Also known as:no-duty-to-retreat rule · no duty to retreat · stand your ground
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A common-law exception to the duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. The exception applies when an attack occurs inside the defender's own dwelling.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
2
Home Invasion During Late Work
Noelle North was working late in the living room of her two-bedroom condo when an acquaintance slipped through the unlocked balcony door carrying a knife and advanced while making threats. Noelle grabbed a decorative sword from the wall and stabbed the intruder, inflicting fatal wounds while remaining inside the living room. Because the entire confrontation occurred inside her dwelling, the no duty to retreat rule eliminated any obligation to withdraw through the kitchen door or hallway before using deadly force.
Confrontation on the Porch
Nestor Navarro awoke in his duplex bedroom to find an intruder climbing through the window. A struggle carried the pair onto the attached front porch where Nestor struck the intruder with a heavy wrench, causing fatal injury. The entire sequence arose from an unlawful entry into Nestor's residence and remained connected to that dwelling, so the no duty to retreat rule permitted him to stand his ground without first withdrawing deeper into the unit.
The defendant shot and killed his son, a young man of twenty-two. The shooting took place on August 26, 1913, in the little cottage in Stony Point where the son had been born and reared. On the trial, the father maintained that he had acted without premeditation when blinded by passion because of blows and insults. He also maintained that he had acted justifiably in lawful self-defense. The verdict of murder in the first degree is sustained by ample proof.
The jury were properly instructed that homicide in self-defense is not justifiable unless there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury to the slayer. There must also be reasonable ground to apprehend that the danger is imminent. These instructions were coupled, however, with a statement that it was the defendant’s duty, if possible, to retreat and escape. The court stated that a man has no right to resort to force and violence against another, even where the danger is imminent, even where he has reasonable cause to believe that he is in danger, unless he has no reasonably safe means of escape and retreat.
The homicide occurred in the defendant’s dwelling. The defendant admitted on cross-examination that it was possible for him to run away from the house and escape the danger. The portions of the charge on the duty to retreat were not excepted to by the defendant’s counsel.
Does the no duty to retreat rule apply only when the defender owns the home in fee simple?
No. The rule focuses on whether the location functions as the defender's dwelling. Long-term exclusive residential use, payment of rent, and maintenance of personal belongings establish the necessary status even when legal title belongs to an employer or university.
Supporting sources
What happens if the confrontation begins inside the home but moves onto an attached porch?
The no duty to retreat rule still applies. Courts treat the interior and immediately adjoining porch as part of the dwelling when the struggle is continuous and arises from an unlawful intrusion into the residence.
Supporting sources
Does the presence of an unlocked door or prior social visits defeat the home exception?
No. The rule turns on the physical location of the attack once it begins, not on how the intruder gained entry or any prior relationship. An uninvited entry accompanied by an immediate threat satisfies the dwelling predicate regardless of an unlocked door.
Supporting sources
871 P.2d 79 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994)
…a weapon, turned and confronted her attacker instead of escaping. While we do not overrule our earlier holdings that a party has no duty to retreat from a confrontation, we believe the possibility of escape should be a recognized factor in determining whether deadly force was necessary to avoid death or great bodily harm. See State v.…