Posted: 5/9/2008 7:33:17 AM EDT
| Does anyone have a link that presents a copy of Az's Castle Doctrine--assuming it exists-- and/or how it has been applied to-date in AZ? My real issue is insurance coverage for potential civil action following a self-defense shoot. |
|
Google is your friend. I found 4 relevant URLs in about 2 seconds by typing "Castle Doctrine""Arizona" There is no text, since the law really isn't a law. It was a change to the Justifications section for self-defense. About 10 years ago, prosecutors had the defense justification wording changed so that any claim of self-defense had to be proved by the defendant. Traditionally, it had to be disproved by the prosecution, but they didn't like that. All that SB 1145 did was to change the wording back to the way it originally was...to wit, if you make a claim of self-defense, the prosecution has to disprove it. Here's a great discussion/overview of it by David T. Hardy, a very notable 2A scholar: Closer look at AZ "Castle Doctrine" bill Text of SB1145 |
Thanks for the links. I was hoping to find evidence that civil suits for self defense actions were prohibited as is apparently the case in some states. The fact that a defendant will be reimbursed for legal fees in the event that civil action against a defendant is not successful is of little comfort if the plaintiff has no assets which is more than likely going to be the case. I've learned in the last couple of days that language in most personal liability insurance (like my State Farm policy) has words to the effect that "....they will not assist in legal defense or pay judgements....." if the action of the insured was "intentional". That would mean that one could easily drop $50K in legal fees, win the case, be awarded legal fees from the plaintiff, and still be SOL, if the plaintiff had no funds. A Google search indicates that in about half of the cases documented, the "intentional" language in the policy is thrown out by the court, but that still leaves a 50% chance that one would be left holding the bag. Insurance is offered through the NRA for self defense actions, but the coverage is minimal, the fees look excessive for the coverage purchased, and the pedegree of the insurance carriers is not clear. Thanks again. |
13-413. No civil liability for justified conduct No person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. 13-420. Attorney fees; costs The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, costs, compensation for lost income and all expenses incurred by a defendant in the defense of any civil action based on conduct otherwise justified pursuant to this chapter if the defendant prevails in the civil action. |
I was not aware of those two provisions - they will keep the ambulance chasers away from any justified shoot, to much risk to try it in court. |
First, what do the paragraph numbers, 13-413, and 13-420 refer back to. The statute? Second, it would seem to me that the first paragraph, 13-413 states that civil action couldn't even be filed for justifiable conduct (i.e. a "good shoot", either no charges filed, or acquitted of criminal action if charges were filed and the case went to criminal court). The second paragraph, 13-420, clearly states that expenses in a civil case involving justifiable conduct will be reimbursed by the plaintiff. Does this imply that the case would have to be reheard in civil court to establish again, that the action was justifiable? Which court establishes whether an action is justifiable? It would seem that if a civil court could independantly determine that an action was "unjustifiable", then the two referenced paragraphs are irrelevant. Is this the Robert Blake, O.J. situation? Thanks for the post. |
Arizona Revised Statutes Title 13 Chapter 4 www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=13 Everyone should take the time to read Chapter 31 followed by Chapter 4 of Title 13. |
Great reading. I guess the answer to my questin is "Yes", a defendent would have to suffer through a civil proceeding, even if he had been exonerated on the criminal side. Assuming a "win" the defendent would theoretically recover his defense costs. Thanks again. |