A Quick Look At Idaho's Stand Your Ground Law

Disclaimer: I'm not your attorney, and this is not intended as legal advice. If you want legal advice, you will need to hire your own attorney.

        Senate Bill 1313 was introduced this year to include some "stand your ground" provisions, which generated a hissy fit from many on the left. I, myself, am generally skeptical of the legislature's attempts to revise gun and self-defense laws because, while they often grant some additional rights, they then turn and impose significant restrictions. However, in this case, I think that the citizens of Idaho may have come out ahead.

       First of all, although the Governor refused to sign the Bill, he also didn't veto it. Thus, it became law without his signature on March 22, 2018. 

       Under Idaho common law (that is, judge made law), the general rule was that a person had no duty to retreat; and, in fact, the general jury instruction on the issue states:

In the exercise of the right of [self-defense], one need not retreat. One may stand one's ground and defend [oneself] by the use of all force and means which would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation and with similar knowledge. This law applies even though the person being [attacked] might more easily have gained safety by flight or by withdrawing from the scene.

(See State v. Iverson, 155 Idaho 766, 316 P.3d 682 (Ct. App. 2014)). The same case also explains that a person defending themselves must still only use reasonable force.

        Bill 1313 (PDF here) extends justifiable homicide to include defense of  a business/employment or an occupied vehicle from someone intending to commit, by violence or surprise, a felony or physical violence against a person. Previously, it had only applied to defense of a habitation, property or person. Of note, it also creates a presumption (rebuttable, I presume) that anyone attempting to enter a habitation, place of business/employment, or vehicle by use of stealth or force is doing so with the intent to commit a felony. I observe that this presumption does not appear to extend to the mere defense of a person or property other than in the specified locations and circumstances set out in the statute.

       The Bill also adds a reasonableness standard to the Castle Doctrine statute, stating:

A person acting pursuant to this section may use such degree and extent of force as would appear to be reasonably necessary to prevent the threatened injury. Reasonableness is to be judged from the viewpoint of a reasonable person placed in the same position and seeing and knowing what the person then saw and knew without the benefit of hindsight.

This seems pretty standard and in line with the reasonableness standard under the common law.

       Finally, the Bill adds some provisions to the relevant statutes on self-defense, including that the person need not retreat (as I noted, this was part of the common law, but this makes it statutory), and that: "The defense of self or of another does not require a person to wait until he or she ascertains whether the danger is apparent or real. A person confronted with such danger has a clear right to act upon appearances such as would influence the action of a reasonable person." Note well, however, that this quoted provision does not appear to include defense of property. The statute also shifts the burden to the prosecutor to show that self-defense was not justified (I don't know if this will impact the defendant's burden to demonstrate to the court that he should be allowed to argue self-defense), and adds a presumption in favor of self-defense under certain circumstances:

A person using force or deadly force in defense of a habitation, place of business or employment or occupied vehicle as defined in section 18-4009(3), Idaho Code, is presumed to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the force is used against a person whose entry or attempted entry therein is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony.

Again, note that the presumption doesn't extend to defense of a person or property outside of the locations and circumstances set out in the statute.

       This is just a quick overview to highlight some of the changes. I suggest that you download the PDF and read the law and the changes for yourself.