Is Self-Defense a Legal Defense in California? How It Works in Assault, Battery, and Homicide Cases
The short answer: yes, self-defense is a complete legal defense in California to assault, battery, assault with a deadly weapon, and even murder, as long as you reasonably believed you were in imminent danger of being touched unlawfully or hurt, you reasonably believed that force was necessary to stop it, and you used no more force than was reasonably necessary. California has no duty to retreat, so you may stand your ground and even pursue an attacker until the danger has passed. Once there is some evidence of self-defense, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not act in self-defense. The defense is powerful, but it fails when the force was excessive, when the danger was not imminent, or when you started the fight, and prosecutors in Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Barstow test those points in every case. This guide from our criminal defense practice explains how the rule works.
Where the Right of Self-Defense Comes From in California Law
The statutes are old and short. Penal Code section 692 provides that lawful resistance to the commission of a public offense may be made by the party about to be injured, and Penal Code section 693 allows that resistance to prevent an offense against the person or to prevent an illegal attempt by force to take property. For homicide cases, Penal Code section 197 lists the circumstances in which killing another person is justifiable, including resisting an attempt to murder or to commit a felony or to do great bodily injury upon any person. Penal Code section 198 adds that a bare fear is not enough; the circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person, and the person must have acted under the influence of those fears alone.
The jury instructions do the real work. California juries are instructed on self-defense with CALCRIM 3470 for non-homicide cases and CALCRIM 505 for homicide cases. Those instructions set out the three requirements described above, tell the jury that the defendant may stand his or her ground, and tell the jury that the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in lawful self-defense. If the People fail to meet that burden, the jury must find the defendant not guilty.
Self-defense is not an affirmative defense you must prove. Unlike some states, California does not put the burden on the defendant. Once the evidence raises a reasonable doubt about whether you acted in self-defense, the prosecutor must disprove it. That is why a defense lawyer works so hard to get the facts supporting self-defense in front of the jury through your own testimony, witnesses, video, and the other person's history, as we discuss in What Makes a Criminal Case Weak in California?.
The Three Requirements for Self-Defense
Requirement one is a reasonable belief in imminent danger. You must have actually believed that you or someone else was in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury or of being touched unlawfully, and that belief must have been reasonable. Imminent means the danger was immediate and present, not a threat of future harm. A person who was threatened last week and attacks the threatener today is not acting in self-defense, no matter how sincere the fear.
Requirement two is a reasonable belief that force was necessary. You must have believed that the immediate use of force was necessary to defend against the danger. If you could have ended the confrontation by closing a door or stepping back and chose to strike instead, the prosecutor will argue that force was not necessary. California does not require retreat, but the jury still asks whether a reasonable person in your position would have believed that force was needed right then.
Requirement three is proportionate force. You may use no more force than a reasonable person would believe was necessary in the same situation. Punching a person who shoved you may be reasonable; stabbing a person who shoved you usually is not. This requirement is where most self-defense claims in assault with a deadly weapon cases under Penal Code section 245 are lost, because the response escalated well beyond the threat.
The standard is objective but considers your situation. The jury asks what a reasonable person would have believed in your circumstances, with your knowledge. In People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, the California Supreme Court held that evidence of a defendant's prior abuse at the hands of the victim is relevant to whether her belief in imminent danger was reasonable, because the jury must consider the situation from the defendant's point of view. In People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, the Court held that threats made by the victim's associates were admissible to show the defendant's reasonable fear.
No Duty to Retreat and the Right to Stand Your Ground
California does not require you to run away. The standard instruction tells jurors that a defendant is not required to retreat and is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself, and if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of bodily injury has passed, even if safety could have been achieved by retreating. This applies on the street, at work, and in a bar in Riverside or Barstow, not just at home.
Pursuit has limits. The right to pursue ends when the danger ends. Chasing a person who is running away and hitting him from behind is not self-defense, and video of that moment ends many claims. The question is always whether the danger was still present when the force was used.
Standing your ground is not the same as provoking a fight. A person who seeks out a confrontation and then claims self-defense when it turns physical will face the initial aggressor rules explained below. The right to stand your ground protects people who did not start the fight.
The Castle Doctrine and Defending Your Home
Penal Code section 198.5 creates a presumption inside the home. Under Penal Code section 198.5, a person who uses deadly force against someone who unlawfully and forcibly enters his or her residence is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury, as long as the resident knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred. The presumption applies to the occupant of the residence and does not apply when the person who entered was a member of the household or a family member.
The presumption is strong but not absolute. It shifts the question in the resident's favor but the prosecutor can still try to rebut it, and the presumption applies only when the entry was both unlawful and forcible. A person who was invited inside and later became violent does not trigger the presumption, although ordinary self-defense still applies. Deputies responding to a shooting in a home in Hesperia or Apple Valley will investigate how the person got in, which is why what you say at the scene matters so much, as we explain in Do Not Say This to Police in California.
Defense of property alone is narrower. You may use reasonable force to protect property from imminent harm, but deadly force to protect property alone is not justified. Shooting a person who is stealing a catalytic converter from a truck in the driveway is not self-defense unless the thief posed a threat to a person. Brandishing a firearm to scare off a trespasser can itself be a crime under Penal Code section 417 unless it was reasonable self-defense, as we cover in Brandishing a Weapon in California: Penal Code 417 Explained.
Defense of Others
You may defend another person on the same terms. The rules for defending someone else are the same as the rules for defending yourself: a reasonable belief that the other person was in imminent danger, a reasonable belief that force was necessary, and proportionate force. The person you defend does not have to be a family member. Stepping in to stop a stranger from being beaten in a parking lot in Fontana or Ontario is lawful if the force was reasonable.
Mistakes about the situation can be excused if reasonable. If you reasonably but mistakenly believed that a person was being attacked and intervened, the defense still applies, because the test is reasonable belief rather than actual danger. The risk is intervening in a situation you misread, such as a police officer making an arrest, where resisting can lead to charges under Penal Code section 148.
When Self-Defense Does Not Apply
The initial aggressor usually cannot claim it. Under the rules set out in CALCRIM 3471, a person who starts a fight has a right to self-defense only if he or she actually and in good faith tried to stop fighting, communicated that to the other person by word or conduct, and gave the other person a chance to stop. A person who started a fight with non-deadly force and was met with sudden deadly force may defend with deadly force, but a person who provoked a fight as an excuse to use force has no claim at all.
Mutual combat has its own rule. When two people agree to fight, each has lost the right to self-defense unless one tries to withdraw in good faith, communicates that withdrawal, and gives the other person a chance to stop. Bar fights in Riverside, Rancho Cucamonga, and Victorville are often charged against both parties for exactly this reason, and the person who stops first has the better claim.
Excessive force turns a victim into a defendant. The most common way a self-defense claim fails is proportionality. If a shove is answered with a knife, a slap with a baseball bat, or a fistfight with a firearm, the jury will usually find that the force exceeded what was reasonably necessary. Weapons escalate the charge from battery under Penal Code section 242 to assault with a deadly weapon under Penal Code section 245, and the elements of those crimes are explained in What Is Assault and Battery in California? Penal Code 240 and 242 Explained.
Words alone are not enough. Insults, taunts, and threats of future harm do not justify force. A threat of immediate harm combined with conduct showing the ability to carry it out can create imminent danger, but a person who hits someone for talking trash will not have a self-defense claim.
Resisting a lawful arrest is not self-defense. A person may use reasonable force to resist an officer's use of excessive force, but may not resist a lawful arrest or detention. Claims of self-defense against police are difficult and fact-specific, and charges under Penal Code section 148 or Penal Code section 69 often follow, so a lawyer should review the body camera footage before any statement is made.
Imperfect Self-Defense in Homicide Cases
An honest but unreasonable belief reduces murder to manslaughter. If a person actually believed in the need to defend against imminent death or great bodily injury but that belief was unreasonable, the killing is not justified, but the person cannot be convicted of murder because malice is negated. The California Supreme Court recognized this doctrine in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668 and reaffirmed it in In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768. The result is voluntary manslaughter under Penal Code section 192, subdivision (a), rather than murder under Penal Code section 187.
Imperfect self-defense does not apply to the person who created the danger. A defendant whose own wrongful conduct, such as initiating an assault, created the circumstances that led to the killing cannot rely on imperfect self-defense. The doctrine also does not apply to non-homicide assault charges, where self-defense is all or nothing.
Why it matters at charging and plea stages. In a homicide investigation in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, or Riverside County, the difference between murder, voluntary manslaughter, and justifiable homicide is the difference between a life sentence, a determinate prison term, and no charge at all. Prosecutors evaluate self-defense evidence before deciding what to file, and a defense lawyer who presents that evidence early can shape the charge, as we describe in What Prosecutors Look At Before Filing Criminal Charges in California.
How a Self-Defense Case Is Built
Your lawyer gathers the evidence of who started it. Self-defense cases are won with surveillance video, doorbell footage, 911 recordings, photographs of your injuries taken the same day, medical records, and witnesses who saw the first blow. Much of this evidence disappears within days, so the first week after the incident is the most important.
The other person's history can come in. Under Evidence Code section 1103, a defendant may offer evidence of the alleged victim's character for violence, including specific prior acts, to show that the victim was the aggressor. The prosecutor can respond with evidence of the defendant's own character for violence once that door is opened, so the decision to use section 1103 evidence is strategic.
Your statements can help or hurt. A spontaneous statement at the scene that you were scared and had no choice can support the defense, but a statement that you "taught him a lesson" ends it. If you are questioned after an arrest, you have the right to counsel under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, and the safest course is to give your account through your lawyer. Our guide Can I Talk My Way Out of Charges in California? explains why.
Self-defense is raised before trial as well as at trial. A defense lawyer presents self-defense evidence to the prosecutor before filing, at the preliminary hearing in a felony case under Penal Code section 872, and in plea negotiations. Many assault cases with credible self-defense evidence are dismissed or reduced to disturbing the peace under Penal Code section 415 well before a jury is picked, and the strength of the evidence drives those outcomes, as discussed in How to Get Criminal Charges Dismissed in California.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I have to try to run away before defending myself in California?
No. California has no duty to retreat. The standard jury instruction tells jurors that a person who is not the aggressor may stand his or her ground, defend himself or herself, and if reasonably necessary pursue the attacker until the danger has passed, even if retreating would have been safer. The force used must still be reasonable and proportionate.
Can I use a gun or a knife in self-defense?
Only when deadly force is reasonably necessary. Deadly force is justified when you reasonably believe you are in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury, as reflected in Penal Code section 197 and the home-defense presumption in Penal Code section 198.5. Using a weapon against an unarmed person who shoved or punched you is usually treated as excessive force and can lead to a charge under Penal Code section 245.
Who has the burden of proof on self-defense?
The prosecutor. Once there is evidence supporting self-defense, the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in lawful self-defense. The defendant does not have to prove that the force was justified, and a reasonable doubt on the question requires a not guilty verdict.
Can I claim self-defense if I started the argument?
Only in limited circumstances. A person who started the fight can claim self-defense only if he or she truly tried to stop fighting, communicated that to the other person, and gave the other person a chance to stop, or if the other person responded to a non-deadly provocation with sudden deadly force. A person who provoked a fight as an excuse to use force has no self-defense claim.
Is self-defense a defense to domestic violence charges?
Yes, on the same terms as any other assault. A person charged with domestic battery under Penal Code section 243, subdivision (e)(1), or corporal injury under Penal Code section 273.5 may argue self-defense, and injuries to the defendant, 911 recordings, and the other party's history are often decisive. These cases carry additional rules on protective orders and firearms, which we explain in Falsely Accused of Domestic Violence in California? What to Do.
What should I do right after defending myself?
Call 911, get medical care, and do not give a detailed statement without a lawyer. Reporting the incident yourself establishes you as the person who sought help, documenting your injuries preserves evidence, and speaking through counsel prevents an imprecise statement from being used against you. Daniel Gramling, Esq. offers flat-fee criminal defense for assault and battery cases throughout Southern California.
Talk to a Criminal Defense Lawyer About Your Self-Defense Case
Gramling Law Group defends assault, battery, weapons, and homicide cases at the Riverside Hall of Justice, the San Bernardino Justice Center, the Victorville courthouse, the Barstow courthouse, the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center, and the Central Justice Center in Santa Ana, and throughout the Inland Empire, Los Angeles County, Orange County, and Southern California. Daniel Gramling, Esq. offers flat-fee criminal defense and limited-scope options so that the cost of defending yourself is clear from the start. Call (909) 654-4575 or contact us through this website for a consultation.
This article is educational and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. It addresses California law only.
Related Guides From Gramling Law Group
Learn more about our criminal defense practice serving the Inland Empire, Los Angeles County, and Southern California.
Gramling Law Group raises self-defense in assault, battery, and weapons cases for clients in Riverside, San Bernardino, and Barstow, and throughout the Inland Empire.
Gramling Law Group
3600 Lime St, Bldg 2, Riverside, CA 92501
Phone: (909) 654-4575
Serving the Inland Empire, Los Angeles County, Orange County, and all of Southern California except San Diego in family law and criminal defense.
Follow Daniel Gramling on Instagram: @californiafamilylawyer
Comments