Rhode Island Castle Doctrine:
Your Rights in Your Home

Rhode Island General Laws Section 11-8-8 creates a statutory exception to the duty to retreat for an owner, tenant or occupier of premises against a person engaged in an unlawful breaking and entering or burglary, which the Rhode Island Supreme Court in State v. Quarles called the only exception in Rhode Island to the obligation to attempt retreat^[1]. As State v. Quarles describes it, the statute exempts an owner, tenant or occupier from the duty to retreat and permits the use of deadly force against a person engaged in an unlawful breaking and entering or burglary. Instead, when a person dies or sustains personal injury while committing one of the breaking and entering offenses enumerated in Sections 11-8-2 through 11-8-6, it is rebuttably presumed in any civil or criminal proceeding that the owner, tenant, or occupier of the place acted by reasonable means in self-defense and in the reasonable belief that the intruder was about to inflict great bodily harm or death. The statute also provides that the owner, tenant, or occupier has no duty to retreat from a person committing one of those offenses.

How the Presumption Works

The statute creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of the occupant. When a person dies or is injured while committing a listed offense, the owner, tenant or occupier is rebuttably presumed to have acted by reasonable means in self-defense and in the reasonable belief that the person was about to inflict great bodily harm or death^[2]. The presumption in 11-8-8 is rebuttable, and the statute does not say how it is rebutted. This is a significant procedural advantage for defendants in self-defense cases arising from home invasions.

Broader Than "Home" Defense

A distinguishing feature of Rhode Island's Castle Doctrine is that its protection is not limited to dwellings. The presumption protects the owner, tenant, or occupier of the place where one of the enumerated offenses is committed, and Sections 11-8-2 through 11-8-6 define B&E offenses across a wide range of structures. Section 11-8-2 covers breaking and entering of dwellings at any time of the day or night. Section 11-8-3 covers entry into dwellings at any time with specific felony intent; the daytime limitation applies only to non-dwelling buildings, ships, and vessels. Section 11-8-4 covers breaking and entering a bank, shop, office or warehouse not adjoining a dwelling, a meeting house, church, chapel, courthouse, town house, college, academy, schoolhouse, library or other public building, or a ship or vessel, with intent to commit murder, sexual assault, robbery or larceny. Section 11-8-5 covers breaking and entering, or entering in the nighttime, a barn, stable, carriage house or other building with intent to commit larceny or any felony or misdemeanor, and breaking and entering a railroad car or the trailer portion of a tractor-trailer. Section 11-8-6 covers breaking and entering, or entering in the nighttime without breaking, a building or enclosure in which poultry is kept, with intent to steal the poultry. This means the Castle Doctrine presumption is not limited to a person's home. It applies to the owner, tenant or occupier of a shop, church, ship or vessel where a person commits an offense listed in 11-8-4.

No Duty to Retreat Inside the Building

Within the scope of the Castle Doctrine, there is no duty to retreat. The occupant may stand their ground inside the building and use force, including deadly force, without first attempting to flee. Outside the statutory exception, Rhode Island's rule under State v. Quarles is that a person attacked must attempt retreat before using deadly force if he or she is consciously aware of an open, safe and available avenue of escape.

Key Case Law

The Rhode Island Supreme Court has addressed the Castle Doctrine in several important decisions. In State v. Fetzik (1990), the court held that a person attacked at home by an assailant with no lawful right to enter has no duty to retreat, a rule that goes beyond the conditions of Section 11-8-8.^[3] In State v. Walton (1992), the court held that a person attacked at home or on business premises by a social or business guest is not required to retreat before using necessary force, including deadly force, to avoid imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Together, these cases confirm that the Castle Doctrine provides strong protection, particularly when the occupant faces a threat from someone who has been asked to leave and refused.^[4]