The “Castle Doctrine” in Nevada – When does it apply?

Nevada is one of the states that follows the Castle Doctrine. The law allows you to use force (even deadly force) in self-defense when (1) an intruder enters your occupied home or vehicle, and (2) you reasonably believe the intruder intends to commit violence.¹

Under the Castle Doctrine, there is no duty to retreat, even if a means of escape is available. You also do not have to wait for the intruder to:

• throw the first punch,
• aim a gun, or
• even make a verbal threat.

Locations the Castle Doctrine Applies to

Nevada’s Castle Doctrine applies to any occupied habitation or vehicle, such as:

• houses,
• condominium units,
• apartments,
• hotel rooms,
• camping tents,
• trailer homes,
• motor vehicles, from sedans to trucks

The home or vehicle must be currently occupied by at least one person. You do not have to be the owner or renter of the home or vehicle to kill the intruder. I have represented house guests who fought off intruders, and they had just as much of a right to kill the intruders as the homeowners would.²

Meanwhile, Nevada’s Castle Doctrine does not apply to unoccupied homes or vehicles. If you see someone breaking into an empty home or car, you do not have the right to kill the intruder, even if it is your home or car. Instead, you should contact the police right away.

Castle Doctrine as a Defense to Murder

If you are charged with murder (NRS 200.030) for killing an intruder in Nevada, you should be acquitted as long as the home or vehicle was occupied and you reasonably believed the intruder presented a threat.³

Example: Tom walks back to his apartment building after getting drunk at a Las Vegas bar. He lives in Apartment 1A, but he tries to get into apartment 1B next door because he is too intoxicated to realize it is the wrong apartment.

Meanwhile, John is in bed in apartment 1B when he hears someone trying to break in his front door. So John takes out his pistol and shoots through the door, killing Tom. In this case, John is not guilty of murder under Nevada state law. Instead, Tom’s death was a justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine because John reasonably believed Tom was a burglar with violent intentions.

Had John in the above example been walking down the street when he saw Tom trying to break into his empty apartment, the Castle Doctrine would not allow John to kill Tom. This is because unoccupied dwellings and vehicles are not protected under the Castle Doctrine. Instead, John should take cover and call law enforcement to report the attempted burglary.

Castle Doctrine vs. Duty to Retreat

Under Nevada’s Castle Doctrine, there is no duty to retreat from an occupied home or habitation before using lethal force on an intruder. This is true even if there are windows or doors you could have easily escaped through.⁴

Castle Doctrine vs. Killing in Self-defense

Under Nevada’s Castle Doctrine, you can kill an intruder of an occupied home or dwelling as long as you reasonably believe the intruder has violent intentions. However, you do not have to fear that you will be killed or seriously hurt: Just the fear of being mildly assaulted is sufficient for you to kill an intruder.

Meanwhile, when the Castle Doctrine does not apply to your situation, the bar for killing in self-defense (or defense of others) is much higher. The following four conditions must be true:

1. You must reasonably believe you are facing death or great bodily harm; and
2. The aggressor presents an urgent and pressing danger; and
3. A reasonable person in your position would also fear for their life and safety; and
4. You are not merely acting out of revenge.⁵

Therefore, when an aggressor does not pose a serious threat, you should use no more force than necessary to deflect the threat.

Example: Mary commits domestic violence by slapping her boyfriend for looking at another girl. Her boyfriend could lawfully push her away or potentially hit her back in an effort to stop the fight. Though under Nevada law, the boyfriend would not be justified in killing Mary in self-defense because she clearly did not mean to kill or seriously hurt him.

Castle Doctrine vs. “Stand Your Ground”

Under Nevada’s Castle Doctrine, you may stand your ground and kill an intruder of an inhabited home or vehicle. You do not have to flee and avoid confrontation even if there are easy means of escape.

Outside of your home, you may “stand your ground” with the use of deadly force only if the following four conditions are true:

1. You did not start the fight;
2. You are in reasonable fear of immediate death or substantial bodily injury (including rape);
3. You are allowed to be in your current location; and
4. You are not otherwise breaking the law.⁶

Therefore, the bar for standing your ground and killing in self-defense is higher when there is no intrusion into an inhabited home or vehicle.

Example: George and Fred break into a store after hours to steal some merchandise. George and Fred then get into an argument, and George pulls out his gun on Fred.

Here, Fred reasonably fears for his life. Though despite this imminent threat, Fred may not “stand his ground” and fight back because he is already breaking the law by being inside the store and burglarizing it.

If Fred shoots and kills George, he could not claim it was a justifiable homicide. Plus he would likely face murder charges even though George was the original aggressor.

Learn more about “stand your ground” laws in Nevada.

Where the Castle Doctrine Comes From

The Castle Doctrine comes from English common law, though it has its roots as far back as the ancient Romans. The term Castle Doctrine reflects the old saying that, “an Englishman’s home is his castle.” Like a castle, your home – no matter how small or modest – can be protected from intruders to the death. ⁷

Nevada’s Castle Doctrine Statute

NRS 200.120 “Justifiable homicide” defined; no duty to retreat under certain circumstances.

1. Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of an occupied habitation, an occupied motor vehicle or a person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors to commit a crime of violence, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the occupied habitation or occupied motor vehicle, of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.

2. A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force as provided in subsection 1 if the person:

(a) Is not the original aggressor;

(b) Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and

(c) Is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly force is used.

3. As used in this section:

(a) “Crime of violence” means any felony for which there is a substantial risk that force or violence may be used against the person or property of another in the commission of the felony.

(b) “Motor vehicle” means every vehicle which is self-propelled.

Additional Reading

For more in-depth information, refer to these scholarly articles:

• Reimagining Criminal Justice: The Disparate Impact of the ‘Castle’ Doctrine – Reimagining Criminal Justice
• Of the Enemy within, the Castle Doctrine, and Self-Defense – Marquette Law Review.
• A Defensible Defense: Reexamining Castle Doctrine Statutes – Harvard Journal on Legislation.
• Public perceptions of castle doctrine and stand your ground cases – Social Science Quarterly.
• The State of the Castle: An Overview of Recent Trends in State Castle Doctrine Legislation and Public Policy – Criminal Justice Review.

---

Legal References