Defensive Force in NC: The Castle Doctrine and Stand-Your-Ground Provisions

The Common Law established an individual’s right to use force to defend their home and themselves. In 1994, the General Assembly broadened an individual’s right to use force when threatened with death or serious bodily injury through the enactment of G.S. §14-51.1. In 2011, the General Assembly repealed G.S. § 14-51.1 and again expanded these rights through the enactment of the “Castle Doctrine” (G.S. § 14-51.2) and the “Stand-Your-Ground Provision” (G.S. § 14-51.3). While the two statutes have many similarities, there are key differences in the protections they afford.

Prior to 1994, the common law provided rules for an individual’s right to use force in defending their home. Common law allowed the lawful occupant of a dwelling to use deadly force to prevent the entry of an intruder so long as the circumstances would lead a reasonable person to believe the intruder intended to commit a felony or inflict death or serious bodily injury against one of the occupants. An individual relying on this defense of habitation could not use excessive force. Once the intruder gained entry, the defense of habitation no longer applied and the rules of self-defense took over, with the exception that there was no duty to retreat.

In 1994, the North Carolina General Assembly codified the defense of habitation through its enactment of G.S. § 14-51.1. The legislature expanded the right from merely preventing the unlawful entry of an intruder to terminating the threat. However, the legislature retained the common law’s prohibition against excessive force by including the language that “[a] lawful occupant … is justified in using any degree of force the occupant reasonably believes is necessary ….” Therefore, the force used to repel the threat must have been reasonable and proportionate to the threat the individual using the force perceived.

In 2011, the North Carolina General Assembly repealed G.S. § 14-51.1 and passed House Bill 650. This Bill contained two provisions commonly known as the “Castle Doctrine” and the “Stand-Your-Ground Provision.” The Castle Doctrine (G.S. § 14-51.2) creates two presumptions that apply to lawful occupants of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace when an individual unlawfully enters or attempts to remove an occupant from their home, motor vehicle, or workplace. The Stand-Your-Ground provision (G.S. § 14-51.3) permits the use of force, including deadly force, in any place the person has a lawful right to be and eliminates the common law duty to retreat.

Castle Doctrine: G.S. 14-51.2

The “Castle Doctrine” is set forth in G.S. § 14-51.2. The concept originates from English law and the theory that an individual’s home is their castle and an individual has a right to defend their castle when there is an unlawful attack on it. The Castle Doctrine creates two presumptions the State may rebut only through one of the five exceptions found in the statute. If these presumptions apply, the individual is entitled to deadly force, regardless of the threat they perceive.

The first presumption prescribed is that the “lawful occupant” of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace, is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to themselves or to others. The second presumption prescribes that the individual who unlawfully entered the home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have done so with an intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

These two presumptions apply in three distinct circumstances. First, the person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering the home, motor vehicle, or workplace. Second, the person against whom defensive force was used had unlawfully and forcibly entered the home, motor vehicle, or workplace. Third, the person against whom defensive force was used had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace. The individual who used defensive force must have known or had reason to believe an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had already occurred for the presumptions to apply.

Under the common law and 1994 version of the statute, the burden rested with the lawful occupant to show his or her belief that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily injury or intend to commit a felonious act was reasonable. G.S. § 14-51.2 now presumes the intruder acted with this intent.

The State may rebut the presumptions. However, the State may only do so through one of the five exceptions set forth in G.S. § 14-51.2(c). The five exceptions are as follows:

• The “intruder” has the right to be or is a lawful resident of the home, motor vehicle, or workplace (i.e. owner or lessee) and there is no DVPO or bail condition that prohibit him from being there.
• The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild or otherwise in lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the “intruder.”
• The person who uses defensive force is engaged in criminal activity.
• The “intruder” is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman lawfully performing their duties.
• The “intruder” has discontinued all efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the home, motor vehicle, or workplace, and exited the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.

Under these circumstances, evidence of the “intruders” relative size or strength as a way to disprove a lawful occupant’s reasonable belief of fear or serious bodily injury would be impermissible.

If the requirements of G.S. § 14-51.2(b) are met and the exceptions in G.S. § 14-51.2(c) are not present, the individual is “immune from criminal or civil liability.“ Immunity from liability has been interpreted to mean immunity only from a conviction and judgment, not from the civil or criminal prosecution.

Stand-Your-Ground Provision: G.S. § 14-51.3

The “Stand-Your-Ground” provision is set forth in G.S. § 14-51.3. The “Stand-Your-Ground” provision is separate and distinct from the Castle Doctrine. This statute authorizes the use of force in any location a person has a lawful right to be and eliminates the common law duty to retreat. Unlike the Castle Doctrine, G.S. § 14-51.3 does not create presumptions of death or serious bodily injury. Additionally, under the Stand-Your-Ground Provision, an individual is prohibited from using excessive force in terminating a threat.

G.S. § 14-51.3 authorizes the use of force when an individual reasonably believes the conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. Deadly force is permitted if the individual reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or under the circumstances permitted by the “Castle Doctrine.”

The prohibition of excessive force was codified into statute when the legislature enacted the Stand-Your-Ground provision. When an individual is in a place where they have a lawful right to be and have a reasonable belief they are being faced with death or serious bodily injury, that individual is justified in using force to defend themselves or others, so long as the force used is proportional to the threat in which they reasonably perceive.

HOW THE CASTLE DOCTRINE AND STAND-YOUR-GROUND PROVISION DIFFER

There are a few key differences in the statutes. First, the “Castle Doctrine” only applies in the home, vehicle, or workplace, whereas the “Stand-Your-Ground Provision” does not contain locational limitations. Second, the “Castle Doctrine” creates two presumptions that can be rebutted by the State. The “Stand-Your-Ground Provision” does not contain any presumptions. Third, while “Castle Doctrine” does not contain a prohibition on excessive force, the “Stand-Your-Ground Provision” does. Both statutes provide immunity from civil or criminal liability if the elements are met.

IMMUNITY UNDER THE STATUTE

The “Castle Doctrine” and “Stand-Your-Ground” provision both provide “immunity from civil and criminal liability resulting from the use of such force.” Recently, the Supreme Court of North Carolina has held that immunity from “liability” means immunity only from a conviction and judgment, not the prosecution itself. State v. Austin, 279 N.C. App. 377 (2021). Therefore, there is no statutory mechanism for a pretrial immunity hearing under the current “Castle Doctrine” or “Stand-Your-Ground” Provision.

Categories: Blog