Self-Defense Laws Explained
Understanding Self-Defense Laws
At its core, self-defense laws are designed to help people determine the legality of their actions when responding to a perceived threat. The law aims to strike a balance between allowing individuals the freedom to protect themselves and others and helping to avoid situations in which people take the law into their own hands to an extent that goes beyond the bounds of personal protection .
In all cases, the justification of self-defense — lethal or otherwise — can only be applied to situations in which one side of a conflict can be considered the "aggressor." Because aggression can take on many forms, going beyond just the use of a real weapon, it’s imperative for courts and certain governing bodies to interpret when acts of aggression become sufficient enough to warrant self-defense. Where a threat of physical violence is thought to be inescapable by a certain individual, this is usually when a claim of self-defense is made.
The Legal Perspective on Self-Defense in Maryland
Self-defense is a common law principle that has been adopted and modified by statutes in Maryland. The Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions have the following to say about self-defense: The legal definition of self-defense includes both defense of yourself and defense of other. A person is privileged to use immediate force against another in order to defend him, if he reasonably believes that the other is about to inflict serious physical harm upon him, or if the other is about to commit an offense of such nature that its commission under circumstances involved in the emergency would be attended with serious physical harm to person or property. In order to justify the use of such force, the person must reasonably believe that the force is necessary to defend against the bodily harm threatened against him. The amount of force which he reasonably believes necessary is not restricted to the least amount of force which would be effective to counteract the assault. According to the Maryland courts, the necessity of self-defense "is an objective test based on the reasonableness of a person’s belief as to the danger confronting him." See Miller v. State, 236 Md. 31, 202 A.2d 522 (1964). (A mistake on the part of the party defending himself will not be permitted to disadvantage him unless it is shown that he could have avoided that mistake by taking due care.)
Under What Circumstances Self-Defense is Recognized in Maryland
There are certain scenarios outlined by Maryland law where self-defense is justified. Under the law, an individual can use force if he or she is responding to a perceived threat. A person can use reasonable force on another if the other person is using (or intends to use) unlawful, deadly force against the individual. In Maryland, the standard for "deadly force" is force that causes bodily harm or fear of bodily harm that is likely to cause death or serious injury. Handguns and knives are examples of items capable of causing deadly harm; even a stick can be used as a deadly weapon if it used in a way that is likely to cause serious physical harm.
There are also instances where the use of force is not permitted. For example, a person cannot use force if he or she himself or herself is the initial aggressor (i.e., the first one to use illegal force). The only exception to this rule is where a person is "retreating" from the altercation. In these cases, a person can use force as self-defense even if he or she was the initial aggressor and believed that his or her physical safety was in danger.
Use of Force: Reasonable and Necessary under Maryland Law
Family law and personal injury attorneys are asked this question often enough: "what type of force am I legally permitted to use if someone physically attacks me or a family member and is in the process of inflicting some sort of bodily injury?" The answer is highly fact specific, and one answer clearly is that the law recognizes the right of individuals to use reasonable and necessary force to protect themselves or another from imminent serious bodily harm. As with all areas of law, however, there are gray areas and nuances within these concepts.
The law in Maryland recognizes the right to use defensive force if: (1) the defendant reasonably believes that the plaintiff is about to use unlawful force against him; and (2) the force used by the defendant is not intended to and not likely to seriously injure the plaintiff. Whether the defendant’s belief regarding imminent harm and the amount of force he used were reasonable is for the jury to determine; neither the court nor the jury should take into consideration:
Plaintiff’s opportunity to avoid the imminent injury before resorting to force.
Futility of becoming a victim.
Withdrawal of life support from incapable individuals.
Plaintiff’s initial attack of defendant.
Retreat to wall.
Duty to Retreat or Stand Your Ground in Maryland
Maryland does not have a "stand your ground" law. However, Maryland codified the ancient rule of "duty to retreat" in Courts and Judicial Proceedings, section 3-404, which provides: "It is the right of an individual to resist trespass by a person intending to commit a crime in the dwelling or occupied place of abode of the individual without retreating, unless the individual knows that he can with complete safety avoid the confrontation with the assailant." With respect their duty to retreat, Maryland Courts have held that a person has no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense in his or her home. However, the Court has further held that the "right of self-defense in a dwelling without retreating does not extend to a parking lot or other general public area where the aggressor injures a third party, unless the intruder with intent to commit a crime in the abode also intends or might reasonably be thought to intend to go onto the adjoining parking lot or public area to accomplish his criminal purpose." See Ingram v. State, 127 Md. App. 642, 736 A.2d 442 (1999).
Maryland codified the common law duty to retreat when the altercation occurs outside of the home in Courts and Judicial Proceedings, section 3-404 which provides that before resorting to deadly force, one must retreat "if he knows that he can with complete safety avoid [the] confrontation with the assailant . . . [except] if the person against whom force is used is in the process of committing-a crime of violence on or in the immediate vicinity of the premises where the individual is present or committing a crime in a threatening manner in the immediate vicinity of a dwelling or the curtilage of the dwelling of another. See MD. CODE ANN., CRIM. PROC. § 5-402 (2010). In contrast, thirty states, including Virginia, authorize the use of deadly physical force by a person without retreating in self-defense when in a place where the person has a right to be.
Self-Defense within Your Home: The Castle Doctrine
Although the general right to use self-defense is the same for everyone, whether you are outside or inside the home, the analysis is different. In Maryland, the homeowner is afforded additional protection ("the Castle Doctrine") when the unlawful entry of a person happens in the home or institution, such as a garage, attic, basement or even a rented apartment or dorm room. A homeowner is presumed to fear for their life or safety if an intruder breaks into their home. Therefore, the law does not require them to retreat or consider retreat before using deadly physical force to protect themselves.
In addition, the law provides mortally threatened persons with immunity from prosecution and civil suit if they cause the death of an intruder. Under Md. Code, Criminal Law § 2-201(a) any "Person may use reasonable force to repel an intruder or to terminate the attack of the intruder against the person." The most important phrase there is "reasonable force." The law does not specifically define reasonable force but indicates that reasonable force includes deadly force as long as the use of deadly force is an immediate and imminent threat to your safety .
Just like the broader law regarding self-defense used outside of the home, the use of deadly force must be reasonable under the circumstances. For example, a homeowner who is physically able to retreat instead of using deadly physical force will not be protected by the law if he/she uses deadly physical force against an intruder. And, if the intruder is not likely to inflict serious physical injury against the homeowner, the homeowner would be considered reckless if she/he causes death or serious injury to the intruder.
In Martin v. Himber, 220 Md. 63, 150 A.2d 752 (1960), a homeowner shot and killed a burglar who was breaking into his neighbor’s house at night. The court found the homeowner not guilty of murder and manslaughter because the killing of the burglar was deemed justifiable homicide. The court concluded the "killer need not be actually present at the time … in order to avail himself of the [Castle Doctrine]." 220 Md. 67, 150 A.2d 754.
Criminal Convictions and Legal Defenses
When a defendant in Maryland asserts the claim of self-defense, they are making a legal argument that, even if the allegations are true, the law excuses their actions. In order to do so, the defendant must establish two key elements: First, that it was reasonably necessary for them to use ‘reasonable force’ to protect themselves, and second, that they were not the aggressor in the incident. Whether or not the defendant was the aggressor will often become an issue in the case. For example, if a person did not start the altercation but escalated it to deadly physical force, the potential title of aggressor will be much less significant. However, if an individual is the aggressor in an altercation, even if the other party responds with a greater level of force than would otherwise be permitted, the aggressor may still be prosecuted.
While the right to use force is inherent in self-defense claims, whether or not the force is permitted or reasonable under the circumstances of the altercation is at the heart of many self-defense cases. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals has explained that, while it is true a person does not have a duty to retreat from an altercation upon meeting these challenges, a person will lose the right of self-defense if they respond to the use of unlawful force with more force than necessary. In fact, a party who responds with excessive force will be fully liable for his or her injuries and may be prosecuted for the excessive use of force in an altercation.
No matter the claim, there are common defense strategies used throughout Maryland in criminal cases. For example, when a criminal defense lawyer agrees to represent a person charged with a crime, they may choose to (in some instances) file a "Motion to Suppress", which is generally applicable in circumstances where evidence was unlawfully obtained such as in cases involving unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement. Where evidence has been illegally obtained, the defendant will argue in their Motion to Suppress that the evidence should not be admitted at trial, and they argue the facts that weigh against the lawfulness of the search or seizure. If the Motion to Suppress is successful, the evidence of the alleged crime may be excluded from consideration at trial.
Other defense strategies may include "Insanity" or "Competency to Stand Trial" as potential strategies for individuals who allege that their mental state in committing the crime is outside of the norms of a reasonable person. To be successful in proving insanity, the defendant must prove that at the time they committed the criminal act, he or she was suffering from a severe mental disorder. A successful insanity defense does not lead to an acquittal but rather hospitalization at a state mental institution under supervision. However, given the stigma attached to such a finding, the insanity defense is very difficult to prove, and the burden of proof is on the defendant. An alternative defense to insanity is known as ‘Incompetency to Stand Trial," where the defendant argues that they are unable to comprehend the nature of the proceedings being brought against them as a result of mental incompetency, and therefore, they be removed from the criminal justice system until such time that they may understand the proceedings.
Case Law and Current Judicial Interpretations
"Even though the law in Maryland and DC is pretty similar with respect to self-defense, there are noteworthy differences. One major difference is that in Maryland, there is a general duty to retreat before using deadly force if you are able, and that retreat is an option that must be considered. In contrast, in Washington DC, there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force. The standard of self-defense is whether or not you had a reasonable belief that you or another person was being attacked.
The most recent case where self-defense became an issue in Maryland occurred in December of 2013. A woman in Charles County, MD was acquitted of murder charges after she successfully argued that she acted in self-defense when she shot and killed the man who tried to sexually assault her. She had initially gone to his apartment to confront him regarding his repeated attempts to rape her. During their argument, he threatened to kill her and proceeded to attack her. He grabbed her and hurled her against the wall, but she managed to pull a gun from her purse and shot him repeatedly. She bled out from the neck, shoulder and chest and was successful in claiming that her actions were justifiable under Maryland law.
The law in Maryland states that a person may use deadly force when they have a reasonable belief that it is necessary to protect themselves from another’s imminent use of unlawful force. In this situation, the woman argued that she was acting in self-defense in light of the man’s threatening and violent behavior. She had recently ended a relationship with him after he allegedly began to stalk her, and after seeing him in a grocery store one day, she feared for her safety. When she entered his home that evening, she thought he was sober and would just talk to him about the alleged rape threats. However, the argument led to violence when he tried to grab her purse and she witnessed him pulling out a knife. In her defense, she explained that she thought he was going to kill her and was forced to make a split-second decision to shoot him. The jury agreed and found her action to be justified under Maryland law, and she was acquitted.
Conclusion and General Legal Counsel
Remember, though, that just because the situation seems to justify a self-defense reaction, doesn’t mean you are out of trouble if you actually use physical force to repel your attacker. While you do have the legal right to defend yourself and even the right to use a fair amount of physical force (including lethal force in some situations) to protect yourself or others, that doesn’t mean that prosecutors won’t try to bring charges against you.
Doing so is in some ways the nature of the US legal system – it’s often up to a jury or judge to determine when someone is acting in self-defense and when someone is breaking the law . This is why it is so crucial that you work with a lawyer to properly present your case and see that you are not the one charged with the crime.
If you are unsure about whether you acted in self-defense or if you think you or a loved one may be charged with a crime after a self-defense scenario, we highly recommend that you consult with a lawyer as soon as possible. Anything you say or do can be used against you, even if you were not the person who instigated the fight or scuffle.