State v. Bobbitt
415 So. 2d 724 (1982)
Rule of Law:
The 'castle doctrine,' which grants a privilege of nonretreat to an individual attacked in their home, does not apply when the assailant and the victim are legal co-occupants of the same dwelling, as neither party has the right to eject the other.
Facts:
- Elsie Bobbitt and her husband were legal co-occupants of a home.
- Elsie Bobbitt's husband attacked her in their shared home.
- The attack by the husband was without provocation.
- Elsie Bobbitt shot her husband.
Procedural Posture:
- Elsie Bobbitt was charged with second-degree murder.
- A jury in the trial court found Elsie Bobbitt guilty of manslaughter.
- Elsie Bobbitt moved for a new trial in the trial court, arguing that it erroneously failed to instruct the jury that one unlawfully attacked in her own home has no duty to retreat.
- The trial court granted Elsie Bobbitt's motion for a new trial, agreeing that it had reversibly erred in failing to give her requested instruction.
- The State of Florida appealed the trial court's order granting a new trial to the First District Court of Appeal.
- The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the 'castle doctrine' applied regardless of whether legal co-occupants or intruders were involved, reversed Elsie Bobbitt's conviction, and remanded with directions to discharge her.
- The State of Florida, as petitioner, sought review in the Supreme Court of Florida, citing direct and express conflict with the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision in Conner v. State.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'castle doctrine,' which negates the duty to retreat when attacked in one's own home, apply when both the assailant and the victim are legal co-occupants of the same residence?
Opinions:
Majority - Alderman
No, the 'castle doctrine' does not apply when an assailant and victim are legal co-occupants of the same home. The court affirmed the reasoning from Conner v. State, holding that the privilege not to retreat is premised on the maxim that a home is a castle to be protected from invasion. This rationale is inapplicable when both parties have equal rights to be on the premises and neither has the legal right to eject the other. Therefore, a person attacked by a co-occupant has the general legal duty to retreat if they can do so without increasing their own danger, and the jury was correctly instructed on this general duty in Bobbitt's case. The court distinguished Hedges v. State, where the attacker was a paramour whose lawful presence became unlawful, by noting that Hedges did not involve a legal co-occupant situation.
Dissenting - Overton
Yes, the 'castle doctrine' should apply, at least with a limited duty to retreat, even when the assailant and the victim are co-occupants. The majority creates an illogical distinction, providing less legal protection for a wife attacked by her husband in her home than for a woman attacked by a paramour she invited into her home. The home is fundamentally a special place of protection and security. Many jurisdictions extend the 'castle doctrine' to co-occupants. The dissent would adopt a limited duty to retreat for attacks by co-tenants, family members, or invitees, requiring retreat to the extent reasonably possible but not mandating flight from one's own home. This approach would recognize both the duty to avoid deadly combat and the sanctity of the home, curing the artificial legal distinctions created by the majority.
Analysis:
This case significantly narrows the scope of the 'castle doctrine' in Florida, limiting its application primarily to situations involving intruders or individuals whose presence has become unlawful. By distinguishing between an intruder and a legal co-occupant, the decision places a greater burden on victims of domestic violence to retreat within their own homes before using deadly force for self-defense. The ruling highlights the ongoing tension between the sanctity of the home as a place of refuge and the general duty to retreat to avoid unnecessary deadly force, particularly in intra-familial conflicts, a point strongly emphasized by the dissenting opinion. It ensures that the general jury instruction on the duty to retreat is applicable in co-occupant scenarios, potentially impacting how self-defense claims are adjudicated in domestic disputes.
