An Introduction to Maryland’s Self Defense Law
A general principle of self-defense law is that a person is entitled to use reasonable force in response to an immediate threat of unlawful violence. Maryland’s self-defense law applies this general principle, but with certain nuances as described below.
In Maryland, self-defense can be a valid statutory defense to charges such as homicide, assault, and robbery (i.e., when those offenses involve a claim of self-defense). Self-defense also applies in the context of homeowners’ rights in detaining a trespasser. When confronting an individual who has, for instance, broken into your home or business unlawfully, and has not left upon request, you are permitted to employ reasonable force against that trespasser. Md. Crim. Law Code Ann. § 5-404(c).
Another category of self-defense laws in Maryland relates to protecting others. Maryland law permits an individual to use physical force, even deadly force, and even against an innocent third party, when doing so is necessary to protect another from physical harm when the individual reasonably believes the other is in imminent danger of physical harm. Md. Crim. Law Code Ann. § 3-103.
Maryland does not have a codified "Stand Your Ground" law; this is a general legal concept that applies in shall-issue gun permit states, and encourages citizens to meet force with force. In Maryland , however, a person must retreat if this is possible before using force (unless the person is in her own home); that is, the person does not have a right to continue forcefully engaging an aggressor or trespasser until he has drawn a weapon or used deadly force; rather, where feasible, the person must first attempt to avoid confrontation. See Md. Crim. Law Code Ann. § 3-904(c) (requiring a person to retreat before using force). A court will only dispense with the retreat requirement for a person who is attacked in her home. Md. Crim. Law Code Ann. § 3-905(c) (no duty to retreat before using force in home).
In terms of statutory definitions, a "reasonable person" is an ordinary person placed in a situation identical to that of the defendant. A reasonable person is an average person of normal intelligence, sanity, and judgment whose conduct is evaluated in the context of the relevant circumstances and the person’s physical, mental, and psychological handicaps, if any, which may hinder the person’s reaction to those circumstances (for example, an injured or elderly person is held to the standard of a similarly situated injured or elderly person).
"Deadly force" refers to force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Md. Crim. Law Code Ann. § 3-204(c)(2012).
Requirement of Legal Justification for Self-Defense in Maryland
In Maryland, the law requires that you have a legal justification for acting in self defense. Maryland courts assess legal justification from the point of view of a reasonable person. That is, the law requires that you must have had a reasonable belief that a dangerous threat was present at the time you defended yourself. The first concept to assess is whether you were faced with the threat of imminent danger. For example, if the person simply walks away from their conduct, or is merely verbally threatening you – even if it is serious verbal threats of death or serious bodily injury – and starts walking towards their car, you cannot act in self defense if you objectively believe that the threats are genuine. You must refrain from and avoid confrontations that do not involve immediate threats of personal harm or property damage until the threat of imminent harm has passed. Once the danger of your imminent harm has passed, all right to act in self defense is gone as well. An example of an imminent and immediate threat that allows for legal justification would be that the perpetrator is violently mauling you. That is an immediate threat of physical harm that will allow you to potentially kill, wound or otherwise injure the perpetrator in order to get away from them. This would also be the case if someone suddenly tried to stab you. Immediate and imminent threats that would allow for legal justification would not include the person merely throwing small rocks, pushing you away with mildly enough force that it would not injure you, or mere words of insult that are verbally directed at you. There is no legal justification for acting in self defense when you do not reasonably perceive that your life or physical safety is imminent risk of serious harm from another person.
The Castle Doctrine in the State of Maryland
The Castle Doctrine allows a Maryland resident the right to proactively protect themselves and their castle from any perceived attack. Maryland law instructs that "a person may use a reasonable degree of force against another in self-defense… (a) to protect themselves from personal attack…. and (b) to protect his or her household from an immediate threat of physical harm." Maryland law also recognizes the Castle Doctrine with regard to the use of force against an intruder in their home, i.e. "a person may use reasonable force, including deadly means, against another who unlawfully and forcibly enters or attempts to enter a dwelling or residence…. An individual does not have a duty to retreat before using that force…. the person using the force is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious physical injury." However, the presumption is rebuttable and can be overcome by the prosecutors.
The question often arises as to whether the Castle Doctrine extends outside of the physical dwelling and into the curtilage, which is defined as the area immediately surrounding the home to the degree that it is so intimately connected to the home that it is considered part of the dwelling. In Hughes v. State, the Maryland Court of Appeals recognized the concept of curtilage, as both common law and statutory law in the state, when examining the limits of self-defense and the Castle Doctrine. The Court of Appeals concluded in Hughes that "the area of curtilage is intended to be closely connected with the home" and that "in some circumstances those who would invade a person’s privacy will venture past the bounds of curtilage, thereby diminishing the homeowner’s right to use a reasonable degree of force to protect the home."
Stand Your Ground Law and Self Defense: Maryland
Maryland does not have ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws. Instead, the state self-defense law imposes a duty to retreat on individuals who reasonably believe themselves to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm in situations that are not confined to a dwelling. The general rule in Maryland is that people must retreat, if possible, before using deadly force to defend themselves in a public place.
Whether or not the duty to retreat is unfeasible or not, depends on the circumstances surrounding the altercation of the two parties. For instance, if someone is being followed by another person who is accusing them of stealing their car, that person should try to avoid the confrontation with a stranger and get away from them, even if it means running to a store and asking the manager or employee for help. But the law also recognizes instances where a person has nowhere to go, has a legitimate reason to be where they are, and is suddenly approached while being threatened, in which case deadly force is often justifiable.
The law is not black and white and what people often do after the fact is accuse the ‘other’ of being the ‘aggressor’. If there was an argument between two people and one threatens the other with damage or personal injury, the one being threatened has the right to use reasonable force to defend against the injury. The right of self-defense is available only when the threatened individual actually and reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of bodily harm. Therefore it is important to understand all the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged incident.
There is no law that expressly defines what constitutes "reasonable force," and much will depend on the circumstances. As a general rule, a person faced with a sudden threat of harm must first do all that is reasonably within his power to avoid the danger before resorting to deadly force.
Comparing Maryland’s Law to Other States
Maryland is unlike many other states that have enacted ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws which removed the duty to retreat from requirements to use deadly force in public places. Those states allow people to shoot the first person who threatens them, regardless of whether the assailant had a weapon or used physical force. Proponents of these laws believe that they protect citizens from aggressors in public places. Others say that the laws are too broad; only some people are allowed to use these defenses if they are doing something wrong, such as drinking or carrying a gun.
There is also a lot of debate and differing perspectives on whether ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws may lead to racially biased outcomes, as many African-Americans are shot by whites, while whites tend to be immune from prosecution under these laws when confronted by an African-American. In the Trayvon Martin case, George Zimmerman, who killed Martin, is claiming that he was attacked by Martin, and should qualify for immunity under Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ law; Martin was unarmed and not physically threatening Zimmerman.
Self Defense or Excessive Force in Maryland
The use of excessive force can lead to civil liability. The alleged aggressor can sue the one who displayed excessive force for battery. A civil lawsuit can result in a financial award to the victim. A criminal case can be pursued by the state if excessive force is alleged. The person using the excessive force may face charges such as Assault in the Second Degree or The Crime of Maliciously Shooting Another. Someone who acts in self-defense but uses excessive force can also be charged with a crime. The central question in such a case is whether the excessive force was unreasonable. Courts in Maryland examine the totality of the circumstances to determine if the use of excessive force was reasonable. Factors taken into consideration include: Drawing a line between self-defense and excessive force can be a subjective process , but there are commonly recognized principles. If someone shoots a person who is trying to punch him, the shooting is likely to be viewed as excessive force. Similarly, if someone throws another person to the floor when that individual is only trying to insult him verbally, the use of physical force will likely be viewed as excessive.
Legal Defense: Strategies and Counsel
Separately from the substantive points raised above, how a self-defense claim plays out at trial can have a far reaching impact in the relative to whether that self-defense will stick. Simply put, obtaining legal representation can play an important role in the eventual outcome of any criminal proceeding. One of the most important impacts of legal representation is whether or not a jury eventually hears the case. With a jury trial there is a greater possibility for the client to be heard. There are fewer road blocks to self-defense than those related to standing your ground or retreat. There are many arguments that can be brought to bear that might persuade a jury to accept the theory of self-defense including arguments that there are truly factually material questions to be decided, as well as that a differently jury could very well view the matter differently. A jury is able to understand facts, weigh credibility, and otherwise consider the circumstances surrounding the event. They can do so by weighing the actions of the accused as well as the actions of the accuser. A jury is able to decide disputed facts in this context. This highlights the role of credibility. In a case such as this the court ultimately is asked to decide who is telling the truth, the attacker or the defender. It is not simply the jury doing the deciding but also making findings of fact on the issue, in this case who is the attacker. The jury will hear from both sides, and how the arguments are presented to the jury can play a role in whether the jury finds facts in your favor or not. The best approach to presenting evidence and arguments that helps accomplish this is using the legal practice of cross-examination. Cross-examination can help you show the inconsistencies in the alleged attacks story, thereby helping to discredit the story. Cross-examination also gives you the opportunity to place the angle of your testimony before the jury. Often in these self-defense claims it is far more plausible that the situation occurred as you claim, than the alleged attack claims. Some areas of attack in this regard can include the inconsistencies in the attack on you, how the attack did not properly account for all of the physical evidence, and the extreme improbability of the alleged attack happening the way the alleged attack claims, such as the improbability of shooting at someone 75 yards away from you, or how an attack could possibly happen in such a small area or with so clear a sight. When it comes to arguing your defense to a jury, it is important to establish the evidence supporting the theory of self-defense as opposed to simply discrediting the attackers story. Self-defense is an affirmative defense, so that means you must prove that you acted reasonably and within the law if you hope to have a successful outcome. How the case is tried ultimately determines whether a jury hears the trial.
Recent Relevant Case Law on Self Defense
Self defense law was in the news in Maryland again recently after a young man, who had been attacked in a public park, was found justified for pulling out a gun to defend himself against a man who approached him while making threats in the Rosewood Park in Upper Fells Point. The man who approached, Jahmar Reed, was attacking another person when the man who pulled out the gun intervened. As the attacker ran away, Mr. Reed shot at the man who fled the scene and the police were called.
Jahmar Reed was found guilty of first-degree assault and is facing ten years in prison after he fired the gun at the man defending the person he attacked. Although he didn’t hit the man fleeing the scene, the court still found that Mr. Reed had engaged in self defense by attacking his original target. His attorney explained that he should not have been found guilty. Attorney Christopher Caramanica claims that, "Mr. Reed was acquitted of attempted murder because there was no evidence he intended to shoot at the other man." The problem is that, although, technically, that may be true, nothing in the law prohibits someone in Mr. Reed’s position from facing the same charges that he may have faced if it had been found during the trial that he had intended to shoot the man fleeing the scene.
Case #2 is an interesting case in self defense law that landed a man in jail for 18 months. In this case, Mark Williams fired six times at a group of four people attacking him and his friend outside a nightclub. He had a legally owned gun but the police found that he exceeded his right to self defense. The 37-year-old pleaded guilty to second degree assault and the district judge presiding at his trial imposed the 18-month sentence along with three years of probation for the crime. His lawyer, Assistant Public Defender Mary Kearney, said the state law is not written clearly enough for determining when someone is able to legally own a gun.
Self Defense Laws and Legislative Changes
Maryland law governing the use of self defense in a fight has seen its share of controversies in recent years, with commenters from all sides of the political spectrum eager to weigh in. One of the sparks for the current debate was the case of Tyrone West, who died in the back of a police cruiser in 2013. The incident was captured on undercover video, which was subsequently leaked and uploaded to YouTube.
The video showed police surrounding West as he was being arrested for driving with a suspended license, then using a taser against him and striking him while he was lying prone in the back of the police car. He subsequently died at the hospital.
In response to West’s death, several groups have supported reforming Maryland’s self defense law to change when police and the general public would be allowed to use force in dealing with a confrontation.
The group that gained the most notoriety after West’s death is an organization started by the family of Trayvon Martin, which is called Race Forward. The group recently proposed a series of reforms to Maryland law, including a proposal that would require police to use deescalation tactics before using force and allow people who experience such a use of force to sue for damages.
Some lawmakers in the Maryland Legislature have also proposed legislation that would change the state’s self defense law.
A joint resolution in both the House and Senate seeks to amend the Maryland Constitution to allow for the construction of an independent panel comprised of several members of the legislature and others to investigate officer-involved deaths, assaults, brutality, and police misconduct .
Senate Bill 99 would require courts to instruct jurors to provide an affirmative defense of self defense if the accused claims he or she was attempting to deescalate a situation prior to the alleged offense.
Other lawmakers have proposed a bill that would make it a felony to make disparaging remarks about someone based on their race or sexual orientation. That bill was proposed in both the House and Senate in 2013, but failed to make it out of committee.
Commentators from across the ideological spectrum have weighed in on the West case and self defense law in Maryland.
Law Professor Jonathan Holloway expressed an opinion for the conservative Reason.com website. He expressed sympathy for the plight of police officers and other public servants who encounter people who do not obey orders. However, he argued that there must be consequences for public servants who abuse their position and violate the law.
At the left-leaning Feminist Majority Foundation Action Network, Jesica McBride Peterson has criticized some of Law Professor Holloway’s analysis. She argues that there are situations in which police arrest and remove any person to who they issue an order. That, she argues, becomes "an exercise of power for its own sake, a way for them to take revenge on anyone who makes them nervous, uncomfortable or unhappy."
Mike Stoller, writing for the left-wing LA Progressive.com, argued that all police should wear a camera that records all their activities while on duty.
The apparent rebirth of the self defense reform debate was sparked in 2013. However, reformers will likely encounter new challenges as it appears difficult to build a consensus for any central system of reform.