Also known as: retreat rules · duty to retreat
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A criminal law doctrine requiring a person who seeks to use deadly force in self-defense to retreat as far as reasonably possible if the retreat can be accomplished in complete safety. The doctrine applies in the minority of jurisdictions that follow the traditional common law approach and is subject to recognized exceptions such as attacks occurring inside the defender's own home.
Ryan Roberts is asleep in his apartment when an intruder forces the door and advances with a knife. Roberts grabs a firearm from his nightstand and shoots the intruder. Because the attack occurs inside his dwelling, the retreat rule imposes no duty on Roberts to flee before using deadly force.
Officer Dana Ellis is making a lawful arrest when the suspect draws a weapon. Ellis uses force to subdue the suspect. Because the encounter occurs while making a lawful arrest, the retreat rule imposes no duty on Ellis to withdraw before using defensive force.
Ruby Rivera is threatened on a public sidewalk by an assailant wielding a bat. Rivera could safely cross the street and enter a store but instead draws a weapon and fires. The retreat rule requires Rivera to take the available safe path before resorting to deadly force.
This was a writ of error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas sentencing the plaintiff in error to death for the murder of Philip Henson, a white man, in the Cherokee Nation of the Indian Territory. The defendant was tried and convicted in 1893, and upon such conviction being set aside by this court, 150 U. S. 551, was again tried and convicted in 1894. The case was again reversed, 157 U. S. 675, when Allen was tried for the third time and convicted, and this writ of error was sued out. The facts are so fully set forth in the previous reports of the case that it is unnecessary to repeat them here. We are somewhat embarrassed in the consideration of this case by the voluminousness of the charge, and of the exceptions taken thereto, as well as by the absence of a brief on the part of the plaintiff in error.
View caseRiley Rivera is accosted by a mugger who demands her purse at knifepoint. Rivera draws her own knife and wounds the mugger. Because the assailant is committing a robbery, the retreat rule does not obligate Riley to withdraw before using defensive force.
Renee Rogers claims self-defense after shooting an attacker inside her garage. The prosecution argues she could have exited safely through a side door. Under the retreat rule the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a safe retreat was available and that Rogers knew it.
On July 21, 1983, petitioner Earline Martin and her husband, Walter Martin, argued over grocery money. Petitioner claimed that her husband struck her in the head during the argument. Petitioner's version of what then transpired was that she went upstairs, put on a robe, and later came back down with her husband's gun which she intended to dispose of. Her husband saw something in her hand and questioned her about it. He came at her, and she lost her head and fired the gun at him. Five or six shots were fired, three of them striking and killing Mr. Martin. She was charged with and tried for aggravated murder. She pleaded self-defense and testified in her own defense. The judge charged the jury with respect to the elements of the crime and of self-defense and rejected petitioner's Due Process Clause challenge to the charge placing on her the burden of proving self-defense. The jury found her guilty. Both the Ohio Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the conviction. Both rejected the constitutional challenge to the instruction requiring petitioner to prove self-defense. The latter court, relying upon Patterson v. New York, concluded that the State was required to prove the three elements of aggravated murder but that Patterson did not require it to disprove self-defense. The court said, "the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant purposely, and with prior calculation and design, caused the death of her husband. Appellant did not dispute the existence of these elements, but rather sought to justify her actions on grounds she acted in self defense." The Supreme Court granted certiorari, 475 U.S. 1119 (1986).
View caseThe rule rests on the view that human life, even that of an aggressor, should be preserved when preservation requires only the sacrifice of the lesser interest in standing one's ground.
No. Jurisdictions following the retreat rule recognize an exception known as the castle doctrine that eliminates any duty to retreat when the attack occurs in the defender's dwelling.
Supporting sources
No. The rule recognizes an exception that eliminates any duty to retreat when the defender is making a lawful arrest.
Supporting sources
The duty arises only when the defender can avoid using deadly force by retreating as far as reasonably possible in complete safety. Retreat is never required if it would expose the defender to additional danger.
Supporting sources
…bodily harm, and that her only means of escape from such danger was in the use of . . . force,” and (3) she “did not violate any duty to retreat or avoid danger.” Ibid. Martin argued that due process did not permit the State to impose the burden of proving self-defense on her, because proving self-defense would necessarily negate…