The Castle Doctrine's protection has an important limitation established by the Rhode Island Supreme Court. In State v. Quarles (1986), the court held that the Castle Doctrine under Section 11-8-8[1] does not apply when the attacker is someone who also lives in the home.[2] The rationale is straightforward: the Castle Doctrine is designed to protect occupants against intruders who break into a structure. A person who already lives in the home is not breaking and entering. They have a legal right to be there.
The Legal Reasoning
The Castle Doctrine's presumption of lawful self-defense is triggered by a breaking and entering offense under Sections 11-8-2 through 11-8-6. A cohabitant who enters their own home, even aggressively, is not committing a B&E. Without the predicate offense, the statutory presumption simply does not activate. The court in Quarles reasoned that extending Castle Doctrine protection to disputes between people who share a dwelling would effectively create a license to use deadly force in domestic disputes, which was not the legislature's intent.
Duty to Retreat Between Cohabitants
When the Castle Doctrine does not apply, the standard duty-to-retreat rule governs. A person attacked by a cohabitant inside their shared home must attempt to retreat through a safe avenue before resorting to deadly force. If no safe retreat exists, the person may use deadly force in self-defense, but the duty to attempt retreat is evaluated by the jury.[2]
Practical Implications for Domestic Violence
The cohabitant exception has significant implications for domestic violence situations. A victim of domestic violence who uses deadly force against an abusive partner or household member cannot invoke the Castle Doctrine presumption. Instead, the victim must rely on the general self-defense framework, which requires showing a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary and that no safe retreat was available. This creates a higher evidentiary burden for DV victims defending themselves in the home compared to a homeowner defending against a stranger's intrusion.[3]
Comparison to Other States
The cohabitant exception is not unique to Rhode Island. Many states that recognize a Castle Doctrine have addressed the cohabitant question, though they have reached different conclusions. Some states have legislatively extended Castle Doctrine protections to cover cohabitant attacks, particularly in the context of domestic violence. Rhode Island has not done so. The Quarles holding remains controlling law.