Opinion ID: 2599573
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Use of Deadly Force in Defense of Person at Common Law

Text: Generally speaking, a person does not have to try to escape before using reasonable non-deadly physical force to defend against unlawful force by an aggressor. See Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Substantive Criminal Law § 5.7(f) (1986). However, English common law required a person to retreat to the wall before using deadly force in self-defense. See Idrogo v. People, 818 P.2d 752, 754 (Colo.1991). [7] Under the retreat to the wall doctrine, a person is entitled to employ deadly force in self-defense only if the person demonstrated that no reasonable means of escape existed at the time he killed his assailant. See Perkins, supra note 7, at 140-41. Exceptions to the doctrine developed such as the castle doctrine, which allows a person in his own home to use deadly force in self-defense without first retreating even if a reasonably safe means of escape exists. See, e.g., Conn. Gen.Stat. § 53a-19(b) (1999); Model Penal Code § 3.04(2)(b)(ii)(A) (1985). A substantial number of American jurisdictions still apply variations of the retreat to the wall rule in self-defense cases. See, e.g., State v. Gartland, 149 N.J. 456, 694 A.2d 564, 569-70 (1997) (discussing application of duty to retreat and castle doctrine when a woman defends herself against a co-habitant spouse). [8] In contrast to the retreat to the wall doctrine, many jurisdictions developed a no duty to retreat rule, or true man doctrine for the use of physical force in self-defense. See, e.g., Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550, 560-561, 15 S.Ct. 962, 39 L.Ed. 1086 (1895); State v. Renner, 912 S.W.2d 701, 703-04 (Tenn.1995). [9] The true man doctrine stands for the proposition that a true person, or someone who is without fault, does not have to retreat from an actual or threatened attack even if he could safely do so before the person may use physical force in self-defense. See 40 Am.Jur.2d Homicide § 164 (1999). Furthermore, the true person does not have to consider whether a reasonable person in the situation would opt to retreat to safety rather than resorting to physical force to defend against unlawful force. See id.; Renner, 912 S.W.2d at 704. Typically, jurisdictions state that the true person doctrine applies when (1) the defendant is without fault in provoking the confrontation; (2) the defendant is in a place where he has a lawful right to be; and (3) the defendant has a reasonable fear that the victim is about to cause the defendant immediate serious bodily harm or death. See, e.g., Beard, 158 U.S. at 561-62, 15 S.Ct. 962; Renner, 912 S.W.2d at 704. Like many jurisdictions, Colorado adopted as part of its common law the no duty to retreat rule for the use of deadly force in self-defense. See Boykin v. People, 22 Colo. 496, 504, 45 P. 419, 422 (1896). In Boykin, this court recognized that in some instances a person may have a duty to retreat before using deadly force, but we adopted the no duty to retreat doctrine as the general rule for this state: There are, doubtless, cases where it is the duty of the party assaulted to retreat to the wall before taking human life, as, for example, where the case is one merely of simple assault, or where the parties engage in mutual combat, or where the defendant is the assailant, and has not in good faith declined further struggle before resorting to self-defense, or has provoked the assault with intent to commit a felony.. . . But where a defendant is where he has a right to be, as, for example, a police officer engaged in making an arrest, and is assaulted by the deceased in a way that defendant honestly and in good faith believes, and the circumstances being such as would induce a like belief in a reasonable man, that he is about to receive at the hands of his assailant great bodily harm, or to lose his life, the defendant, if he did not provoke the assault, or is not within some of the exceptions above noted, is not obliged to retreat or flee to save his life, but may stand his ground, and even, in some circumstances, pursue his assailant until the latter has been disarmed or disabled from carrying into effect his unlawful purpose; and this right of the defendant goes even to the extent, if necessary, of taking a human life. See id. Our cases following Boykin consistently stand for the proposition that, with the limited exceptions expressed in Boykin, Colorado does not impose a duty to retreat before a person may use physical force in self-defense. In People v. La Voie, for example, we held that the defendant had the right to defend himself when the passengers of the another car approached the defendant after colliding with his car, and we did not impose on the defendant a duty to retreat. See 155 Colo. 551, 553-55, 395 P.2d 1001, 1002-03 (1964). Similarly, in Enyart v. People this court reiterated our no duty to retreat rule and noted that a person must retreat to the wall only in limited circumstances, such as if the person was engaged in mutual combat. See 67 Colo. 434, 438, 180 P. 722, 723 (1919). In Enyart, we reversed the defendant's conviction because one of the jury instructions might have misled the jury to believe that the defendant, who was attending his own business, in his own bank, had to retreat to a position of no escape before using deadly physical force. See 67 Colo. at 439-40, 180 P. at 724. More recently, in Idrogo, we refused to accept the People's argument that the duty to retreat arises before a defendant may use deadly physical force in self-defense: The People argue that even though there is no general duty to retreat before acting in self-defense, such a duty arises before a defendant may use deadly force. We reject this argument. See 818 P.2d at 754. Idrogo and our other cases demonstrate that our caselaw consistently stands for the proposition that there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense except in certain specifically identified circumstances.