Massachusetts "Castle" Law
Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 7:54 pm
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts rendered a decision this week in the case of Commonwealth v. McKinnon, regarding the so called "castle law." Massachusetts General Laws c. 278, § 8A, provides:
"In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling."
Here is a brief version of the facts of the case: Two brothers went to a party at a private home. They got in a fight and one brother needed stitches. The boys' father was angry about under age drinking, and drove back to the house with his sons at 1:00 AM. He yelled for the occupant of the house, a 20 year old man, to "come out or we're coming in." The occupant, Mr. McKinnon, went onto his porch with a baseball bat. The father went onto the porch and another fight quickly broke out. McKinnon was not involved in the previous fight. McKinnon, was charged with assault and battery and assault with a deadly weapon.
At his trial, McKinnon claimed self defense. He requested a jury instruction incorporating the castle law quoted above, that he did not have any duty to retreat. The trial judge refused to give the instruction on the grounds that the law does not extend to exterior stairs or porch, but only covers the inside of a dwelling.
McKinnon was convicted and appealed. The SJC took the case on its own motion to consider this question, and the SJC affirmed the conviction. The Court reasoned that:
"We do not agree with the defendant that the term "dwelling" should extend to the outside stairs of the house. As discussed, the plain language of G. L. c. 278, § 8A, limits the defense to an occupant who injures someone unlawfully in the dwelling. Open areas are not given the same legal exemptions as the residence or dwelling itself. See Commonwealth v. Peloquin, supra; Commonwealth v. Bennett, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 920, 921 (1996)."
RESULT: In Massachusetts, if you are in your yard, on your porch, or on your steps, and you are being threatened, you have a duty to retreat if you hope to successfully invoke self defense as a defense to an A & B.
What do you guys think of this opinion? Is it reasonable? What if you open the door to somebody who turns out to be a criminal and he pulls you outside? What if you step out on the porch to talk to a "salesman" who turns out to be a criminal?
I would like to read your thoughts on this.
Sincerely,
Norm Abrahamson
"In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling."
Here is a brief version of the facts of the case: Two brothers went to a party at a private home. They got in a fight and one brother needed stitches. The boys' father was angry about under age drinking, and drove back to the house with his sons at 1:00 AM. He yelled for the occupant of the house, a 20 year old man, to "come out or we're coming in." The occupant, Mr. McKinnon, went onto his porch with a baseball bat. The father went onto the porch and another fight quickly broke out. McKinnon was not involved in the previous fight. McKinnon, was charged with assault and battery and assault with a deadly weapon.
At his trial, McKinnon claimed self defense. He requested a jury instruction incorporating the castle law quoted above, that he did not have any duty to retreat. The trial judge refused to give the instruction on the grounds that the law does not extend to exterior stairs or porch, but only covers the inside of a dwelling.
McKinnon was convicted and appealed. The SJC took the case on its own motion to consider this question, and the SJC affirmed the conviction. The Court reasoned that:
"We do not agree with the defendant that the term "dwelling" should extend to the outside stairs of the house. As discussed, the plain language of G. L. c. 278, § 8A, limits the defense to an occupant who injures someone unlawfully in the dwelling. Open areas are not given the same legal exemptions as the residence or dwelling itself. See Commonwealth v. Peloquin, supra; Commonwealth v. Bennett, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 920, 921 (1996)."
RESULT: In Massachusetts, if you are in your yard, on your porch, or on your steps, and you are being threatened, you have a duty to retreat if you hope to successfully invoke self defense as a defense to an A & B.
What do you guys think of this opinion? Is it reasonable? What if you open the door to somebody who turns out to be a criminal and he pulls you outside? What if you step out on the porch to talk to a "salesman" who turns out to be a criminal?
I would like to read your thoughts on this.
Sincerely,
Norm Abrahamson