California Self-Defense Laws

California self-defense laws – A former D.A. explains

More info at www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html‎ Under California self-defense law, a person has a basic right to defend himself and others against threats of harm. This includes using force, sometimes deadly force. But there are restrictions and limitations on the lawful use of self defense in California. You must be responding to an imminent threat (rather than a future or hypothetical threat) and the use of force must be in proportion to the danger you face. Using a gun and shooting someone because he is punching you with his fists is generally considered excessive force, though not always. In this video, former Los Angeles deputy D.A. (now criminal defense lawyer) Neil Shouse explains.


Under California law, a person is allowed to use force in self-defense or defense of others when he:

  1. believes that he or they are in “imminent danger,”
  2. believes that force is necessary to stop the danger, and
  3. uses an appropriate level of force in defense.

Self-defense serves as a legal defense to many California crimes, including:

Examples:

  • killing a man with a gun to prevent a rape.
  • kicking a burglar.
  • pushing an attacker down a staircase.

A person can use self-defense as a legal defense when he defends:

  • himself,
  • another person, or
  • his property.

Note that the Castle Doctrine is a set of laws in California that apply to the situation where a person uses self-defense inside his home. Under this doctrine, a person:

  • does not have to retreat when someone breaks into his home, and
  • may use deadly force in defense of himself or someone else in the home.

In addition to using deadly force in defending one's home, a person can legally use this force in self-defense when:

  1. he believes he, or someone else, is in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury,
  2. he believes he must use deadly force to prevent death or injury, and
  3. he uses an appropriate level of force (under the circumstances) in self-defense.

Our California criminal defense attorneys will highlight the following in this article:

man defending himself from gunman
Self-defense is a type of legal defense that an accused may use to beat a criminal charge.

1. What is self-defense?

Self-defense is a type of legal defense that an accused may use to beat a criminal charge.

The defense asserts that:

  1. a defendant used force or violence against someone else, but
  2. he did so to protect himself, his property, or another person.

In using this defense, the defendant essentially:

  • admits that he broke the law,
  • but that it was justifiable under the circumstances.

2. When can it be used as a legal defense?

A defendant is said to have legally acted in self-defense if he:

  1. reasonably believed that he was in “imminent danger” of suffering bodily injury,
  2. reasonably believed that the immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that danger, and
  3. used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.1

If the above are true, then:

  • a defendant has a valid legal defense, and
  • is not liable for a crime.

Questions about self-defense often focus on:

  • “imminent danger,”
  • a “reasonable belief that a threat exists,”
  • the idea of “no more force than necessary,”
  • whether there is a duty to retreat, and
  • what happens with an initial aggressor.

2.1. Imminent danger

Self-defense only works as a legal defense if an accused believed that he was in imminent danger.

A danger is imminent when there is an immediate or present threat. This is when a threat is happening right before someone. An imminent danger cannot relate to something that may or may not happen in the future.2

Example: Jerome is taunts Marcos, pushes him and then goes to punch him. Marcos is justified in using force or violence before Jerome can strike. He is faced with an immediate threat happening right before him.

Now say that Jerome tells Marcos that he is going to beat him up the next day. Marcos hits him in the face. Marcos cannot claim self-defense because the threat of danger was not happening before him. It pertained to a future event.

2.2. Reasonable belief that a threat exists

To successfully claim self-defense, an accused must “reasonably” believe that a threat exists. Note that a belief can be reasonable even if it is not correct.

In determining if a belief is reasonable, the judge or jury will consider:

  1. all of the circumstances that were known to the defendant, and
  2. how a reasonable person would react in the same situation.3

In determining reasonableness, a judge or jury can consider:

  • whether a defendant knew that,
  • someone threatened or harmed another in the past.4

Example: Maria is walking home from a party at night. She is in a commercial district with no homes around and no people in site. A car stops and a man gets out and attempts to steal her purse. Maria would be justified in punching the man since it is reasonable that she believed a threat existed.

But compare this with Maria walking home during the day in a crowded neighborhood. A man approaches her and asks her for “a moment of her time.” She then kicks him. Maria would not be able to raise a self-defense defense because any belief that a threat existed would not be reasonable.

2.3. No more force than necessary

A defendant can only use enough force, in defending himself, that is reasonably necessary under the circumstances.5

This means an amount of force that a reasonable person would believe is necessary under the circumstances. If the defendant used more force than was reasonable, he did not act in lawful self-defense.6

Someone who has been threatened or harmed by a person in the past is justified in acting more quickly or taking greater self-defense measures against that person.7

Example: It is unreasonable for Jenny to stab Doug when he tells her that he hates her. The stabbing is more force than was reasonably necessary.

But it could be reasonable if Doug:

  • is her husband,
  • had committed spousal abuse and domestic battery in the past, and
  • was intoxicated and considered a mean drunk.

2.4. No duty to retreat

A person does not have to retreat, or run, in order to say he acted in self-defense. California is a “stand your ground state.”

This means a person in California does not have to try and run away from harm in order to assert self-defense. He is entitled to stand his ground and defend himself. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.8

Example: Nick is in a bar. A drunk bar patron approaches him, shows him a set of brass knuckles, and tells him he's going to “crush him” if he doesn't leave.

Here, Nick is justified in using reasonable force against the drunk patron. He can stand his ground and defend himself. He can also use force even though he could have easily left the bar and walked away from the harm.

2.5. Initial aggressor

A person can assert self-defense even if he was the aggressor in a fight. But, he may only do so if:

  1. he made a good faith effort to stop fighting and indicated this to the other person, or
  2. he initially attacked with non-deadly force and the other person responded with deadly force.9

Example: Greg picks a fight by pushing and hitting Tom. Tom then grabs a knife and stabs Greg. Here, Greg can probably pull out a gun and shoot Tom in self-defense. Tom “upgraded” the fight by using deadly force with the stab.

3. What about defense of others and property?

A person can use self-defense as a legal defense when he defends himself and:

  • another person, and
  • his property.

The following must be true for the defense to work with regards to defending another person:

  1. the defendant reasonably believed that the other person was in imminent danger,
  2. he reasonably believed he needed to use force to prevent the danger, and
  3. he used no more force than necessary.10

The following must be true for the defense to work with regards to defending property:

  1. there was an imminent threat of harm to a person's property, and
  2. the person used reasonable force to defend his property.11
castle doctrine home self defense invaders coming in
Under the castle doctrine, there is no duty to retreat if a resident confronts an intruder inside his home

4. What is the Castle Doctrine?

The Castle Doctrine is a set of laws that applies to the situation when a person uses self-defense inside his own home.

Under this doctrine, there is no duty to retreat if a resident confronts an intruder inside his home.

In addition, the resident has the right to use deadly force (in self-defense) inside his home when someone uses force to break in.12

Per Penal Code 198.5 PC, a person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent harm when someone breaks into his home.13

Example: A man breaks into John's home in the middle of the night. John reaches into his bedside stand and grabs his handgun. He can legally fire the weapon at the intruder in self-defense, or in defense of someone else in his home. Per PC 198.5, John is presumed to be in fear of imminent harm.

5. Can someone use deadly force in self-defense?

A person is legally justified in using deadly force in self-defense under certain circumstances.

For self-defense to work as a legal defense when an accused killed someone, the accused must show:

  1. he reasonably believed that he, or someone else, was in imminent danger of:
  • being killed,
  • suffering great bodily injury, or
  • being the victim of a forcible and atrocious crime
  1. he reasonably believed that he needed to use deadly force to prevent the danger from happening, and
  2. he used no more force than was reasonably necessary to keep the harm from occurring.14

Example: Isabelle is walking home from a bar at night. Suddenly, a patron from the bar runs behind her, grabs her, starts fondling her, and says she is going to “enjoy this.” It is likely justifiable self-defense if Isabelle grabs a nearby bottle, smashes it, and stabs the patron with it – killing him.

Isabelle reasonably feared she was going to be raped and she used appropriate force.

But compare this with the scenario where Isabelle is walking home from work during the day. She is in a crowded neighborhood and a man runs up to her and grabs her purse. Isabelle takes a knife from her jacket and stabs the man in the neck – killing him.

Here, Isabelle would fail in using self-defense as a legal defense. There was no real danger of her being killed or suffering great bodily injury. Further, she used more force than was necessary.

Note that a person can use deadly force in self-defense even if he was the original aggressor. This is provided the person tried (but ultimately failed) to end the fight.15

6. Self-defense applied to specific California crimes

There are several California crimes where a defendant often tries to assert that he committed an offense because he was acting in self-defense. These crimes include:

6.1. Battery, Penal Code 242 PC

Battery is the unlawful touching of another person. The crime includes things like:

  • a slight touching of another person to
  • punching someone in the face.

A person is allowed to act in self-defense of a battery if he believes to be in imminent danger.

Note that this is true even if someone touches another in a small degree. California law states that the slightest touching can be unlawful if it is done in a rude or angry way.16 The touching doesn't even have to cause pain or injury for someone to act in self-defense.17

If a person is in imminent danger of being unlawfully touched:

  • he can lawfully use reasonable force,
  • in order to protect against the touching.

This is true even though the person does not fear imminent bodily harm.18

Note also that the legal doctrine of “transferred intent” applies in California self-defense/battery cases. This doctrine says that:

  • if a person acts in self-defense of a battery and accidentally injures a third party,
  • the person will not be prosecuted for that injury.19

6.2. Resisting arrest, Penal Code 148 PC

Penal Code 148 PC says that resisting arrest is when a person:

  • resists,
  • delays, or
  • obstructs

an officer while he is performing his official duties.

A person will not be convicted of this crime if he acted in self-defense to an unlawful police procedure. Further, he will not be charged if he resisted against excessive force.

Note though that a person will be charged, under PC 148, if:

  • an officer used excessive force in response to
  • the person's unjustified resistance.

6.3. Domestic violence

California domestic violence laws make it a crime to harm, or threaten to harm, an intimate partner. Common charges include:

  • Penal Code 243(e)(1), domestic battery, and
  • Penal Code 273.5, inflicting corporal injury on an intimate partner.

Self-defense is often raised as a valid legal defense in these cases. The typical situation is when one spouse threatens to harm, or does harm, the other spouse, and the first party uses force in response. Self-defense is also used to protect children from harm by a spouse.

The defense is justified when there is imminent danger and the force used in response is reasonable.

6.4. Murder, Penal Code 187 PC

Penal Code 187 says that murder is the intentional killing of another with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is defined as an unlawful intention to kill or acting with a reckless disregard for human life.

If a person is in imminent danger of being killed, he may take whatever measures that are necessary to prevent the killing. Deadly force is obviously expected. The force will be excused if reasonable and not excessive to prevent harm.

The Flannel doctrine often shows up in murder cases where:

  1. the defendant is charged with murder (per PC 187), and
  2. the accused says he committed the murder because he was acting in self-defense.

The doctrine is also referred to as “imperfect self-defense.” It applies when the accused kills another person based on an honest but unreasonable belief in the need to use deadly force in self-defense.

To go into effect, the flannel doctrine requires a showing that:

  1. the accused believed that he was in imminent peril of being killed or suffering great bodily injury,
  2. the accused believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend himself, and
  3. at least one of these beliefs was unreasonable.20

The doctrine is not really a defense per se, although it applies like a partial defense.

A jury finding that the accused acted in imperfect self-defense results in a charge being reduced from:

  • murder (with a possible life in prison sentence)
  • to voluntary manslaughter (which is punished with three to eleven years in prison).

Example: Amy and Mark get into a minor traffic accident. They pull their cars to the side of the road. Amy has a concealed gun and walks to Mark's car. He apologizes and reaches into the glovebox for his insurance information. Amy believes he is reaching for a weapon and shoots and kills him.

Here, Amy could be charged with murder. If she asserts self-defense, she'll likely lose since her belief to be in danger of being killed was unreasonable. However, per the concept of imperfect self-defense, her murder charge could get reduced to voluntary manslaughter.

For additional help...

california self defense criminal defense attorneys
Call us for help at (855) LAW-FIRM

For additional guidance or to discuss your case with a criminal defense attorney, we invite you to contact us at Shouse Law Group.

For a similar topic under Nevada law, please see our article on: “Nevada Self-defense Laws.”

For a similar topic under Colorado law, please see our article on: “Colorado Self-Defense & Make My Day Laws.”


Legal References:

  1. CALCRIM No. 3470 - Right to Self-Defense or Defense of Another. Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2017 edition). See also People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073.

  2. People v. Aris (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1178. See also People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073.

  3. CALCRIM No. 3470 - Right to Self-Defense or Defense of Another. See also People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073; and, People v. Clark (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 371.

  4. CALCRIM No. 3470 - Right to Self-Defense or Defense of Another. See also People v. Pena (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 462; and, People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055.

  5. CALCRIM No. 3470 - Right to Self-Defense or Defense of Another.

  6. See same. See also People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073.

  7. See same.

  8. CALCRIM No. 3470 - Right to Self-Defense or Defense of Another. See also People v. Hughes (1951) 107 Cal.App.2d 487; and, People v. Hatchett (1942) 56 Cal.App.2d 20.

  9. CALCRIM 3471 – Right to Self-Defense: Mutual Combat or Initial Aggressor.

  10. CALCRIM 505 – Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another.

  11. CALCRIM 3476 – Right to Defend Real or Personal Property.

  12. California Penal Code 198.5 PC.

  13. See same.

  14. CALCRIM 505 - Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another.

  15. CALCRIM 3471 – Right to Self-Defense: Mutual Combat or Initial Aggressor.

  16. CALCRIM No. 3470 - Right to Self-Defense or Defense of Another.

  17. See same.

  18. People v. Myers, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 328.

  19. People v. Mathews, (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 1018.

  20. People v. Por Ye Her (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 349.

Free attorney consultations...

The attorneys at Shouse Law Group bring more than 100 years collective experience fighting for individuals. We're ready to fight for you. Call us 24 hours a day, 365 days a year at 855-LAW-FIRM for a free case evaluation.

Regain peace of mind...

Shouse Law Defense Group has multiple locations throughout California. Click Office Locations to find out which office is right for you.

Office Locations

Shouse Law Group has multiple locations all across California, Nevada, and Colorado. Click Office Locations to find out which office is right for you.

Call us 24/7 (855) 396-0370