If someone breaks into your home, and if you shoot and kill the intruder, are you protected from criminal charges? What if you get into a bar fight that another patron started, and you break his nose—can you be protected?

There’s no easy answer, because the right to self-defense is one of the most complicated areas of criminal law.

In Massachusetts, the doctrine of self-defense can be successful, but it’s not easy to prove. For starters, Massachusetts is not a “stand your ground” state, where you can use lethal force whenever or wherever you feel your life is endangered. Under Massachusetts law, you must retreat before you use deadly force, unless you are in your own home. And even in that situation, there are exceptions.

The law does not permit retaliation or revenge. The right to exercise self-defense arises only from necessity, and it terminates when necessity ends. In addition, an individual may only use force sufficient to prevent the occurrence or reoccurrence of an attack.

Burden of Proof for Self-Defense Falls on the Government

In court, when the issue of self-defense is properly raised by the accused, the burden of proof falls on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did NOT act in self-defense. If the jury has a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant acted in self-defense, the defendant must be found NOT guilty.

In order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense, the government must show that one of the following elements of self-defense is absent from the case:

  • The defendant must have reasonably believed (a) that he or she was being attacked or was immediately about to be attacked, and (b) that his or her personal safety was in immediate danger. Factors that are considered in determining whether a defendant had a reasonable belief of facing immediate harm include the relative size and strength of those involved, whether weapons were involved, and whether the defendant was verbally threatened.
  • The defendant must have done everything possible to avoid physical combat, including retreating or escaping (unless the retreat or escape would expose the defendant to danger).
  • The defendant must have used no more force than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances to defend himself or herself.

Duty to Retreat Limits Use of Deadly Force

As noted above, Massachusetts law imposes a “duty to retreat” before you resort to deadly force. Facing a threat, you must try to avoid the use of force if it is safe to do so. The Appeals Court reaffirmed this ruling in Commonwealth v. Leoner-Aguirre, 94 Mass. App. Ct. 581 (2018), in which the defendant shot the victim in the back on a public street, while the victim was running from the scene. The court found that the defendant’s failure to retreat, despite having a clear opportunity to do so, defeated his claim of self-defense.

In short, you may invoke the privilege of self-defense only if you have exhausted all other proper means to avoid violence. Relevant factors include whether you had avenues of retreat available, whether the threat of harm was imminent, and whether summoning aid would have helped to ward off the conflict.

No “Duty to Retreat” in Your Own Home

There’s one important exception to the duty to retreat: the Castle Doctrine, which states that an individual has no duty to retreat when attacked in his or her own residence.

But there’s a catch. The rule applies only if the “victim” (i.e., an intruder who is attacked by the homeowner) is in the home unlawfully. So, if the “victim” was invited into the home and later began to attack the defendant, the Castle Doctrine may not apply. If the homeowner demands that the guest leave and the guest refuses, then he or she becomes an unlawful intruder. Under those circumstances, the homeowner’s use of force must still be reasonable and proportionate to the threat.

More Limits on Use of Deadly Force

The use of deadly force in self-defense has additional requirements. You may use force to cause death or great bodily harm in order to repel an attack only under the following circumstances:

  • If you reasonably believe you are in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm;
  • If you use all other proper means to avoid physical combat before resorting to deadly force; and
  • If you use no more force than is reasonably necessary under all circumstances.

Note that the burden of proof rests on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entitled to use deadly force or that the force was excessive.

Evidence of Alleged Victim’s History of Violence

Whether or not the alleged victim has a reputation for violence is another evidentiary issue in self-defense cases. The defense is entitled to produce evidence of the alleged victim’s reputation for violence if their reputation is known to the defendant. The evidence is relevant and admissible if the defendant was reasonably afraid for his or her own safety and used a degree of force that was reasonable in light of the victim’s violent tendencies.

If you are facing charges stemming from a violent encounter, the attorneys at Mountain Dearborn are available to provide counsel. Please contact us.

Image: Nik