OK, so I'm still wanting to hear from somebody, anybody, who has actually gone to trial on a case in which the defendant raises castle doctrine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JB:
Road rage or self-defense? Just watch for the "castle doctrine" get invoked to protect your right to a safe space on Mo Pac.

---

Just wait until they narrow the lane widths to add another lane!

Gives a whole 'nother meaning to the concept of having a right to be in a particular place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LT:
OK, so I'm still wanting to hear from somebody, anybody, who has actually gone to trial on a case in which the defendant raises castle doctrine.

---

I have kinda had one. Defendant and victim were both spending the night at victim's girlfriend's apartment. Victim gets up next day borrows Defendant's car and buys pcp and gets high. When victim comes back he is acting "self-destructive."

Defendant who was "like a brother" to victim checks on him before he is going to leave to return to Fort Hood. (Did I mention he was an Iraq war veteran with no criminal history) Victim tells him he is going to kill that B*&^( outside (the girlfriend is outside on cell phone)
Defendant gets up to stop him. Victim pushes defendant making a threat to kill him as well. So Defendant pulled his 9 and shot him once killng him.

Helped that he repeatedly told everyone that victim pushed him so he shot him. Jury convicted, but on lesser included Agg. Aslt with Deadly Weapon. (citing no intent to kill even though it was indicted on act clearly dangerous) They gave him 5 years TDC. (Did I mention victim was a crip with violent history) While they said he had no duty to retreat - the response was not "reasonable." Given the situation. (i.e. no weapons from victim and the only thing he had done so far was push the defendant.)

Anyway - both had legal right to be present so no duty to retreat. However, jury did not feel victim was in the course of commiting murder.

Considering the victim, the defendant, pcp, etc. I was happy with the conviction on lesser included.

so it's been over a year since the last activity on this thread. I'm wondering if anyone else has gone to trial in the meantime on a case in which the defense raised the castle doctrine. If so, could you please email me directly. Thanks

Trayvon Martin's parents appeared before a task force in Florida on Tuesday to denounce the way the state's controversial "stand your ground" law can be used to protect aggressors.

Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton believe that's what happened in the case of their son, who was unarmed when he was shot and killed in February by a neighborhood watch volunteer.

"They need to amend these laws," Fulton said, according to the Orlando Sentinel, which was covering the task force hearing. "I don't have anything against the 'stand your ground' law; it's the way that it's applied."

Details.

Texas A&M University researchers say controversial ”stand your ground” laws have increased the number of murder and manslaughter cases – rather than serve as a deterrent to crime.

[Given all the outcry to make evidence-based criminal justice decisions, anyone think this study will have legs to change the law?]

Details.

Watch out, bears!

A Montana rancher shot and killed a black bear that broke into his house along the Rocky Mountain Front and raided the pantry.

Details.

Ok, I'm bumping this thread because we are working on an appeal of a case where the "castle doctrine" was in play. I'm aware of a number of cases we have tried under this law, some with favorable outcomes, some not so much. Frankly, I'm uninterested in debating the pros and cons of a duty to retreat. But I am firmly in the camp that the current statutory framework is a mess, especially when you try to put it in a jury charge. If anyone is interested in exchanging information and ideas on improving this area of law, please email me. If anyone has a good example case, it might be a good base for a Prosecutor article.