Self-Defense
A person is justified in using force against another if they reasonably believe such force is immediately necessary to protect themselves from the imminent use of unlawful force by another.
Elements / Test
Common law elements:
- Imminent threat of unlawful force
- Reasonable belief that force was necessary
- Proportional response (non-deadly force for non-deadly threat; deadly force only against deadly threat)
- Not the initial aggressor (aggressor who withdraws and communicates withdrawal may regain right)
- No duty to retreat (majority) — or retreat to the wall if safe retreat is available (minority, before using deadly force)
MPC § 3.04 — subjective belief standard:
- Requires only that actor believes force is immediately necessary — even an unreasonable belief satisfies the MPC (but unreasonableness may support a negligence or recklessness charge)
- No retreat required inside the dwelling (§ 3.04(2)(b)(ii))
Imperfect self-defense: Honest but unreasonable belief in necessity → reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter in many jurisdictions.
Exceptions and Edge Cases
- Retreat doctrine: Minority rule — must retreat if can do so in complete safety; Castle doctrine — no duty to retreat in one’s own home (nearly universal); Stand-your-ground statutes — no duty to retreat anywhere (FL and ~30 states)
- Battered woman syndrome: Courts admit expert testimony to explain why victim of prolonged abuse might reasonably fear imminent harm even when abuser is not actively attacking (State v. Norman)
- Aggressor: Initial aggressor loses right to self-defense; may regain by withdrawing AND communicating withdrawal; sudden escalation by victim may restore right
- Defense of others: Same standard as self-defense in most jurisdictions (reasonable belief + imminence + proportionality)
- Goetz case: NY subjective “reasonable to him” standard rejected; purely objective standard upheld
Policy Rationale
Self-preservation is a fundamental human right; state cannot always protect individuals; law should not require martyrdom. Concerns: expansive stand-your-ground laws may encourage vigilantism and have racially disparate application.
Key Cases
| Case | Rule |
|---|---|
| People v. Goetz (N.Y. 1986) | Objective reasonable person standard for self-defense; purely subjective standard rejected |
| State v. Norman (N.C. 1989) | Battered woman killed sleeping husband; imminence requirement strictly applied; conviction upheld |
| People v. Hernandez (Cal.) | Imperfect self-defense reduces murder to manslaughter |