Castle doctrine in Massachusetts

Joined
Sep 4, 2017
Messages
46
Likes
8
Location
Eastern Massachusetts
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
The castle doctrine in Massachusetts specifically refers to dwellings and outbuildings. Does the doctrine also cover your yard and or the acreage surrounding the dwelling.
I didn't even think MA was a castle doctrine state but an atty friend says we are and that it includes the lawn and any acreage surrounding your castle?
Thanks, Boy interpretation is everything.
 
Commonly accepted answer is the four walls of your home as long as they are not trying to run away from you or be completely disengaged.
There is no requirement to retreat in your home. Your yard would be far harder to defend a shooting in this state and would have to prove inability to retreat since we don’t have stand your ground.
 
Nope, only within the walls of your home. MA Castle doctrine does not include curtilage.

Read more: Much Confusion Around Both Stand-Your-Ground & Castle Doctrine
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Even today, however, the Massachusetts Castle Doctrine is among the most restrictive in the country, applying only to the space within the four walls of your home—step one foot outside, and the generalized duty to retreat is once again imposed. (Most other states' Castle Doctrines also apply it to what is known as the curtilage, the area around your home that is part of the ordinary use of the home–so, the porch, the driveway, the front yard, etc.)
 
First, don’t come to a public forum and ask this question. You need to be out back burying the body. Then call a firearms lawyer.

Jokes aside, it seems like if someone broke into my home and threatened my family, I would have to ask them to hold off for a minute while I took the lock off my gun, went to another room to get ammunition, then load a magazine, and then go back to my bedroom, lay in bed next to my wife, ask them to continue with their malfeasance, and then draw my gun.

Then we would need to open the closest window, remove the screen, and at least have my wife jump off the roof before I can discharge a round.

It’s MA - the castle doctrine only applies when it’s convenient for the local DA. IANAL, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I guess I lied about the whole jokes being aside thing...
 
Nope, only within the walls of your home. MA Castle doctrine does not include curtilage.
This.
In MA you have a duty to flee everywhere but inside the 4 walls of your home. So, if possible to flee without increasing your risk, you must if you're in your yard, sidewalk, porch, shed, detached garage, etc. I don't know about attached garages, but in MA I wouldn't assume it's within your "4 walls".
 
This.
In MA you have a duty to flee everywhere but inside the 4 walls of your home. So, if possible to flee without increasing your risk, you must if you're in your yard, sidewalk, porch, shed, detached garage, etc. I don't know about attached garages, but in MA I wouldn't assume it's within your "4 walls".

To be clear, when outside your home, you have a duty to retreat if it is safe to do so. You are not expected to try to outrun a bullet.
 
First, don’t come to a public forum and ask this question. You need to be out back burying the body. Then call a firearms lawyer.

Jokes aside, it seems like if someone broke into my home and threatened my family, I would have to ask them to hold off for a minute while I took the lock off my gun, went to another room to get ammunition, then load a magazine, and then go back to my bedroom, lay in bed next to my wife, ask them to continue with their malfeasance, and then draw my gun.

Then we would need to open the closest window, remove the screen, and at least have my wife jump off the roof before I can discharge a round.

It’s MA - the castle doctrine only applies when it’s convenient for the local DA. IANAL, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I guess I lied about the whole jokes being aside thing...

Recent MA caselaw shows an acquittal for an armed homeowner who killed someone from inside his home.
 
commonly called the king of the castle doctrine cause it went through when ed king was governor. a big deal at the time cause up until then you were expected to flee from your home instead of confronting/defending yourself while the intruder was inside the home with you and the family.
 
commonly called the king of the castle doctrine cause it went through when ed king was governor. a big deal at the time cause up until then you were expected to flee from your home instead of confronting/defending yourself while the intruder was inside the home with you and the family.
No. Your post is wrong about both the origins of the term Castle Doctrine and the history of the Castle Doctrine in MA

The Castle Doctrine goes way back to English Common Law in the 1600s. The naming of this legal doctrine doesn’t have a damn thing to do with Governor Ed King.

From Wikipedia:


The legal concept of the inviolability of the home has been known in Western civilization since the age of the Roman Republic.[3] In English common law the term is derived from the dictum that "an Englishman's home is his castle" (see Semayne's case). This concept was established as English law by the 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke, in his The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628:[4]

For a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium [and each man's home is his safest refuge].[4]
 
The naming of this legal doctrine doesn’t have a damn thing to do with Governor Ed King.
no, i didn't say that was the official name, that's what it was commonly called when it was put into law and the reason was king was governor, so that flavored the name.
 
no, i didn't say that was the official name, that's what it was commonly called when it was put into law and the reason was king was governor, so that flavored the name.
You are still wrong. It was referred to as the Castle Doctrine hundreds of years before Ed King was even born.
 
You are still wrong. It was referred to as the Castle Doctrine hundreds of years before Ed King was even born.
man, I'm just relating what it was called among the common citizens. no need for a history lesson. I see your a mod so before you antagonize me into another gig I'll just leave this here....so fire away, I'm on radio silence in this thread now.
 
man, I'm just relating what it was called among the common citizens.
Sigh. Let’s try this again.

It was called the Castle Doctrine by ordinary citizens before Ed King was governor. Ed King’s name had nothing to do with it being called the Castle Doctrine. As I posted above, a judge in the UK in 1628 wrote: “for a man’s house is his castle...”. That is why it is referred to as the Castle Doctrine.
 
Recent MA caselaw shows an acquittal for an armed homeowner who killed someone from inside his home.

I assume that you are referring to the Dylan Francisco shooting in Chicopee where the homeowner shot a drunk/high teenager through the door who was trying to break into his home.

He was found not guilty of Manslaughter by the state.

The $750,000 wrongful death suit was filed by his mother on July 8th and is still pending.

Bob

Mother of Dylan Francisco, teen mistaken for a burglar and shot in Chicopee, files wrongful death lawsuit against homeowner Jeffery Lovell
 
I asked the question because it is very pertinent to a situation a friend of mine is in. He had a relatively minor altercation with the neighbor concerning a tree that had fallen. The altercation took place in the neighbors yard but the neighbor pursued my friend continuing to throw punches until they reached the property line. He is being told by his attorney that the castle doctrine applies and that the neighbor was within his rights. I suggested that that I thought that was incorrect but I could not support my position.
Quite often attorneys, police and court don't know the law and don't really care what they are.
Whatever happened to two guys being able to have a scuffle without it becoming a matter for the court.
 
Point:

It's not of much use to have random (some more knowledgeable than others) internet folks chime in, especially when:

Actual Lawyers are involved He is being told by his attorney

And, it's about continuing to throw punches, Not use of deadly force within one's home.


Quite often attorneys, police and court don't know the law and don't really care what they are.

Um....Attorneys are trained to argue the law; cops and courts enforce it....that kind of makes what they do, "the law." You may not like it, but that's the way it works.

If the tree fell on you friend's property, his insurance should cover it. If your friend's tree fell on the neighbor's, then the neighbor's insurance will cover it. If the neighbor was throwing punches, regardless of who was on who's property, your friend should have called the cops.

If he's worried that the neighbor will come after him, in his home, he should notify the neighbor that he may not trespass. He might want to get a (knowledgeable) attorney, to do this, so he has a firm legal basis to call the cops when he comes on the property.
 
Interesting, as others have said, the castle doctrine applies only within the 4 walls of your dwelling. It appears by your description above it becomes a question of who is the aggressor. The fact that the neighbor is chasing your friend and continually throwing punches would likely make the neighbor the aggressor since your friend was trying to get away (if I'm interpreting how you describe it correctly). This is regardless of who was the initial aggressor. IANAL, but that is what I would ask a lawyer if I was pursuing it.
 
They were both throwing punches and neither of them sustained a visible injury. Poor excuse for a fight..
I think it's a fact that rarely does the law or the constitution enter a police station or court room. The cops can do as they please and arrest you for whatever they want. They can lie and the court thinks it's the gospel. They can seize your firearms for no reason and there's not a thing you can do except spend thousands and thousands for competent counsel. The courts don't care about your constitutional rights. Your screwed if you can't afford to defend yourself and IDK if there's anything we can do about it.
 
They were both throwing punches and neither of them sustained a visible injury. Poor excuse for a fight..
I think it's a fact that rarely does the law or the constitution enter a police station or court room. The cops can do as they please and arrest you for whatever they want. They can lie and the court thinks it's the gospel. They can seize your firearms for no reason and there's not a thing you can do except spend thousands and thousands for competent counsel. The courts don't care about your constitutional rights. Your screwed if you can't afford to defend yourself and IDK if there's anything we can do about it.
There’s being right, then there’s proving you’re right, then there’s paying to prove it. You get as much justice as you can afford. Helps if a fat lobbying group wants to publicize your victory to support their cause, only then they might help fund your fight. But then any activist judge wanting to make an example of you can ruin your life practically on a whim.

Pitiful system.
 
I asked the question because it is very pertinent to a situation a friend of mine is in. He had a relatively minor altercation with the neighbor concerning a tree that had fallen. The altercation took place in the neighbors yard but the neighbor pursued my friend continuing to throw punches until they reached the property line. He is being told by his attorney that the castle doctrine applies and that the neighbor was within his rights. I suggested that that I thought that was incorrect but I could not support my position.
Quite often attorneys, police and court don't know the law and don't really care what they are.
Whatever happened to two guys being able to have a scuffle without it becoming a matter for the court.
Read this page from Atty Stephen Neyman. I don't know this atty and this isn't an enodrsement of any kind, merely something Google pulled up that plainly states that your yard/porch/curtilege isn't protected by MGL C. 278 S. 8A.

The Castle Law In Massachusetts, A Valid Defense To Murder
October 28, 2011 | by Stephen Neyman, P.C.
The Castle Law In Massachusetts, A Valid Defense To Murder

Also worth noting: This MA law was fall-out on the conviction of Roberta Shaffer and adjudicated by the SJC on April 28, 1975. I do not have my seminar notes at hand to verify the date that the law was passed but seem to recall that it was July 1975. If so, Tank Commander Mike Dukakis was governor at that time, not Ed King.
COMMONWEALTH vs. ROBERTA E. SHAFFER.
367 Mass. 508
February 7, 1975 - April 28, 1975
Norfolk County
Present: TAURO, C.J., REARDON, QUIRICO, BRAUCHER, HENNESSEY, KAPLAN, & WILKINS, JJ.

At the trial of a woman for killing a man in her home, where there was evidence that during an argument between them the victim, who had beaten her on previous occasions, threatened her, that she then ran downstairs to a basement playroom where her children were, that the victim at first threatened to go down and kill her and the children and then said he would leave the house, but instead returned to the top of the stairs and went down a few steps, whereupon the defendant, without warning the victim, fired one fatal shot at him from a rifle which she had taken from a rack on the wall and loaded, that more than five minutes elapsed between the time she went to the basement and the shooting, and that she had ample opportunity to call the police and to leave the basement with the children, there was no error in instructions to the jury that the defendant, in order to establish that she used deadly force in self-defense, must have had a reasonable apprehension of fatal or serious harm to herself or her children at the hands of the victim and must have "endeavored to avoid any further struggle and retreated as far as she could until there was no probable means of escape," and that the jury must consider all the circumstances relevant to the issue of self-defense, including the fact that the occurrence was in the defendant's own home "where she had a right to be" and "the means of escape from the basement"; this court declined to apply a rule that one assaulted in his own home need not retreat before resorting to the use of deadly force.
 
From the statute:

In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense . . .​

Based on the facts in the original post, as pointed out by others above, the MA castle doctrine would seem to have no relevance here. No criminal prosecution. Neither was in a dwelling. And if those two are the only witnesses, it may be impossible for a judge or jury, in a criminal or civil proceeding, to figure out who was the aggressor and who was attacked, especially since it's at least possible that they exchanged roles one or more times during the altercation.
 
Also worth noting: This MA law was fall-out on the conviction of Roberta Shaffer and adjudicated by the SJC on April 28, 1975.

That's an interesting context note. 1975 - more than 40 years ago. I wonder how that would play today - it's sort of amazing that the legislature acted on that way back then.
 
The Shaffer case is interesting and I'm aware of a lot more that isn't in the public docket as the arressting officer told me about it back in the early 1980s. GOAL was involved in getting the legislation thru according to the former executive director who told me about his role in getting that law passed.
 
Back
Top Bottom