If you believe someone is trying to break into your house, do you have a legal right to use deadly force to defend yourself?
This is not a yes-or-no question. It's quite a bit trickier than that.
The issues of home defense and self-defense are at the forefront of the murder case against Chicopee homeowner Jeffrey Lovell, who is accused of fatally shooting 15-year-old Dylan Francisco on Saturday.
Francisco, of Springfield, and two other teens went to 120 Boucher Circle at around 1 p.m. looking for a friend, but it was the wrong house. Lovell told police his wife woke him and said two people were trying to break in.
Lovell said he saw Francisco walking around in his yard, and then he knocked on a locked door that had three vertical panes of glass. Prosecutors said Francisco's knocking broke one pane, and Lovell shot through another pane, hitting Francisco in the chest.
Lovell was charged with first-degree murder. He was ordered held without bail at his arraignment on Monday.
Massachusetts has a statutory Castle Doctrine, a law that limits the "duty to retreat" from danger inside your own home. In certain situations, a homeowner is required to retreat; in others, a homeowner can kill an intruder. The totality of the circumstances determines if the law was broken, not one individual factor. (You can find the relevant law at the bottom of this story.)
The Castle Doctrine is based on the idea that a person is the king or queen of their own castle, and the safety of the home is sacrosanct.
In a 2014 article for Ammoland.com, Massachusetts attorney Andrew F. Branca said the state's Castle Doctrine is more "restrictive" than similar laws elsewhere.
"The Massachusetts Castle Doctrine (applies) 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," Branca wrote. The Massachusetts law does not apply to what's known as the curtilage, which Branca describes as "the porch, the driveway, the front yard, etc."
In the Lovell case, the homeowner was inside, but the victim was not, which changes the standard for self-defense.
So when can you use deadly force to protect yourself while at home? Bridgette Baldwin, professor of law at Western New England University, said a homeowner must have a reasonable belief that there is an immediate or imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death. A verbal threat is not necessarily enough to meet that standard, and the force applied must be proportionate to the threat.
"If you're coming at me with a shoe, I can't shoot you," said Baldwin.
The reasonableness standard is common in criminal law, and it's the basis on which juries often make their decisions. Would a reasonable person have made the same choice you made under the circumstances?
And it doesn't matter if a homeowner incorrectly believes he or she has a legal right to use deadly force, or if their fear causes them to react outside the law. In the Lovell case, Baldwin said the fact that a pane of glass broke does not appear to constitute an immediate or imminent threat of harm that would justify deadly force, regardless of how fearful he may have been.
"Unfortunately or fortunately, we say ignorance of the law is no excuse," said Baldwin. "You have to know the law and abide by the law."
The Republican spoke with several local firearms instructors on the condition of anonymity because they were not fully versed in the specifics of the Lovell case. But they explained generally what they teach in their courses regarding home defense and the Castle Doctrine.
First, the law only applies when the homeowner and the perpetrator do not know each other. Also, the perpetrator must threaten the homeowner with bodily harm. And they teach that the threatened homeowner must first seek a way out of the house, but that gets murkier if other residents are inside.
Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owner's Action League of Massachusetts, said it's likely up to Lovell to prove that his actions were reasonable.
"It's going to be interesting to see how the courts handle it, because most likely the burden is going to be on the homeowner to prove that he believed his life was in danger, or his family's life was in danger," said Wallace.
Baldwin said it might be hard for prosecutors to prove "the degree of intent required" for a first-degree murder charge. Without knowing every detail of the prosecution's case or legal strategy, she said a second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter charge might be more appropriate because it doesn't appear the shooting was premeditated or malicious.
George Graham contributed reporting to this story.
Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 278, Section 8(a):