Charged With Murder in Missouri? Self-Defense and Missouri’s Castle Doctrine

Being charged with murder in Missouri does not necessarily mean that a person committed an unlawful killing. Missouri law recognizes self-defense and, in certain circumstances, the Castle Doctrine as legal justifications for the use of deadly force.

When a homicide occurs during an alleged act of self-defense, the difference between a murder conviction and a justified use of force can turn on seconds: Where was everyone standing? Who initiated the confrontation? Was someone attempting to enter a home or vehicle? What did the accused see and reasonably believe when force was used?

Self-Defense in a Missouri Murder Case

Missouri’s self-defense law is primarily found in Section 563.031, RSMo. Generally, Missouri law permits physical force when a person reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend himself, herself, or another person from the use or imminent use of unlawful force.

Deadly force is ordinarily subject to additional requirements, including a reasonable belief that it is necessary to protect against death, serious physical injury, or a forcible felony. Missouri’s Castle Doctrine can substantially change that analysis.

What Is Missouri’s Castle Doctrine?

The Castle Doctrine is not simply a rule that says, “If someone is on your property, you can shoot them.” The law is considerably more nuanced.

Missouri’s Castle Doctrine is contained in Section 563.031.2. The Missouri Supreme Court explained its significance in State v. Straughter, 643 S.W.3d 317 (Mo. banc 2022). Unlike ordinary deadly-force self-defense, a person invoking the Castle Doctrine does not necessarily have to be facing death, serious physical injury, or a forcible felony before deadly force can be justified.

Rather, the doctrine may apply when force is used to defend oneself or another from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force, and the force is used against someone who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or lawfully occupied vehicle. See State v. Straughter, 643 S.W.3d 317, 321 (Mo. banc 2022); Sanders v. State, 652 S.W.3d 258 (Mo. App. 2022).

The Castle Doctrine Still Requires Self-Defense

The Castle Doctrine is powerful, but it is not automatic. Missouri courts have held that a person relying on the Castle Doctrine must also satisfy the underlying requirements of self-defense in Section 563.031.1.

In State v. Clinch, 335 S.W.3d 579, 586 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011), the court explained that to use deadly force under the Castle Doctrine provisions, the requirements of Section 563.031.1 must also be met; otherwise deadly force is prohibited. See also State v. Whipple, 501 S.W.3d 507 (Mo. App. 2016).

In practical terms, unlawful entry alone is not an unrestricted license to use deadly force. There must still be a reasonable belief that force is necessary to defend against the use or imminent use of unlawful force.

What Counts as an Unlawful Entry?

This can become one of the most important factual disputes in a Missouri murder case. As explained in Straughter, a person unlawfully enters premises or private property when the person enters and is not licensed or privileged to do so.

The Castle Doctrine also reaches a person who attempts to unlawfully enter. See State v. Clinch, 335 S.W.3d 579, 588 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011). Straughter emphasizes that the evidence must show the requisite entry.

The claimed belief that someone was about to enter must have an objectively reasonable basis. Missouri cases have examined whether the alleged victim verbally or physically indicated an intent to enter. See State v. Lumpkin, 850 S.W.2d 388, 392 (Mo. App. 1993), discussed in Straughter.

A person merely standing outside, without words or actions indicating an attempted entry, can present a very different case from someone reaching for a door, forcing a door, crossing a threshold, or otherwise demonstrating an intent to enter.

A Person Does Not Necessarily Have to Wait Until the Intruder Is Completely Inside

Missouri law expressly addresses situations where individuals attempt to unlawfully enter. The issue, therefore, is not always whether the alleged victim was completely inside the residence or vehicle.

The question can be whether the evidence supports a reasonable conclusion that the person was unlawfully entering or attempting to enter when defensive force was used.

Missouri case law has described the accelerated self-defense of the Castle Doctrine as directed toward defense against immediate unlawful entry, rather than merely defense against immediate harm. See Hashman v. State, 197 S.W.3d 119, 128 (Mo. App. 2006).

What Does “Reasonably Believes” Mean?

Self-defense cases often turn on what the accused reasonably perceived in a matter of seconds.

State v. Clement, 661 S.W.3d 396 (Mo. App. 2023), explains that a reasonable belief is one based on reasonable grounds—grounds that could lead a reasonable person in the same situation to the same belief.

The analysis depends on how the facts reasonably appeared at the time; the belief does not necessarily become unreasonable merely because it later turns out to have been mistaken.

That does not mean a defendant’s subjective fear automatically justifies deadly force. The surrounding facts and circumstances still matter.

How Much Evidence Is Needed to Put the Castle Doctrine Before a Jury?

A defendant seeking a Castle Doctrine instruction must have substantial evidence supporting the theory. But Missouri courts have emphasized that this is not an extraordinarily high threshold. See State v. Hudson, 643 S.W.3d 679, 686 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022).

Straughter explains that the threshold can be met when there is evidence putting the matter in issue.

Conflicting evidence can actually underscore why the issue belongs to a properly instructed jury: factual conflicts are for the jury to resolve. See Kelley v. State, 618 S.W.3d 722, 732 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021).

The Missouri Supreme Court’s Decision in State v. Straughter

Straughter illustrates how significant the Castle Doctrine can be.

The defendant was inside a vehicle when another person reached through an open window and struck her. Evidence also involved another armed person approaching the vehicle. The trial court instructed on ordinary self-defense but refused the requested Castle Doctrine instruction.

The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, concluding that substantial evidence supported a Castle Doctrine instruction. The Court recognized that the victim’s reaching through the open vehicle window could constitute the required unlawful entry.

Straughter also highlights the critical distinction between ordinary deadly-force self-defense and the Castle Doctrine. The latter can apply without requiring the defendant to face death, serious physical injury, or a forcible felony, provided the statutory Castle Doctrine and self-defense requirements are otherwise satisfied.

State v. Clement: The Castle Doctrine in a Murder Case

State v. Clement, 661 S.W.3d 396 (Mo. App. 2023), is particularly significant in the murder context.

Clement was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action. Evidence supported his claim that unfamiliar men were attempting to enter an apartment occupied by Clement and his family.

The trial court refused to instruct the jury on the Castle Doctrine. The Missouri Court of Appeals concluded that the refusal was error, reversed the murder conviction, and remanded for further proceedings.

Clement demonstrates why identifying every legally supported self-defense theory can be critical in a Missouri murder prosecution.

What If the Person Who Was Shot Was Shot in the Back?

A gunshot wound to the back is evidence the prosecution may emphasize, but it does not automatically disprove self-defense or a Castle Doctrine theory.

In Clement, the court explained that the location of three bullet wounds in the victim’s back did not definitively disprove the Castle Doctrine theory.

Physical evidence must be considered with the entire encounter. Rapid confrontations involve movement, changing positions, and decisions made in seconds. When the evidence conflicts, the factual questions may be for a properly instructed jury to resolve. See Kelley, 618 S.W.3d at 732.

The Castle Doctrine Does Not Require Defense of the Residence Itself

Another important point from Clement is that the Castle Doctrine does not require the accused to have acted in defense of “the residence” as an object.

The focus is on defending a person against what is reasonably believed to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force in the circumstances covered by the statute.

Timing Can Make or Break the Defense

Castle Doctrine cases are highly dependent on timing.

The defense concerns an immediate unlawful entry, attempted entry, or qualifying unlawful remaining together with the required reasonable belief concerning unlawful force. An earlier trespass or entry does not necessarily justify deadly force used after the immediate circumstances have ended.

That is why a serious self-defense investigation often reconstructs an encounter second by second.

Surveillance video, doorbell cameras, 911 recordings, text messages, phone records, photographs, bullet trajectories, shell casings, blood evidence, witness statements, autopsy findings, and the physical layout of the scene may all matter.

Charged With Murder After Claiming Self-Defense?

A murder charge is an accusation. It is not a determination that the killing was unlawful.

When self-defense or Missouri’s Castle Doctrine may apply, the defense should be investigated from the beginning rather than treated as an issue to address for the first time at trial.

Important questions may include:

• Who initiated the confrontation?

• Was the accused lawfully occupying the dwelling, residence, or vehicle?

• Did the alleged victim unlawfully enter or attempt to enter?

• What words, threats, gestures, or movements occurred before the shooting?

• What did the accused know and reasonably perceive at that moment?

• Was the unlawful entry or attempted entry immediate when force was used?

• Are there witnesses, recordings, or physical evidence corroborating the accused’s account?

• Does the evidence support ordinary self-defense, the Castle Doctrine, or both?

• What self-defense and Castle Doctrine jury instructions are supported by the evidence?

A Missouri Murder Charge Requires a Defense Built Around the Evidence

Self-defense murder cases are among the most fact-intensive cases in criminal law. The prosecution may characterize an incident as an intentional murder. The defense may contend that the same shooting was a lawful response to an unlawful and rapidly developing threat.

Missouri’s Castle Doctrine can be a powerful protection, but whether it applies depends on the precise facts of the encounter and the governing law.

At its core, a Castle Doctrine theory can turn on evidence of unlawful entry or attempted unlawful entry, together with a reasonable belief that force was necessary to defend against the use or imminent use of unlawful force.

If you or a family member have been charged with murder, manslaughter, assault, or armed criminal action in Missouri following an incident involving self-defense, obtaining experienced criminal-defense counsel immediately is critical. Evidence can disappear, witnesses’ memories can change, and statements made early in an investigation can affect the entire case.

Contact Ernst Law to discuss your case with a Missouri criminal defense attorney and the defenses that may be available under Missouri law.

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every criminal case is different, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes.