An Overview of Stand Your Ground Laws
Stand Your Ground laws are codified legal doctrines that provide an immunity from criminal prosecution to defendants who use physical force in certain circumstances. They differ from traditional self-defense laws in two important ways. First, they generally eliminate the traditional legal duty of a person to take reasonable steps to retreat from the situation only if they know that safety is possible before resorting to the use of deadly force in self-defense. Second, they provide the individual with the right to meet force with force even if that use of force is not necessary for the specific purpose of self-defense . Where a traditional self-defense law may require the plaintiff to reasonably fear for his life in order to meet an attack with physical force, under a Stand Your Ground statute, a person need not have an actual belief that he has any imminent need to use force in self-defense; he may use deadly physical force if he subjectively believes that he would have the right to do so, even if that belief turns out to be unreasonable or even impossible to occur under the circumstances.
Arizona’s Stand Your Ground Law in Detail
Although the FBI does not categorize Stand Your Ground as a type of homicide, and the law in Arizona is different than that of many other states, the legal concept of Stand Your Ground or the unwritten rule to "Say Nothing to Police" is part of the criminal law attorneys’ defense toolbox.
Background on Stand Your Ground A corollary to "Stand Your Ground" laws is the right to use deadly force when one reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm to oneself or the imminent commission of a violent crime. The use of deadly force is justified if an objective person using ordinary care would believe that the other person is threatening such violence. The use of deadly force is allowed in one’s home when one reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent criminal trespass involving a threat of physical violence. The Arizona law is set out in Arizona Revised Statute §13-411, and specifically states: A. A person is justified in using physical force against another if the person reasonably believes that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical force. B. A person is justified in using deadly physical force if the person reasonably believes that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against another’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force. C. A person is not justified in using physical force against another unless the person first attempts to retreat to safety and he reasonably believes that retreating may not safely be accomplished. This subsection does not apply to a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where the person has a right to be.
Where Does Arizona Stand on Stand Your Ground? (1) Under the Arizona Criminal Code, there is no duty to retreat from or stop an altercation to which you are a party. A party may simply have to measure the risk and make a choice as to which will be less risky in the worst case scenario. (2) As a substantive matter, Arizona has decided not to modify self-defense with the legislature’s decision to adopt "Stand Your Ground" by statute. Many state statutes affirmatively create a "Stand Your Ground" presumption based on the use of deadly force in one’s home. Arizona law does not create such a presumption, instead explicitly requiring an evaluation of each party’s actions and the reasonableness of their beliefs.
Key Statutes and Precedents in Arizona
As "Make My Day Laws" have become more common in the United States, the Arizona State Legislature has used various statutes and legal cases to support the use of deadly physical force to counter perceived threats based on the fear of imminent harm.
State v. McDonald
The defendant was attacked early one morning by several men outside of a hookah lounge in Phoenix. The defendant feared for his life, which led him to brandish a gun and shoot one of the men during the fight. The man was killed as a result of the gunshot. The defendant was charged with second-degree murder and the defense called forward testimony from a police officer and a to corroborate the defendant’s version of the facts pertaining to the fight and explain why he feared for his life in regard to what had occurred. The trial court refused to allow this testimony to be heard by the jury. The defendant appealed on the basis that it was prejudiced by the exclusion of this testimony, but the appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision. In its decision, the court stated that based on the testimony that was deemed admissible, it was unlikely that the defendant would have been exonerated, so the exclusion of evidence was not prejudicial. The bottom line here is that while "Make My Day Laws" have influenced Arizona jurisprudence, the excluded testimony in this case was not ultimately held to be relevant to the case in question. However, the defense attorney’s strategy of heavily relying on a police officer’s testimony with no further background was questionable due to the impact such testimony would have on a jury. The point of the defense was to challenge the state’s perception of violence and whether or not the district attorney in this case could prove the intent to kill in regard to the defendant’s actions at the convenience store that day.
State v. Stead
Again, we have a case involving the use of a dangerous instrument and the interpretation of what provoked it when "stand your ground" issues are considered. The defendant in this case, for example, felt threatened when he was leaving a party and decided to pull a handgun out on his attackers. By the time the police arrived, the defendant in this case had already fired his weapon (only after his car was surrounded by attackers) and he was facing aggravated assault charges. The issues for the jury to consider in this case were whether or not the defendant had the intent to kill and whether or not the use of deadly physical force was justified. The state did not call any witnesses to testify against the defendant here. This put the defense attorney’s strategy to the test, since his argument was based on the existence of actual danger or threats that the defendant had faced. The jury was asked to consider the fact that the defendant was in his own car taking pictures of the people who threatened him before he reached for his weapon. The bottom line in this case is that the jury convicted the defendant of unlawful use of a means of transportation, but the aggravated assault and related charges were found to be baseless.
Comparing Arizona’s Stand Your Ground Law with Other States
Stand Your Ground is a legal doctrine that allows individuals to use deadly force in self-defense when they believe that there is a credible threat to their safety. Arizona’s Stand Your Ground law is one of the most permissive in the United States. Under Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-411, a person has no duty to retreat before using deadly physical force if they are in a place where they are allowed to be, and they reasonably believe that the deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect themselves (or another person) against another’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.
Here’s how Arizona’s Stand Your Ground law compares to those in other states:
- Similar laws have been enacted in all but 24 states across the country. Most of the laws are similar to each other. In general, most states’ laws do not place a duty to retreat on the person claiming self-defense in the event of an attack if the person can safely get away from the situation . Notably, though, at least 11 states have "castle doctrine" laws that allow for people to use deadly force to defend their homes from an attacker.
- In each of the 12 states with Stand Your Ground laws, a claim must be plausibly supported (but a jury doesn’t need to believe it) for the law to apply. Before Stand Your Ground laws existed in the United States, courts tended to side with aggressors, which mostly led to homicide cases ending up before juries.
- Unlike most states, in Arizona, a person can also use Stand Your Ground when they are merely threatened with criminal trespass, unlawful entry or larceny. In many other states, courts have found that only the use of deadly physical force is justifiable in castle-doctrine or Stand Your Ground claims.
- Arizona’s law is also notable to be one of the few to be based on common law rather than the Uniform Code of Military Justice model that the other 11 laws are based on.
What the Law Means for Residents of Arizona
The most notable real-life implication of Arizona’s "Stand Your Ground" law for residents occurs when they have to resort to deadly force in a self-defense situation. It is important for residents to understand that the law does not give them carte blanche to legally kill someone if confronted with a potentially dangerous or violent situation. Rather, it is meant to afford more protection from prosecution to a person who reasonably believes that use of deadly physical force is necessary to protect himself or herself from death or serious physical injury. There are various ways the law can be applied to situations. To qualify for protection under the castle doctrine, you must fear for your life in a residence or business. For general self-defense, you must be free from fault in provoking the confrontation, and have committed no greater degree of force than necessary to defend yourself. You are also legally required to back away from the confrontation if you can do so safely — unless you have a "stand your ground" requirement where there is no duty to retreat. The bottom line is that the law does not make being charged with a crime inevitable – it just means that you might be able to use it as a defense if you are charged in relation to self-defense. It does not guarantee that you will not be charged with a crime, and every case is a little different from the next. For this reason, if you find yourself involved in a confrontation situation, it is wise to document everything you can (by video, audio or written notes) to help support your necessary use of force claim later if necessary.
Critiques and Support of the Law
Supporters of Arizona’s stand your ground law argue that the legislation is necessary for protecting law-abiding citizens from criminal prosecution when they exercise self-defense in life-threatening situations. "The law is an important tool for preventing residents from being charged with crimes when they justifiably defend themselves from attackers," said a Phoenix criminal defense attorney. Proponents of the law also argue that the expanded rights provided to individuals defend themselves (i.e. the right to stand their ground) are necessary to protect against district attorneys and judges who otherwise err on the side of caution when exercising discretion in prosecuting self-defense claims. "The last thing that the Arizona justice system should be is even one self-defense claim being prosecuted by an iffy district attorney or judge," said a state lawmaker who supported the legislation.
Opponents of the law, however, believe that these protections may result in an increase in murder rates as people are given the green light to escalate confrontations with deadly intent. "We don’t want people who may get into bar fights or other scuffles with people thinking that they can pull out guns, knives or other weapons because of the Stand Your Ground Law," said a member of the state’s chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America , a national gun control advocacy group. Critics also believe that the law could result in shootouts being initiated at places with larger public gatherings, including shopping centers and parks. "It’s one thing for a person to go on their front porch and confront someone who is trespassing," added a prominent community leader who has opposed the legislation. "It’s another thing altogether for people to think they have the right to shoot someone in crowded places."
Others have decried the bill as favoring criminals over law-abiding citizens on the streets. "It’s just shameful that people can obstruct law enforcement and shoot people over petty complaints," said another prominent community leader. To this effect, there has been some debate on whether the law’s provisions will reduce or actually increase the number of people killed in Arizona.
According to a local district attorney, self-defense claims have resulted in increased prosecutions, but the majority of self-defense claims that have gone to trial (approximately 20 percent) have been found to be legally justified. "We also have a fairly large number of self-defense claims that have resulted in successful prosecutions," he responded. "There are going to be examples on both sides of the legal spectrum."