California Use of Deadly Force Standards

California law establishes specific standards for when deadly force may be used in self-defense. These standards are codified primarily in Penal Code Sections 197 through 199^[1] and interpreted through the CALCRIM jury instructions that guide juries in evaluating self-defense claims.

Penal Code Section 197: Justifiable Homicide

Section 197 defines justifiable homicide by "any person" in several circumstances^[1]:

• When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person
• When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors to commit a felony by violence or surprise
• When committed in the lawful defense of the slayer or any other person when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished

CALCRIM 505: Self-Defense (Justifiable Homicide)

The CALCRIM 505 jury instruction^[2] is the primary instruction given to juries in homicide cases where self-defense is raised. It instructs jurors that the defendant acted in lawful self-defense if: the defendant reasonably believed that they were in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury, the defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger, and the defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.

CALCRIM 506: Defense of Another

CALCRIM 506^[3] extends the same principles to defense of another person. The elements mirror CALCRIM 505: a reasonable belief that the other person was in imminent danger, a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary, and proportional force.

Reasonable Belief Standard

California uses an objective-subjective hybrid standard. The defendant must have actually believed they were in danger (subjective), and a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have shared that belief (objective). The "circumstances" considered include everything the defendant knew at the time, the relative physical capabilities of the parties, and any history of threats or violence. The jury evaluates reasonableness from the perspective of a reasonable person in the defendant's position.

Imminent Danger

The danger must be "imminent," meaning it must exist at the time force is used. A future threat or a past threat that has subsided does not justify deadly force. Penal Code Section 198 provides that a bare fear of death or great bodily harm is not sufficient to justify homicide^[4]. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person, and the person must act under the influence of such fears alone.

Proportionality of Force

Deadly force is justified only when the threat is of death or great bodily injury. If the threat is of lesser harm (minor assault, property damage), only non-deadly force is justified. Using deadly force against a non-deadly threat is not legally justified and can result in criminal prosecution. Penal Code Section 199 provides that the justification of homicide requires full investigation of the circumstances^[5].

Imperfect Self-Defense

If a defendant actually believed they were in danger but that belief was unreasonable, California recognizes "imperfect self-defense." This does not acquit the defendant but reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter. CALCRIM 571 governs this instruction. The defendant still faces criminal liability, but at a significantly reduced level.

Initial Aggressor

A person who initiates a confrontation generally cannot claim self-defense. However, if the initial aggressor withdraws from the fight and communicates that withdrawal, and the other party continues the attack, the initial aggressor may regain the right to self-defense.