Opinion ID: 4376408
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Castle Doctrine Jury Instruction

Text: Maintaining that he acted in self-defense, Trice persisted in his explanation throughout the trial. As relevant to this appeal, Trice requested a jury instruction on self-defense, including the following instruction, which is commonly referred to as the “castle doctrine” or the privilege of non-retreat from the home. Under Florida law, as an exception to the duty-to-retreat rule, the castle doctrine provides that a defendant has no duty to retreat when attacked in his home: If the defendant was attacked in his own home or on his own premises, he had no duty to retreat and had the lawful right to stand 8 Case: 17-14476 Date Filed: 03/13/2019 Page: 9 of 26 his ground and meet force with force, even to the extent of using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, if it was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself. Although Trice was not residing in the marital home at the time, he contended that he had a superior legal right to his office, where the shooting occurred, and thus the instruction was proper. The state trial court refused to give the castle doctrine instruction because both Trice and Darla had the legal right to occupy the office at the time of the shooting. In so ruling, the state trial court relied on State v. Bobbitt, 415 So. 2d 724, 724-26 (Fla. 1982), in which the Florida Supreme Court held that when an assailant and the victim are legal occupants of the same home and neither has the legal right to eject the other, the “castle doctrine” does not apply. Instead, the state trial court gave the instruction applicable in all self-defense cases regarding the duty to retreat: The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could’ve avoided the need to use that force. However, if the defendant was placed in a position of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and it would’ve increased his own danger to retreat . . . then his own use of force [that] was likely to cause death or great bodily harm was justifiable.