of-force claim is found valid at an immunity hearing.
6Recent legislative changes include Ohio SB175 (2021), North Dakota HB1498 (2021), South Dakota HB1212 (2021), and Alabama's Act 2026-493 (HB192, signed April 15, 2026), which creates a rebuttable presumption, effective October 1, 2026 and not yet in force, that force was not justified if the defendant disposed of the weapon used rather than turning it over to law enforcement.
7Because use-of-force incidents carry both criminal and civil consequences, the legal outcome is always fact-specific; consult a licensed criminal-defense attorney before relying on any self-defense doctrine.

Self-defense law gives a person the legal right to use force, including deadly force, to protect themselves from imminent harm. About 38 states eliminate any duty to retreat before using force; the remaining states impose some duty to retreat in public, though every state recognizes the castle doctrine at home.

Information last verified on June 1, 2026.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses self-defense law across all 50 US states and the District of Columbia as of June 1, 2026. It covers stand-your-ground doctrine, castle doctrine, duty-to-retreat rules, deadly-force standards, and civil immunity statutes. It does not address federal self-defense law, military rules of engagement, or self-defense doctrines outside the United States.

The Three Doctrines Explained: Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat, and Castle Doctrine

Three related but distinct doctrines govern when and where a person may use force in self-defense. Stand-your-ground doctrine removes any legal obligation to retreat before using force when a person is in a place they are lawfully allowed to be. Duty-to-retreat doctrine, by contrast, requires a person to attempt retreat if they can do so safely before resorting to force, at least when the confrontation occurs in a public space. Castle doctrine is the oldest of the three and operates specifically within the home, a person's "castle," where the law has never required retreat; many states have codified it and extended the protection to occupied vehicles, workplaces, and sometimes any curtilage.

These three doctrines interact with a universal element: the reasonableness standard. A person invoking self-defense must have had a reasonable belief that force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Stand-your-ground and castle doctrine do not change the reasonableness requirement; they remove only the threshold obligation to flee first. The governing statutes vary significantly in how broadly they define "lawfully present," what locations qualify for the castle presumption, and whether a statutory immunity from prosecution applies at an early hearing before trial.

Stand-Your-Ground States vs. Duty-to-Retreat States

Roughly 38 states follow a stand-your-ground rule either by explicit statute or by binding case law. Florida codified the doctrine in 2005 through ; Arizona enacted a parallel statute at ARS section 13-405; and Texas does so at Tex. Penal Code section 9.31. Several other states reached the same result through case law without a formal statute. Colorado courts have long held there is no duty to retreat in Colorado, though the legislature codified a "Make My Day" law (C.R.S. section 18-1-704.5) confined to dwellings.

an hourglass on a desk beside a closed folder in soft window light

The duty-to-retreat states are Connecticut (CGS section 53a-19), Delaware (11 Del. C. section 464), Hawaii (HRS section 703-304), Maine (17-A M.R.S. section 108), Maryland (common law, Akers v. State 2025), Massachusetts (G.L. c. 278 section 8A and common law), Minnesota (), Nebraska (Neb. Rev. Stat. section 28-1409), New Jersey (N.J.S.A. section 2C:3-4), New York (NY Penal Law section 35.15), Rhode Island (R.I.G.L. section 11-8-8), and Wisconsin (). Pennsylvania, Vermont, and the District of Columbia apply mixed or conditional rules: duty to retreat applies in some circumstances but not others. Alaska enacted a full stand-your-ground rule in 2013 under AS 11.81.335 and no longer imposes a duty to retreat in public.

Even in duty-to-retreat states, retreat is never required if a person cannot retreat safely. Every jurisdiction recognizes that a person need not risk their own safety in the act of retreating.

Castle Doctrine and the Presumption of Reasonable Fear

Castle doctrine holds that a person defending their home has no duty to retreat and may use force, including deadly force, against an unlawful intruder. In many states, the statute goes further and creates a presumption that the homeowner had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm whenever an intruder forcibly and unlawfully enters. This presumption shifts the burden: the prosecution must disprove reasonable fear rather than the defendant proving it.

a wall-mounted analog clock in a courthouse hallway with marble floors

Florida's castle doctrine is codified at , which creates a presumption of reasonable fear when the defendant "knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred." Michigan's MCL section 780.951 creates the same presumption. Texas Penal Code section 9.32(b) provides a presumption when an intruder unlawfully entered or was attempting to enter the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment.

States differ considerably on how far the castle extends beyond the home. Many states, including Georgia (), Indiana (IC section 35-41-3-2), Iowa (Iowa Code section 704.2A), Kentucky (), and Michigan (MCL section 780.951), expressly include an occupied vehicle. Oklahoma (21 O.S. section 1289.25), South Carolina (S.C. Code section 16-11-440), and Tennessee (T.C.A. section 39-11-611) add the workplace to the protected locations. States such as Maine, New Jersey, and New York limit the castle protection to the dwelling with no vehicle or workplace extension.

When Deadly Force Is Justified and When Self-Defense Fails

Across all 51 jurisdictions, deadly force is justified only when a person reasonably believes it is immediately necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury to themselves or another person. "Reasonable belief" is an objective standard evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable person in the same situation; it is not purely subjective.

Self-defense claims fail in several well-established circumstances. First, the initial aggressor rule bars self-defense for a person who provokes or initiates the confrontation, unless that person clearly withdraws from the fight and communicates that withdrawal. Second, the excessive-force rule bars a deadly-force response to a threat that was not deadly; a person struck with a fist generally cannot respond with a firearm and claim self-defense. Third, some states apply a mutual combat bar, where two people who willingly engage in a fight cannot independently claim self-defense. Fourth, voluntary intoxication is not a defense to criminal charges and may undercut the reasonableness of the claimed belief.

Watch out: Even in a stand-your-ground state, a person who verbally provokes a confrontation and then escalates it to deadly force has likely forfeited the stand-your-ground protection. The initial aggressor rule applies regardless of retreat doctrine.

Civil and Criminal Immunity

About 30 states have enacted statutory immunity provisions that allow a defendant to seek dismissal before trial at an immunity hearing. Florida's immunity statute is at Fla. Stat. section 776.032, which bars criminal prosecution and civil suit when the stand-your-ground defense applies. Indiana's civil immunity provision (IC section 34-30-31) was added in 2019. Colorado's "Make My Day" law at C.R.S. section 18-1-704.5 grants both criminal and civil immunity. Alabama's Ala. Code section 13A-3-23 will be amended effective October 1, 2026 by Act 2026-493 (HB192, signed April 15, 2026) to add a rebuttable presumption that a defendant's use of force was not justified if the defendant concealed, altered, destroyed, or otherwise disposed of the weapon used, other than by voluntarily turning it over to law enforcement. The immunity-hearing burden of proof itself is unchanged: the defendant must prove justification by a preponderance of the evidence.

a closed law book with a faded ribbon marker resting on a bench

States without a statutory immunity provision, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont, leave defendants to assert self-defense as an affirmative defense at trial rather than obtaining pre-trial dismissal.

The presence of criminal immunity does not automatically bar a civil lawsuit in every state. Florida's section 776.032 bars both, but in states where only criminal immunity exists, a person found criminally justified may still face a wrongful-death or battery claim.

Recent Changes to Stand-Your-Ground and Castle Laws

Several significant legislative changes have occurred since 2021.

a quiet suburban street at dusk with warm porch lights along the houses

Ohio SB175 (effective April 6, 2021) eliminated Ohio's former duty to retreat, making Ohio a stand-your-ground state. The amendment is codified at . It also provides at section 2901.05 that the prosecution bears the burden of disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

North Dakota HB1498 (effective August 1, 2021) enacted a statewide no-retreat rule. The relevant provision is at NDCC section 12.1-05-07.1, which allows use of force in any location where the person is lawfully present.

Alabama Act 2026-493 (HB192, signed April 15, 2026) amends Ala. Code section 13A-3-23 effective October 1, 2026 (not yet in force). The change adds a rebuttable presumption that a defendant's use of force was not justified if the defendant concealed, altered, destroyed, or otherwise disposed of the weapon used, rather than voluntarily turning it over to law enforcement. It does not alter the existing immunity-hearing burden, which remains on the defendant to prove justification by a preponderance of the evidence.

Utah H.B. 189 (2024) expanded the castle presumption to cover the person's occupied vehicle under Utah Code section 76-2-405.

South Dakota HB1212 (2021), codified at , established a no-duty-to-retreat rule for the use of non-deadly force in self-defense. The statute's text does not extend the no-retreat rule to deadly force or establish a castle-doctrine presumption.

Self-Defense Laws by State: 51-Jurisdiction Comparison Table

The table below summarizes the stand-your-ground status, public duty-to-retreat rule, castle doctrine scope, and key governing statute for all 50 states and DC. State names link to the full spoke page for that jurisdiction.

State	Stand your ground?	Duty to retreat (public)?	Castle doctrine scope	Key statute
Alabama	Yes (statute)	No	Home, vehicle, workplace; presumption yes	Ala. Code 13A-3-23
Alaska	Yes (statute)	No	Home, workplace; no presumption	AS 11.81.335
Arizona	Yes (statute)	No	Home, any lawful place; felony-prevention presumption	ARS 13-405, 13-411
Arkansas	Yes (statute)	No	Home, vehicle, premises; no statutory presumption	ACA 5-2-607, 5-2-608
California	No statutory SYG	No (in practice, via CALCRIM 505)	Home only; presumption under PC 198.5	Cal. PC 197-199, 198.5
Colorado	Yes (case law)	No	Dwelling only; "Make My Day" criminal and civil immunity	CRS 18-1-704, 18-1-704.5
Connecticut	No	Yes	Home, workplace; no presumption	CGS 53a-19
Delaware	No	Yes	Home, workplace; no presumption	11 Del. C. 464
Florida	Yes (statute)	No	Dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle; presumption yes	, 776.013, 776.032
Georgia	Yes (statute)	No	Home, occupied vehicle, business	, 16-3-23, 16-3-23.1
Hawaii	No	Yes	Home, business; no presumption	HRS 703-304
Idaho	Yes (statute)	No	Home, business, vehicle; presumption yes	, 19-202A
Illinois	Yes (case law)	No	Home only; no presumption	720 ILCS 5/7-1, 5/7-2
Indiana	Yes (statute)	No	Dwelling, curtilage, occupied vehicle	IC 35-41-3-2
Iowa	Yes (statute)	No	Dwelling, business, vehicle; presumption yes	Iowa Code 704.2A, 704.3, 704.13
Kansas	Yes (statute)	No	Dwelling, workplace, vehicle	KSA 21-5222, 21-5223
Kentucky	Yes (statute)	No	Dwelling, residence, vehicle	, 503.055
Louisiana	Yes (statute)	No	Home, vehicle, business; presumption yes	La. RS 14:19, 14:20
Maine	No	Yes	Home only; no presumption	17-A M.R.S. 108
Maryland	No (case law)	Yes	Home, curtilage (common law); no statutory presumption	Common law (Akers v. State 2025)
Massachusetts	No	Yes (with exceptions)	Home, business; no presumption	G.L. c. 278 s. 8A
Michigan	Yes (statute)	No	Home, business, occupied vehicle; presumption yes	MCL 780.972, 780.951
Minnesota	No	Yes	Home ("abode") only; no presumption	Minn. Stat. 609.065, 609.06
Mississippi	Yes (statute)	No	Home, vehicle, business; presumption yes	Miss. Code 97-3-15
Missouri	Yes (statute)	No	Home, dwelling, leased premises, occupied vehicle	RSMo 563.031
Montana	Yes (statute)	No	Home ("occupied structure") only; no presumption	MCA 45-3-102, 45-3-103
Nebraska	No	Yes	Home, workplace; no presumption	Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-1409
Nevada	Yes (statute)	No	Home, occupied vehicle; presumption yes	NRS 200.120, 200.130
New Hampshire	Yes (statute)	No	Home, curtilage, anywhere right to be	RSA 627:4
New Jersey	No	Yes	Dwelling only; no presumption	N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4
New Mexico	Yes (case law)	No	Home; no statutory presumption	NMSA 30-2-7
New York	No	Yes	Dwelling only; no presumption	NY Penal Law 35.15
North Carolina	Yes (statute)	No	Home, workplace, vehicle; presumption yes	N.C.G.S. 14-51.2, 14-51.3
North Dakota	Yes (statute)	No	Home, workplace, occupied motorhome or trailer; presumption yes	NDCC 12.1-05-07.1
Ohio	Yes (statute)	No	Home, vehicle; presumption yes	ORC 2901.09, 2901.05
Oklahoma	Yes (statute)	No	Home, vehicle, business, place of worship; presumption yes	21 O.S. 1289.25
Oregon	Yes (case law)	No	Home; no presumption	ORS 161.209, 161.219
Pennsylvania	Mixed	Yes (with exceptions)	Home, workplace, occupied vehicle; presumption yes	18 Pa.C.S. 505
Rhode Island	No	Yes	Home only; presumption yes under 11-8-8	R.I.G.L. 11-8-8
South Carolina	Yes (statute)	No	Home, vehicle, business; presumption yes	S.C. Code 16-11-440, 16-11-450
South Dakota	Yes (non-deadly force only)	No (non-deadly force only)	Home; no presumption established	SDCL 22-18-4
Tennessee	Yes (statute)	No	Home, vehicle, business; presumption yes	T.C.A. 39-11-611, 39-11-622
Texas	Yes (statute)	No	Home, vehicle, business; presumption yes	Tex. Penal Code 9.31, 9.32
Utah	Yes (statute)	No	Home, vehicle, business; presumption yes	Utah Code 76-2-402, 76-2-405
Vermont	Yes (case law)	Yes (with exceptions)	Home (common law)	13 V.S.A. 2305; State v. Hatcher
Virginia	Yes (case law)	No	Home, curtilage (common law)	Common law (Foote; Horne)
Washington	Yes (case law)	No	Home, abode	RCW 9A.16.050
West Virginia	Yes (statute)	No	Home, statewide no-retreat if lawfully present	W. Va. Code 55-7-22
Wisconsin	No (castle presumption only)	Yes (with exceptions)	Home, vehicle, business; presumption yes	Wis. Stat. 939.48
Wyoming	Yes (statute)	No	Home, vehicle, public; presumption yes	W.S. 6-2-602
District of Columbia	Mixed	Yes (with exceptions)	Home (common law)	Common law (Gillis v. US 1979)

Disclaimer: Use-of-force incidents carry serious criminal and civil consequences. Self-defense law is highly fact-specific; the outcome of any particular case depends on the precise facts, the jurisdiction, and how a jury evaluates reasonableness. This article presents general legal information as of June 1, 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Anyone involved in or anticipating a self-defense situation should consult a licensed criminal-defense attorney in their jurisdiction immediately.

Sources

Ala. Code section 13A-3-23, Self-defense (as amended by Act 2026-493). https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/
AS 11.81.335, Justification: Use of force in defense of self. https://www.akleg.gov/basis/statutes.asp#11.81.335
ARS 13-405, Justification; use of deadly physical force. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00405.htm
ACA 5-2-607 and 5-2-608, Justification - Use of physical force; use of deadly physical force. https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/
Cal. Penal Code sections 197-199, 198.5, Justifiable homicide; lawful resistance; presumption for home. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=198.5.&lawCode=PEN
C.R.S. 18-1-704 and 18-1-704.5, Use of physical force in defense; use of deadly force against intruder. https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/images/olls/crs2023-title-18.pdf
CGS 53a-19, Use of physical force in defense of person. https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_952.htm
11 Del. C. section 464, Justification - Use of force in self-protection. https://delcode.delaware.gov/title11/c004/sc02/
Fla. Stat. sections 776.012, 776.013, 776.032, Use of force; home protection; immunity. https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2023/776.032
OCGA sections 16-3-21, 16-3-23, 16-3-23.1, 16-3-24.2, Use of force; defense of habitation; immunity. https://law.georgia.gov/
HRS 703-304, Use of force in self-protection. https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS_0703-0304.htm
Idaho Code sections 18-4009, 19-202A, Justifiable homicide; civil immunity. https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title18/T18CH40/SECT18-4009/
720 ILCS 5/7-1 and 5/7-2, Use of force in defense of person; defense of dwelling. https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt.+7&ActID=1876
IC 35-41-3-2, Use of force to protect person or property; IC 34-30-31, civil immunity. https://iga.in.gov/laws/2024/ic/titles/35#35-41-3-2
Iowa Code sections 704.2A, 704.3, 704.13, Justification; use of force; immunity. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/law/iowaCode/sections?codeChapter=704
KSA 21-5222, 21-5223, 21-5231, Use of force in defense of a person; immunity. https://kslegislature.org/li_2024/b2023_24/statute/021_000_0000_chapter/021_052_0000_article/
KRS 503.050, 503.055, 503.085, Use of physical force; use of force in defense of dwelling; criminal justice proceedings immunity. https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19396
La. RS 14:19, 14:20, Use of force or violence in defense; justifiable homicide. https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=78337
17-A M.R.S. section 108, Use of force in self-protection. https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/17-A/title17-Asec108.html
Maryland common law on self-defense (Akers v. State, Md. App. 2025). https://www.courts.state.md.us/
G.L. c. 278 section 8A, Defense of dwelling; common law self-defense. https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleII/Chapter278/Section8A
MCL 780.972, 780.951, Use of deadly force; presumption of reasonable belief. https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=MCL-780-951
Minn. Stat. sections 609.065, 609.06, Justifiable taking of life; use of force. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.065
Miss. Code section 97-3-15, Justifiable homicide; castle doctrine presumption. https://law.lis.ms.gov/
RSMo section 563.031, Use of force in defense of persons. https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=563.031
MCA sections 45-3-102, 45-3-103, 45-3-110, Use of force in defense; justifiable use of force; civil immunity. https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0450/chapter_0030/part_0010/sections_index.html
Neb. Rev. Stat. section 28-1409, Use of force in self-protection. https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1409
NRS 200.120, 200.130, 41.095, Justifiable homicide; civil immunity. https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-200.html#NRS200Sec120
RSA 627:4, Physical force in defense of a person. https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/627/627-4.htm
N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4, Use of force in self-protection. https://njleg.state.nj.us/
NMSA 30-2-7, Justifiable homicide by citizen. https://laws.nm.gov/
NY Penal Law section 35.15, Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/35.15
N.C.G.S. sections 14-51.2, 14-51.3, Home, workplace, and motor vehicle protection; defense of person. https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-51.2.html
NDCC sections 12.1-05-07, 12.1-05-07.1, 12.1-05-07.2, Use of force; no duty to retreat (HB1498, 2021). https://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t12-1c05.pdf
ORC sections 2901.09, 2901.05, No duty to retreat; burden of proof on self-defense (SB175, 2021). https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2901.09
21 O.S. section 1289.25, Physical or deadly force against intruder. https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=137168
ORS sections 161.209, 161.219, Use of physical force in defense; no duty to retreat in dwelling. https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors161.html
18 Pa.C.S. section 505, Use of force in self-protection. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=5&sctn=5&subsctn=0
R.I.G.L. section 11-8-8, Killing or disabling person breaking and entering. https://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE11/11-8/11-8-8.HTM
S.C. Code sections 16-11-440, 16-11-450, Protection of persons and property; immunity (Act 171, 2024). https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c011.php
SDCL section 22-18-4, Justifiable use of force (HB1212, 2021). https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/22-18-4
T.C.A. sections 39-11-611, 39-11-622, Defense of self; defense of property; civil immunity. https://advance.lexis.com/api/permalink/ - primary at https://www.tn.gov/lawlibrary.html
Tex. Penal Code sections 9.31, 9.32, Self-defense; deadly force in defense of person. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
Utah Code sections 76-2-402, 76-2-405, Force in defense of person; force in defense of habitation (H.B. 189, 2024). https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter2/76-2-S402.html
13 V.S.A. section 2305; State v. Hatcher, (Vt. 1997). https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/13/053/02305
Virginia common law on self-defense (Foote v. Commonwealth; Horne v. Commonwealth). https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/
RCW 9A.16.050, Homicide - by other person - when justifiable (State v. Studd, 1999). https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050
W. Va. Code section 55-7-22, Civil immunity for justified use of force. https://code.wvlegislature.gov/55-7-22/
Wis. Stat. section 939.48, Self-defense and defense of others. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/IV/48
W.S. section 6-2-602, Homicide - Justifiable use of deadly force. https://wyoleg.gov/statutes/compress/title06.pdf
DC Code and common law (Gillis v. United States, 1979). https://code.dccouncil.gov/
National Conference of State Legislatures, Self-Defense and Stand Your Ground. https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/self-defense-and-stand-your-ground

Last updated: June 1, 2026. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of June 1, 2026.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is stand your ground?

Stand your ground is a legal doctrine that removes the duty to retreat before using force in self-defense. In a stand-your-ground state, a person who is in a place they are lawfully allowed to be may use force, including deadly force, without first attempting to retreat, as long as they reasonably believe force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury. About 38 states follow this rule by statute or case law.

What is castle doctrine?

Castle doctrine is a legal principle that allows a person to use force, including deadly force, to defend their home against an unlawful intruder without any obligation to retreat. Many states have codified it by statute and extended it to occupied vehicles and workplaces. Several states also create a statutory presumption that a person defending their home had a reasonable fear of imminent harm, which can shift the burden of proof to prosecutors.

What is duty to retreat?

Duty to retreat is a legal requirement in some states that a person must attempt to safely retreat from a threatening situation before using force in self-defense, at least when the confrontation occurs in a public space. Even in duty-to-retreat states, a person is not required to retreat if doing so would expose them to greater danger, and the duty generally does not apply inside the home under castle doctrine.

Which states are stand-your-ground states?

Approximately 38 states follow stand-your-ground rules. States with explicit statutes include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. South Dakota's statute, SDCL 22-18-4, removes the duty to retreat only for the use of non-deadly force. States that reached the same result through case law without a formal statute include California, Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington. Mixed or conditional rules apply in Pennsylvania, Vermont, and DC.

Does castle doctrine cover my car?

It depends on the state. Many states expressly include an occupied vehicle in the castle doctrine, including Alabama (Ala. Code 13A-3-23(a)(5)), Arizona (A.R.S. 13-418), Florida (Fla. Stat. 776.013), Georgia (OCGA 16-3-23), Indiana (IC 35-41-3-2), Iowa (Iowa Code 704.2A), Kentucky (KRS 503.055), Michigan (MCL 780.951), Nevada (NRS 200.120), Ohio (ORC 2901.09), South Carolina (S.C. Code 16-11-440), Tennessee (T.C.A. 39-11-611), Texas (Tex. Penal Code 9.32), and Wyoming (W.S. 6-2-602). States like Maine, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut limit the castle doctrine to the dwelling only. Always check your state's specific statute.

Can I be sued civilly even if I am found justified in a criminal case?

In many states, yes, unless the state has a statutory civil immunity provision. States with strong civil immunity statutes, including Florida (Fla. Stat. 776.032), Alabama (Ala. Code 13A-3-23), and Indiana (IC 34-30-31), bar civil lawsuits when a use-of-force claim is found valid. But states without civil immunity provisions (including Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York) may allow a civil wrongful-death or battery lawsuit even after a criminal acquittal or pre-trial dismissal. Consult a civil-defense attorney if facing potential civil liability.

Can an initial aggressor claim self-defense?

Generally no. The initial aggressor rule bars a person who provokes or starts a confrontation from later claiming self-defense, even in a stand-your-ground state. There is a narrow exception: if the initial aggressor clearly and in good faith withdraws from the fight and communicates that withdrawal, and the other party then continues to attack, the original aggressor may regain a self-defense claim. The exact contours of the rule vary by state.

Does Florida still require a hearing on stand-your-ground immunity before trial?

Yes. Under Fla. Stat. section 776.032(4), as amended in 2017, once a defendant raises a prima facie self-defense immunity claim at a pretrial hearing, the burden shifts to the party seeking to overcome that immunity, the prosecution, to disprove it by clear and convincing evidence. If the prosecution fails to meet that burden, the court grants immunity and the prosecution is barred. This reversed an earlier Florida Supreme Court ruling that had placed the burden of proof on the defendant.

What did Ohio SB175 change?

Ohio SB175, effective April 6, 2021, made Ohio a stand-your-ground state by eliminating the prior duty to retreat in public spaces. It is codified at ORC section 2901.09. The law also shifted the burden of proof on self-defense to the prosecution under ORC section 2901.05, requiring prosecutors to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt rather than requiring defendants to prove it as an affirmative defense.

What is the difference between stand your ground and self-defense generally?

Self-defense is the underlying right to use force to protect oneself from harm. Stand your ground is a specific rule about the threshold conditions for exercising that right: it removes the requirement that a person first attempt to flee. All stand-your-ground states still require that a person reasonably believe deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily injury; stand your ground simply eliminates retreat as a precondition. Duty-to-retreat states impose that extra threshold step before self-defense can be claimed in public.

Is there a federal stand-your-ground law?

No. There is no federal stand-your-ground statute. Self-defense in criminal matters is primarily governed by state law. Federal law does contain a self-defense element for federal crimes, and the Model Penal Code, which influenced many state statutes, addresses justification defenses, but the stand-your-ground vs. duty-to-retreat distinction is determined entirely at the state level. This is why the rules differ so significantly across the 51 US jurisdictions.

Can I use deadly force to protect property, not a person?

Generally no. Most states permit deadly force only when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to a person, not merely to protect property. Colorado is an outlier in that its 'Make My Day' statute (C.R.S. 18-1-704.5) allows deadly force against an unlawful home intruder even without a direct personal threat, as long as the intruder committed a crime inside the home. Shooting at a fleeing property thief outside the home is not protected self-defense in any US jurisdiction.

Updates

August 17, 2026

Corrected the description of Alabama's 2026 self-defense law change (it creates a rebuttable presumption tied to disposing of the weapon used, not a burden-shift to prosecutors at immunity hearings, and does not take effect until October 1, 2026); fixed an inverted duty-to-retreat classification for California and an incorrect castle-doctrine presumption claim for Arkansas in the 51-state comparison table; corrected Alabama's table entry to accurately reflect where its use-of-force presumption applies; and filled in a few incomplete state examples in the FAQ.

August 17, 2026

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

August 9, 2026

Fixed an inverted burden-of-proof claim about Florida's 2017 stand-your-ground immunity amendment: Fla. Stat. 776.032(4) puts the burden on the PROSECUTION (clear and convincing evidence) to overcome immunity, not on the defendant.

August 9, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

August 8, 2026

Corrected the South Dakota row and HB1212 summary in the 51-state comparison table: SDCL 22-18-4 establishes a no-duty-to-retreat rule for non-deadly force only, with no castle-doctrine presumption language.

August 8, 2026

Scoped South Dakota's stand-your-ground listing to non-deadly force, matching SDCL 22-18-4.

August 8, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

June 2, 2026

Reviewed and approved by an editor

The Law Behind This Article

This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.

Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13 (Criminal Code), Chapter 4 (JUSTIFICATION)

§ 13-405Justification; use of deadly physical forceIn forcecited in 2 of our articles

A. A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another: 1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and 2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force. B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force pursuant to this section if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov

Cited in 37 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

State v. Jessen (Arizona Supreme Court 1981, 130 Ariz. 1)“…llant’s justification for the homicide was self-defense. By A.R.S. § 13-405: “A person is justified in threa…”
State of Arizona v. Ronald Vassell (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2015, 238 Ariz. 281)“…s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.” A.R.S. § 13-405(A)(2). But the threat or use of physica…”
State v. Grannis (Arizona Supreme Court 1995, 183 Ariz. 52)“…or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force. AR.S. § 13-405. Under A.R.S. § 13-404, a person is jus…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Arizona Self-Defense Laws: Stand Your Ground & Castle Doctrine (2026)

California Penal Code

§ 198.5In forcecited in 2 of our articles

Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred. As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Cited in 14 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2023

Leading cases:

People v. Brown (California Court of Appeal 1992, 6 Cal. App. 4th 1489)“…front porch may be “forcibly entered” within the meaning of Penal Code section 198.5. It arises out of an altercation in whi…”
People v. Gleghorn (California Court of Appeal 1987, 193 Cal. App. 3d 196)“…He asserts that CALJIC No. 5.42 is inconsistent with Penal Code section 198.5 which states: “Any person using force i…”
People v. Silvey (California Court of Appeal 1997, 58 Cal. App. 4th 1320)“…easonable." He contends such an instruction is supported by Penal Code section 198.5, and should have been given even though…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: California Self-Defense Laws: Stand Your Ground & Castle Doctrine (2026)

Connecticut General Statutes, Title 53a (Penal Code), Chapter 951

§ 53a-19Use of physical force in defense of person.In forcecited in 2 of our articles

(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, a person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force, and he may use such degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose; except that deadly physical force may not be used unless the actor reasonably believes that such other person is (1) using or about to use deadly physical force, or (2) inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov

Cited in 227 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

State v. Miller (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1982, 186 Conn. 654)“…than the statutory, definition of "deadly physical force." General Statutes § 53a-19 (a) establishes the justification of se…”
State v. Corchado (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1982, 188 Conn. 653)“…nstructions while not in the exact language of the statute [General Statutes § 53a-19] certainly did convey its meaning and i…”
State v. Cruz (Supreme Court of Connecticut 2004, 269 Conn. 97)“…artinez and, therefore, his use of force was justified. See General Statutes § 53a-19. 4 The defendant testified that he *1…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Connecticut Self-Defense Laws: Duty to Retreat & Castle Doctrine (2026)

Delaware Code, Title 11 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Chapter 004 (DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY)

§ 464Justification — Use of force in self-protection.In forcecited in 2 of our articles

(a) The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion. (b) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as the person reasonably believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which the person has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action. (c) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the defendant reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect the defendant against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat. (d) The use of force is not justifiable under this section to resist an arrest which the defendant knows or should know is being made by a peace officer, whether or not the arrest is lawful.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at delcode.delaware.gov

Cited in 49 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

Probst v. State (Supreme Court of Delaware 1988, 547 A.2d 114)“…direction of Walla in self-defense or in defense of others. 11 Del.C. §§ 464-465. In essence, Probst’s attorney argu…”
Spence v. State (Supreme Court of Delaware 2015, 129 A.3d 212)“…defenses, even under his own version of the events. Under 11 Del. C. § 464(c), the use of deadly force is justifia…”
Moor v. Licciardello (Supreme Court of Delaware 1983, 463 A.2d 268)“…efense in criminal prosecutions. Under the revised statute, 11 Del.C. § 464, a *271 person’s conduct…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Delaware Self-Defense Laws: Duty to Retreat & Castle Doctrine (2026)

Florida Statutes

§ 776.012Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.In forcecited in 4 of our articles

(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force. (2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us

Cited in 101 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

Smiley v. State (Supreme Court of Florida 2007, 966 So. 2d 330)“…reasoned that section 776.013 made a substantive change to section 776.012, Florida Statutes (2004), and it therefore would be a vio…”
Hill v. State (Supreme Court of Florida 1996, 688 So. 2d 901)“…t this evidence to establish the statutory defense found in section 776.012, Florida Statutes (1993), entitled "Use of force in defen…”
Ivester v. State (District Court of Appeal of Florida 1981, 398 So. 2d 926)“…defendant's right to use force in self-defense pursuant to Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (1979), which states in part that: "A p…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Florida Self-Defense Laws: Stand Your Ground & Castle Doctrine (2026), Oregon Self-Defense Laws: Stand Your Ground & Castle Doctrine (2026), Washington Self-Defense Laws: Stand Your Ground & Castle Doctrine (2026)

§ 776.013Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.In forcecited in 3 of our articles

(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:(a) Nondeadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force; or (b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us

Cited in 37 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025

Leading cases:

In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Report 2017-07. (Supreme Court of Florida 2018, 257 So. 3d 908)“…w enforcement officer” from § 943.10(14), Fla. Stat. § 776.013(4), Fla. Stat. § 776.013(5), Fla. Stat.…”
In Re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—report No. 2014-06 (Supreme Court of Florida 2016, 191 So. 3d 411)“…of “law enforcement officer” from § 943.10(14), Fla. Stat. § 776.013(4), Fla. Stat. § 776.013(5), Fla. Stat.…”
In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases - Report 2019-01 (Supreme Court of Florida 2019)“…enforcement officer” from § 943.10(14), Fla. Stat. § 776.013(4), Fla. Stat. § 776.013(5), Fla. Stat.…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Maryland Self-Defense Laws: Duty to Retreat & Castle Doctrine (2026)

Official Code of Georgia Annotated

§ 16-3-21Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution.In forcecited in 2 of our articles

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.ga.gov

Cited in 503 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

Neal v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 2012, 290 Ga. 563)“…after charging the jury on self-defense in the language of OCGA § 16-3-21 (a), the trial court, using the languag…”
Woodard v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 2015)“…to the trial court’s instruction, tracking the language of OCGA § 16-3-21 (b) (2), that a person is not justified…”
State v. Collins (Supreme Court of Georgia 1998, 270 Ga. 42)“…wing the defendant to present a justification defense under OCGA § 16-3-21 (a).…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Georgia Self-Defense Laws: Stand Your Ground & Castle Doctrine (2026)

§ 16-3-23Use of force in defense of habitation.In forcecited in 2 of our articles

A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation;…

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-08-17 · Read the full text in our law library

Cited in 104 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

Coleman v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 2009, 286 Ga. 291)“…tion on the use of force in defense of habitation, found in OCGA § 16-3-23. 2 “Unlike the defense of…”
Fair v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 2008, 284 Ga. 165)“…16-3-24 shall be immune from criminal prosecution...." OCGA § 16-3-23 governs the use of force in defense of…”
Benham v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 2004, 277 Ga. 516)“…on the use of force in defense of habitation as provided in OCGA § 16-3-23. To the extent that the Court of Appeal…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Idaho Code

§ 18-4009Justifiable homicide by any personIn forcecited in 2 of our articles

18-4009. Justifiable homicide by any person. (1) Homicide is justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases: (a) When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; (b) When committed in defense of…

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.idaho.gov

Cited in 12 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

State v. Carter (Idaho Supreme Court 1982, 103 Idaho 917)“…en quarrel or heat of passion. 2. Involuntary — ....’ “Idaho Code § 18-4009 provides that a homicide is ‘justifiabl…”
State v. Bodenbach (Idaho Supreme Court 2019, 165 Idaho 577)“…18 Idaho Sess. Laws 500. The language formerly contained in Idaho Code section 18-4009.3 is now contained in Idaho Code sectio…”
State v. Robert Dean Hall (Idaho Supreme Court 2016, 161 Idaho 413)“…tion 18-4009 and section 18-4010 are as follows: Idaho Code section 18-4009: Homicide is also ju…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Idaho Self-Defense Laws: Stand Your Ground & Castle Doctrine (2026)

Kansas Statutes Annotated, Chapter 21: CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

§ 21-5222Defense of a person; no duty to retreat.In forcecited in 2 of our articles

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. (b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person. (c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ksrevisor.gov

Cited in 37 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

State v. Fisher (Supreme Court of Kansas 2016, 304 Kan. 242)“…cumstances existed that justified use of deadly force under K.S.A. 21-5222.” K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-5404(a)(2). Unde…”
State v. Macomber (Supreme Court of Kansas 2019)“…26, and amendments thereto, is justified pursuant to K.S.A. 21-5222, 21-5223 or 21-5225,…”
State v. Montgomery (Supreme Court of Kansas 2026)“…cumstances existed that justified use of deadly force under K.S.A. 21-5222 . . . ."). K.S.A. 21-5222(b) permits th…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Kansas Self-Defense Laws: Stand Your Ground & Castle Doctrine (2026)

Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 503: GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTIFICATION

§ 503.050Use of physical force in self-protection -- Admissibility of evidence of prior acts of domestic violence and abuseIn forcecited in 2 of our articles

(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person. (2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055. (3) Any evidence presented by the defendant to establish the existence of a prior act or acts of domestic violence and abuse as defined in KRS 403.720 by the person against whom the defendant is charged with employing physical force shall be admissible under this section. (4) A person does not have a duty to retreat prior to the use of deadly physical force.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov

Cited in 135 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

Springer v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 1999, 998 S.W.2d 439)“…ing her with the "imminent use of unlawful physical force." KRS 503.050(1). Prior to the adoption of the pena…”
Rodgers v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 2009, 285 S.W.3d 740)“…vent the commission of a felony involving the use of force. KRS 503.050(2). The bill expressly provided that th…”
Elliott v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 1998, 976 S.W.2d 416)“…2d 959 (1931). The penal code takes a different approach. KRS 503.050 provides as follows: (1) The use…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Kentucky Self-Defense Laws: Stand Your Ground & Castle Doctrine (2026)

§ 503.055Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle -- ExceptionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov

Cited in 53 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

Rodgers v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 2009, 285 S.W.3d 740)“…tent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence, KRS 503.055(4), and that a person encountering such…”
Hannah v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 2010, 306 S.W.3d 509)“…e-insert this long-standing component of self-defense. [2] KRS 503.055(1), as amended, established a presumpti…”
Commonwealth v. Hasch (Kentucky Supreme Court 2013, 421 S.W.3d 349)“…the following “no duty to retreat” instruction, based upon KRS 503.055(3): You are further instructed that i…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Maine Revised Statutes, Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE, Part 1: GENERAL PRINCIPLES, Chapter 5: DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES; JUSTIFICATION

§ 108Physical force in defense of a personIn forcecited in 2 of our articles

1. A person is justified in using a reasonable degree of nondeadly force upon another person in order to defend the person or a 3rd person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, nondeadly force by such other person, and the person may use a degree of such force that the person reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose. However, such force is not justifiable if: A. With a purpose to cause physical harm to another person, the person provoked the use of unlawful, nondeadly force by such other person; or [PL 2007, c. 173, §24 (AMD).] B. The person was the initial aggressor, unless after such aggression the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person the intent to do so, but the other person notwithstanding continues the use or threat of unlawful, nondeadly force; or [PL 2007, c. 173, §24 (AMD).] C. The force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law. [PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW).] 1-A.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.gov

Cited in 93 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025

Leading cases:

State v. Pabon (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 2011, 28 A.3d 1147)“…14] The court instructed the jury on self-defense based on 17-A M.R.S. § 108(2) (2010), [1] including the explanati…”
State v. Ouellette (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 2012, 37 A.3d 921)“…o defend himself or a third person against an aggressor. 1 17-A M.R.S. § 108 (2011). Like *926 other justifications…”
State v. Philbrick (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 1984, 481 A.2d 488)“…mony, the Defendant requested instructions on self-defense, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 108(2)(A)(1), and sexual self-defense,…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Maine Self-Defense Laws: Duty to Retreat & Castle Doctrine (2026)

Michigan Compiled Laws

§ 780.951Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitionsIn forcecited in 4 of our articles

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply: (a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will. (b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov

Cited in 16 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

People of Michigan v. Michael Anthony Thigpen (Michigan Court of Appeals 2023)“…n October 1, 2006, id., and with it the Legislature enacted MCL 780.951(1), see 2006 PA 311, which forms the ba…”
People of Michigan v. Theodore Paul Wafer (Michigan Supreme Court 2018)“…asonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm. See MCL 780.951(1). The trial court reasoned that CJI2d…”
People v. Conyer (Michigan Court of Appeals 2008, 281 Mich. App. 526)“…3 These acts were codified at MCL 780.961, MCL 780.951, MCL 600.2922c, MCL 768.21c, and MCL 60…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Michigan Self-Defense Laws: Stand Your Ground & Castle Doctrine (2026)

§ 780.972Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditionsIn forcecited in 3 of our articles

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies: (a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual. (b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual. (2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov

Cited in 263 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

People v. Stevens (Michigan Court of Appeals 2014, 306 Mich. App. 620)“…399 (2010) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Under MCL 780.972(1): An individual who has not or is n…”
People v. Guajardo (Michigan Court of Appeals 2013, 300 Mich. App. 26)“…sexual assault in order to justify the use of deadly force. MCL 780.972(1). The statute provides, in relevant p…”
People v. Moreno (Michigan Supreme Court 2012, 491 Mich. 38)“…islature changed the common-law duty to retreat by enacting MCL 780.972, which specifically explains that there…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 609: CRIMINAL CODE

§ 609.065JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFEIn forcecited in 2 of our articles

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov

Cited in 30 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

State v. Dodis (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1982, 314 N.W.2d 233)“…d the methods by which the danger could have been avoided. Minn. Stat. § 609.065 (1980); State v. Boyce, 284 Minn.…”
State v. Pendleton (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1997, 567 N.W.2d 265)“…ommission of a felony in the actor’s place of abode. Minn.Stat. § 609.065 (1996). Taken together, these pr…”
State v. Hare (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1998, 575 N.W.2d 828)“…ich authorizes use of reasonable force in self-defense, and Minn.Stat. § 609.065, 4 which allows the justif…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Minnesota Self-Defense Laws: Duty to Retreat & Castle Doctrine (2026)

Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVIII (CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS), Chapter 563

§ 563.031Use of force in defense of persons.In forcecited in 2 of our articles

1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless: (1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided: (a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or (b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or (c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law; (2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force; (3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov

Cited in 49 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

State v. Bruner (Supreme Court of Missouri 2018, 541 S.W.3d 529)“…events at issue here, differs only in the duty to retreat. § 563.031, RSMo Supp. 2016. The legislature has repeat…”
State v. Clinch (Missouri Court of Appeals 2011, 335 S.W.3d 579)“…equired by the statute governing a defense of others claim, section 563.031, RSMo Cum.Supp. 2007. During a hearing on the…”
State of Missouri v. Richard John Whipple (Missouri Court of Appeals 2016, 501 S.W.3d 507)“…defense still must meet the reasonableness requirements of section 563.031 RSMo Supp. 2011 4 in order for him to be en…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Missouri Self-Defense Laws: Stand Your Ground & Castle Doctrine (2026)

Nebraska Revised Statutes, Chapter 28: CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

§ 28-1409Use of force in self-protectionIn forcecited in 2 of our articles

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 28-1414, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion. (2) The use of such force is not justifiable under this section to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is unlawful.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov

Cited in 82 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

State v. Iromuanya (Nebraska Supreme Court 2006, 272 Neb. 178)“…te v. Owens, 257 Neb. 832 , 601 N.W.2d 231 (1999). Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1409 (Reissue 1995) provides in pertinent p…”
State v. Harris (Nebraska Supreme Court 2016, 294 Neb. 766)“…s addressed in § 28-1409(4)(b)(i). 9. Self-Defense. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1409(4)(b)(i) (Reissue 2008), the privi…”
State v. Bedford (Nebraska Court of Appeals 2022, 31 Neb. Ct. App. 339)“…rrect statement of the law,” as it was “drawn directly from Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1409 (2016) and NJI2d Crim. 7.1.” Brief for…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Nebraska Self-Defense Laws: Duty to Retreat & Castle Doctrine (2026)

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, TITLE LXII CRIMINAL CODE, CHAPTER 627 JUSTIFICATION

§ 627:4Physical Force in Defense of a Person.In forcecited in 2 of our articles

I. A person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person, and he may use a degree of such force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose. However, such force is not justifiable if: (a) With a purpose to cause physical harm to another person, he provoked the use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person; or (b) He was the initial aggressor, unless after such aggression he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but the latter notwithstanding continues the use or threat of unlawful, non-deadly force; or (c) The force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law. II.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov

Cited in 57 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025

Leading cases:

State v. Pugliese (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1980, 120 N.H. 728)“…an attacker except where “he is in his dwelling . . . .” RSA 627:4 III(a) (emphasis added). In support of…”
State v. Etienne (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2011, 163 N.H. 57)“…case, under which deadly force may be used are set forth in RSA 627:4, II (2007): A person is justified in…”
State v. Ayer (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2006, 154 N.H. 500)“…(1996), and on the defense of a person justification under RSA 627:4 (1996). The defendant also argues that…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: New Hampshire Self-Defense Laws: Stand Your Ground & Castle Doctrine (2026)

New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978, Chapter 30

§ 30-2-7Justifiable homicide by citizenIn forcecited in 3 of our articles

Homicide is justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases: A. when committed in the necessary defense of his life, his family or his property, or in necessarily defending against any unlawful action directed against himself, his wife or family; B. when committed in the lawful defense of himself or of another and when there is a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury against such person or another, and there is imminent danger that the design will be accomplished; or C. when necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed in his presence, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in necessarily and lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com

Cited in 11 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

State v. Cunningham (New Mexico Supreme Court 2000, 128 N.M. 711)“…defense as a lawful justification to homicide is defined by NMSA 1978, § 30-2-7(A) (1963). It states that, "Homicide is…”
State v. Parish (New Mexico Supreme Court 1994, 118 N.M. 39)“…hen ... in the lawful defense of himself or of another____” NMSA 1978, § 30-2-7CB) (Repl.Pamp.1984) (emphasis added). T…”
State v. Candelaria (New Mexico Supreme Court 2018, 434 P.3d 297)“…of self-defense and defense of another as set forth in 15 NMSA 1978, Section 30-2-7(A)-(B) (1963)); State v. Ellis, 2008-NM…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: New Mexico Self-Defense Laws: Stand Your Ground & Castle Doctrine (2026)

New York Penal Law

§ 35.15Justification; use of physical force in defense of a personIn forcecited in 2 of our articles

Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless: (a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or (b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or (c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. 2.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.nysenate.gov

Cited in 780 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

People v. Taylor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 2017, 2017 NY Slip Op 7649)“…s testimony that defendant was the initial aggressor ( see Penal Law § 35.15 [1] [b]; [2]; see generally People v W…”
People v. Goetz (New York Court of Appeals 1986, 68 N.Y.2d 96)“…compassing both self-defense and defense of a third person (Penal Law § 35.15). Penal Law § 35.15 (1) sets forth the…”
People v. McManus (New York Court of Appeals 1986, 67 N.Y.2d 541)“…Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 35.15, p 93 [1975]). Pursuant to Penal Law §…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: New York Self-Defense Laws: Duty to Retreat & Castle Doctrine (2026)

Ohio Revised Code

§ 2901.09No duty to retreat in residence or vehicleIn forcecited in 2 of our articles

(A) As used in this section, "residence" has the same meaning as in section 2901.05 of the Revised Code. (B) For purposes of any section of the Revised Code that sets forth a criminal offense, a person has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of…

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov

Cited in 198 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

State v. Knuff (Ohio Supreme Court 2024, 175 Ohio St. 3d 82)“…January Term, 2024 {¶ 192} Former R.C. 2901.09, Ohio’s “castle doctrine” statute, enac…”
State v. Shine-Johnson (Ohio Court of Appeals 2018, 117 N.E.3d 986)“…force in self-defense. Hubbard at ¶ 51 ; R.C. 2901.09(B) ("a person who lawfully is in that p…”
State v. Bundy (Ohio Court of Appeals 2012, 2012 Ohio 3934)“…350, 2012-Ohio-1952, ¶43 (construing complementary statute, R.C. 2901.09(B), the no-duty-to-retreat statute); S…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Ohio Self-Defense Laws: Stand Your Ground & Castle Doctrine (2026)

South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 22-18: ASSAULTS AND PERSONAL INJURIES

§ 22-18-4Force--Defense of person.In forcecited in 2 of our articles

A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, other than deadly force, against another if the person reasonably believes that using or threatening to use force is necessary to defend against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this section does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use force.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov

Cited in 16 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

State v. Blue Thunder (South Dakota Supreme Court 1991, 466 N.W.2d 613)“…5, or to prevent an offense against one’s self or property, SDCL 22-18-4. “Unless the individual situation requi…”
State v. Grimes (South Dakota Supreme Court 1976, 90 S.D. 43)“…forbid the defense of unrelated friends or total strangers. SDCL 22-18-4 sets out the law and applicable standar…”
State v. Frey (South Dakota Supreme Court 1989, 440 N.W.2d 721)“…espass and justification of force to prevent trespass under SDCL 22-18-4. [7] The trial court in Instruction…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: South Dakota Self-Defense Laws: Stand Your Ground & Castle Doctrine (2026)

Utah Code, Title 76: Criminal Offenses

§ 76-2-402Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.In forcecited in 2 of our articles

(1) As used in this section: (a) "Forcible felony" means aggravated assault, mayhem, aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping and aggravated kidnapping, rape, forcible sodomy, rape of a child, object rape, object rape of a child, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, and aggravated sexual assault as defined in Chapter 5, Offenses Against the Individual, and arson, robbery, and burglary as defined in Chapter 6, Offenses Against Property. (b) "Forcible felony" includes any other felony offense that involves the use of force or violence against an individual that poses a substantial danger of death or serious bodily injury. (c) "Forcible felony" does not include burglary of a vehicle, as defined in Section 76-6-204, unless the vehicle is occupied at the time unlawful entry is made or attempted. (2) (a) An individual is justified in threatening or using force against another individual when and to the extent that the individual reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the individual or another individual against the imminent use of unlawful force.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov

Cited in 68 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

State v. Gonzalez (Utah Supreme Court 2015, 779 Utah Adv. Rep. 124)“…against another person’s imminent use of unlawful force.” UTAH CODE § 76-2-402(1)(a). But this affirmative defense is…”
State v. Lee (Court of Appeals of Utah 2014, 751 Utah Adv. Rep. 16)“…son against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-402 (1) (LexisNexis 2003). But this general…”
State v. Silva (Utah Supreme Court 2019, 456 P.3d 718)“…n illegal alien). Before trial, the State moved pursuant to Utah Code section 76-2-402(2)(a)(ii) to preclude the jury from con…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Utah Self-Defense Laws: Stand Your Ground & Castle Doctrine (2026)

Vermont Statutes Annotated, Title 13: Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Chapter 53: Homicide

§ 2305Justifiable homicideIn forcecited in 3 of our articles

(a) If a person kills or wounds another under any of the circumstances enumerated below, the person shall be guiltless: (1) in the just and necessary defense of the person’s own life or the life of any other person; (2) if the person reasonably believed that the person, or any other person, was in imminent peril and that it was necessary to repel that peril with deadly force in the forceful or violent suppression of a person attempting to commit murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, burglary, or robbery; or (3) in the case of a law enforcement officer as defined in 20 V.S.A. § 2351(a) using force in compliance with 20 V.S.A. § 2368(b)(1)–(2) and (5) or deadly force in compliance with 20 V.S.A. § 2368(c)(1)–(4) and (6). (b) This section shall not be construed to limit or infringe upon defenses granted at common law. (Amended 1983, No. 23, § 2; 2019, No. 165 (Adj. Sess.), § 2, eff. July 1, 2021; 2021, No. 27, § 4, eff. Oct. 1, 2021; 2021, No. 95 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, eff. April 21, 2022.)

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.vermont.gov

Cited in 8 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2014

Leading cases:

State v. Ovitt (Supreme Court of Vermont 2005, 178 Vt. 605)“…(1989). ¶ 10. Defendant claimed self-defense under 13 V.S.A. § 2305(1). Title 13 V.S.A. § 2305(1) defines j…”
State v. Wheelock (Supreme Court of Vermont 1992, 158 Vt. 302)“…necessary defense of his own life ... shall be guiltless." 13 V.S.A. § 2305(1). Our case law requires that self-def…”
State v. Camley (Supreme Court of Vermont 1981, 140 Vt. 483)“…f Manosh had been done in self-defense, and was thus, under 13 V.S.A. § 2305, justifiable homicide for which he shou…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: How Long Is a Life Sentence in Vermont? (2026 Guide), Vermont Self-Defense Laws: Stand Your Ground by Case Law & Castle Doctrine (2026)

Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 939: Crimes

§ 939.48Self-defense and defense of others.In forcecited in 2 of our articles

(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself. (1m) (a) In this subsection: 1. “Dwelling” has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h). 2. “Place of business” means a business that the actor owns or operates.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Cited in 39 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025

Leading cases:

State v. Head (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2002, 255 Wis. 2d 194)“…EW [1] ¶ 41. This case requires the court to interpret Wis. Stat. §§ 939.48 (1), 940.01(2) and (3), and 940.05. Sta…”
State v. Payano (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2009, 2009 WI 86)“…tat. § 904.01 ; Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d at 772 ; see also Wis. Stat. § 939.48 (1) and (4). ¶ 73 In terms of contex…”
State v. Hamdan (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2003, 264 Wis. 2d 433)“…der § 939.45(1). [11] These defenses are located within Wis. Stat. §§ 939.48 and 939.49. [12] In Nollie , t…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Wisconsin Self-Defense Laws: Castle Doctrine & Duty to Retreat (2026)

West Virginia Code

§ 55-7-22Civil relief for persons resisting certain criminal activities.In forcecited in 3 of our articles

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using reasonable and proportionate force, including deadly force, against an intruder or attacker to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's or attacker's unlawful entry if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder or attacker may kill or inflict serious bodily harm upon the occupant or others in the home or residence or if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder or attacker intends to commit a felony in the home or residence and the occupant reasonably believes deadly force is necessary. (b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder or attacker in the circumstances described in subsection (a) of this section.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at code.wvlegislature.gov

Also relied on in: West Virginia Self-Defense Laws: Stand Your Ground & Castle Doctrine (2026)

Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →