Castle Doctrine in CA

[BANG BANG]

Anyone have useful information on it?

searching came up with only general info and not very specific for California.

[J-cat]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=351334

Look for the PC section and the case law in my posts. Look up the case. It talks about the application and the limitations.

[JSilvoso]

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

There is authority that the prosecutor's burden of proof is the same, with or without the PC 198.5 presumption:

People v. Owen

Judd v. Lamarque

[The Shadow]

So by your post, it's more of the prosecutor proving that a person's shooting of an intruder was unreasonable, and less of the person proving that their shooting of an intruder was in self defense.

[IGOTDIRT4U]

There is authority that the prosecutor's burden of proof is the same, with or without the PC 198.5 presumption:

Uggghhhh, the Judd case is bad ju-ju. Takes what is nearly an affirmitive defense and makes it just part of "presumed innocent".

[stix213]

Don't shoot an intruder in the back

[Rossi357]

Don't shoot an intruder in the back

Unless he is really stupid and turns his back on you and goes after you wife or kids.

[stitchnicklas]

Unless he is really stupid and turns his back on you and goes after you wife or kids.

at that point you must quad tap the badguy back or no back...

pine box--------you/family in it or badguy in the pinebox and you dealing with getting mr.davis to come a court hearing and getting you off to go home to your living family

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

So by your post, it's more of the prosecutor proving that a person's shooting of an intruder was unreasonable, and less of the person proving that their shooting of an intruder was in self defense.

The burden of proof is the same under the usual self-defense jury instruction and the PC 198.5 jury instruction: the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting was not justified, i.e. that the defendant did not have a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury.

[dantodd]

Sometimes I hate CALCRIM.

How can the jury instructions re-write the statute? NOWHERE in the statute does it say the purpose of the entry has to be unlawful, only the entry. It is possible to imagine an instance where a spurned partner comes back looking for his own possessions or sends someone else to retrieve his possessions and if the person unlawfully and forcibly enters your residence and you don't recognize them how are you supposed to know their intent? That is the whole reason for the statute. You may PRESUME, barring other evidence, that you or your family are in peril of death or great bodily injury.

Is there some case law that has amended this statute such that forcible, unlawful entry with no provable motive is not good cause to use force?

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Sometimes I hate CALCRIM.

How can the jury instructions re-write the statute? NOWHERE in the statute does it say the purpose of the entry has to be unlawful, only the entry.

The "unlawful purpose" langauge is not in the CALCRIM instruction, I think that is commentary from the law firm from its own website.

[bwiese]

Fabio,

Thanks for discussing this - useful knowledge.

[Mr Wizard]

Can some PLEASE speak English? All this legalese verbiage is giving me a headache.
Simple question- do I have the right to use deadly force against an intruder without criminal or civil action being taken against me.

We have had two home invasions in the past three years. Fortunately, my teenage son who was home each time (1-2PM) was only roughed up and not seriously hurt.

Now that I think about it again,I get pissed off all over.
I"ll worry about it when the time comes.

[dantodd]

The "unlawful purpose" langauge is not in the CALCRIM instruction, I think that is commentary from the law firm from its own website.

Thanks. I thought it was a quote of the CALCRIM, didn't realize it was pulled with additional stuff from Chuck's website.