Use of Force or Violence in Defense vs. Justifiable Homicide: Understanding Louisiana Law
Choosing the right legal defense is about understandingwhich statute applies. Under Louisiana law, self‑defense is codified in two different statutes: La. R.S. 14:19 (“use of force or violence in defense”) and La. R.S. 14:20 (“justifiable homicide”).
This article explores the differences between these provisions, explains the elements a defendant must prove under each, highlights key case law, and answers common questions. It is designed for ordinary readers confronting a criminal charge involving the use of force. The attorneys at The Ambeau Law Firm bring extensive experience in violent‑crime and homicide defense and can guide clients through these complex laws.
Statutory Framework
Use of Force or Violence in Defense – La. R.S. 14:19
Louisiana’s general self‑defense statute authorizes non‑deadly force under limited circumstances. Section 14:19 provides that a person may use force or violence on another when it is committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property. The force must be reasonable and apparently necessary. Importantly, the statute does not apply if the force results in a homicide deadly encounters fall under R.S. 14:20.
The statute also includes Louisiana’s stand‑your‑ground provision. A person in a place they lawfully have a right to be “shall have no duty to retreat” before using force. The finder of fact (jury or judge) is prohibited from considering the possibility of retreat when evaluating whether force was reasonable.
Key elements under R.S. 14:19:
– Purpose: Force must be used to prevent a forcible offense against the person or to stop a forcible offense or trespass against property.
– Reasonableness: The force must be reasonable and apparently necessary to stop the offense.
– No homicide: The statute does not apply where the force results in a death.
– Stand‑your‑ground: No duty to retreat when lawfully present; retreat is not a factor for the jury.
Justifiable Homicide – La. R.S. 14:20
When deadly force is used, the killing may be justifiable under R.S. 14:20 if one of four circumstances applies:
- Self‑defense: The homicide is committed “by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm” and the killing is necessary to save him.
- Preventing a violent or forcible felony: The killing is committed to prevent a violent felony and the circumstances are sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that serious danger to life or person would result without the killing.
- Defense of persons in a dwelling, business or vehicle: The killer reasonably believes the victim is likely to use unlawful force against a person inside a dwelling or business or is attempting to use unlawful force against a person in a motor vehicle.
- Shoot‑the‑intruder (castle doctrine): The killer is lawfully inside a dwelling, business or vehicle and uses deadly force to prevent or repel an unlawful entry or compels an intruder to leave, provided the killer reasonably believes deadly force is necessary. This provision does not apply if the shooter is engaged in drug trafficking.
Like R.S. 14:19, the statute codifies a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, business or motor vehicle holds a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary when an unlawful entry occurs. The statute also explicitly states that a person “who is not engaged in unlawful activity…shall have no duty to retreat” and may stand his or her ground.
Key elements under R.S. 14:20:
– Reasonable belief of imminent danger or necessity.
– Deadly force must be necessary.
– No duty to retreat if lawfully present.
– Statutory presumptions of reasonable belief in home/business/vehicle situations.
– Limitations: The statute does not apply if the shooter is engaged in illegal drug activities.
Aggressor Doctrine and Defense of Others
The aggressor doctrine (R.S. 14:21) bars self‑defense for someone who “is the aggressor or who brings on a difficulty” unless they withdraw in good faith and communicate that withdrawal. This doctrine applies to all forms of justifiable homicide, including the shoot‑the‑intruder defense.
Under R.S. 14:22 (Defense of others), it is justifiable to use force (including deadly force) to defend another person when it is reasonably apparent the person attacked could have used such means and when intervention is reasonably believed necessary to protect the other person.
Case Law Clarifying the Statutes
Non‑homicide Self‑Defense: State v. Freeman
In State v. Freeman, a defendant was convicted of aggravated battery for shooting her ex‑husband. The Louisiana Supreme Court explained that in non‑homicide cases under R.S. 14:19, the defense of self‑defense requires a dual inquiry: an objective determination whether the force used was reasonable and a subjective determination whether the defendant actually believed such force was necessary. The court contrasted this with homicide cases, which require only an objective reasonable belief of imminent danger.
The court suggested that the burden of proving self‑defense in non‑homicide cases might lie with the defendant because the defense is an affirmative justification. However, the court did not resolve this question because the evidence showed the shooting was not reasonable; the defendant was protected by a police officer, and the victim made no physical threats. The decision underscores that non‑deadly self‑defense is narrowly construed: jurors must decide whether the force used was both reasonable and apparently necessary.
Homicide Self‑Defense and Duty to Retreat
The Louisiana Supreme Court, in an earlier case State v. Patterson, explained that under R.S. 14:20 a homicide is justifiable when the defendant reasonably believes he is in imminent danger and the killing is necessary to save himself. The possibility of retreat is a factor the jury may consider in determining whether the belief was reasonable (although later statutory amendments removed the duty to retreat for those lawfully present).
Case law emphasizes that the state bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not in self‑defense. In other words, once a defendant raises self‑defense in a homicide case, the prosecution must disprove it.
Aggressor Doctrine and Stand‑Your‑Ground: State v. Gasser
The 2019 appellate decision State v. Gasser involved a road‑rage incident where the defendant claimed self‑defense under the shoot‑the‑
intruder provision. The court held that the justification defense in R.S. 14:20 is “not unqualified” a person who is an aggressor cannot claim self‑
defense unless they withdraw in good faith. The case further clarified that the aggressor doctrine applies to all subsections of R.S. 14:20, including the shoot‑the‑intruder defense. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the aggressor doctrine did not apply to defense of property
claims; to allow an aggressor to hide behind the castle‑doctrine would lead to unintended consequences.
Distinction Illustrated: State v. Patterson (Non‑retreat vs. Retreat)
In Patterson, the defendant retrieved a shotgun from his car and shot a man who had chased him with a knife. The court observed that the defendant made no attempt to retreat beyond retrieving his weapon, and this was relevant in determining whether his belief in the necessity of killing was reasonable. Because the incident occurred before Louisiana enacted the no‑duty‑to‑retreat amendments (now codified in R.S. 14:20(C)), the possibility of retreat was still a factor. Today, however, a person lawfully present no longer has a duty to retreat.
This case also shows the importance of proportionality the victim pursued the defendant with a knife, but the defendant responded with lethal force; the jury could find the killing unjustifiable. Modern stand‑your‑ground laws may change the retreat analysis but not the requirement that the defendant’s belief must be reasonable.
When to Use Each Defense
- Force or Violence (R.S. 14:19) applies where no death occurs. If you physically defend yourself or your property without killing your assailant, the court will analyze whether your actions were both reasonable and apparently necessary. Typical situations include shoving someone during an assault or brandishing a weapon to scare off a trespasser.
- Justifiable Homicide (R.S. 14:20) applies when deadly force results in a death. The key questions are whether you reasonably believed you or someone else faced imminent danger and whether deadly force was necessary to prevent serious harm or a violent felony. The statute also covers shooting an intruder in your home or car, subject to the drug‑trafficking exclusion.
- Defending Others (R.S. 14:22) allows force or deadly force to protect another person when it is reasonably apparent that the person attacked could have justifiably used such means. This is common in situations where a bystander intervenes to stop an assault or domestic violence.
- Aggressor Doctrine (R.S. 14:21) bars the defense if you initiated the conflict, unless you withdraw and communicate your intent to disengage. Even under the stand‑your‑ground law, an aggressor cannot claim justification without withdrawing.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
If someone punches me, can I shoot them?
Generally, no. Under R.S. 14:19, the force used must be proportional and apparently necessary to stop the offensive conduct. Shooting an unarmed person after a punch would likely be considered unreasonable. Deadly force may only be used if you reasonably believe you face imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
Do I have to run away before defending myself?
No. Louisiana’s statutes include stand‑your‑ground provisions for both non‑deadly force and deadly force. If you are lawfully where you have a right to be and are not engaged in illegal activity, you have no duty to retreat. However, jurors will still consider whether your belief in the necessity of force was reasonable.
What if I was drinking when the incident occurred?
Intoxication does not automatically negate criminal responsibility. Voluntary intoxication is generally no defense unless it precludes specific intent for crimes requiring such intent. Self‑defense claims focus on your reasonable belief, not your level of sobriety.
Who bears the burden of proving self‑defense?
In homicide cases under R.S. 14:20, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not justified. In non‑
homicide cases, self‑defense is considered an affirmative defense, and some justices have suggested the defendant must prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.
Does the castle doctrine apply if I’m in my car?
Yes. The shoot‑the‑intruder provision extends to motor vehicles. If someone attempts to unlawfully enter your vehicle, you may use deadly force if you reasonably believe it necessary to prevent entry or to force the intruder to leave. The presumption of reasonable belief applies, but you cannot be the aggressor.
If I initiate a fight but then try to back out, can I still claim self‑defense?
Possibly. R.S. 14:21 requires that an aggressor withdraw in good faith and communicate that withdrawal to the adversary. Only then may the aggressor claim self‑defense. Failing to clearly withdraw precludes the defense, as highlighted in Gasser.
What happens if I use force to protect my friend?
R.S. 14:22 allows you to defend another person when it is reasonably apparent the person attacked could have used such force himself. Your intervention must be reasonably believed necessary to protect that person.
How The Ambeau Law Firm Can Help
Facing charges involving self‑defense requires meticulous analysis of the facts, applicable statutes and case law. Jarrett Ambeau, founder of The Ambeau Law Firm, has over 14 years of criminal trial experience and has handled more than 50 felony jury trials. The firm focuses on violent crimes and homicide cases, including those involving complex forensic evidence.
Jarrett Ambeau served as a prosecutor and defense lawyer in the U.S. Army JAG Corps and is recognized as a court‑qualified expert in forensic DNA interpretation. His Master of Science in Forensic DNA and Serology and his service on national forensic committees give him unique insight into the forensic issues that often accompany self‑defense claims.
Self‑defense cases often hinge on nuanced factors: whether the defendant’s fear was reasonable, whether retreat was possible, whether the defendant was an aggressor, and whether the use of force was proportional. The attorneys at The Ambeau Law Firm carefully evaluate surveillance footage, witness statements, forensic reports and ballistics evidence. They work with investigators and expert witnesses to reconstruct events and present compelling defenses.
If you or someone you love is facing charges related to the use of force or a justifiable homicide, contact The Ambeau Law Firm. Their experience in trial advocacy and forensic science can make a critical difference in protecting your rights and freedom.
Conclusion
Louisiana’s self‑defense laws strike a balance between the right to protect oneself and others and the necessity of preventing unjustified violence. R.S. 14:19 governs non‑deadly encounters, requiring that force be reasonable and apparently necessary. R.S. 14:20 governs deadly encounters, requiring a reasonable belief of imminent danger and necessity. The aggressor doctrine bars those who start a conflict from claiming self‑defense unless they withdraw, and R.S. 14:22 permits defense of others.
Understanding these distinctions is critical. The attorneys at The Ambeau Law Firm have the knowledge and courtroom experience to navigate these laws and provide a strong defense when the stakes are high.
Louisiana Laws – Louisiana State Legislature