No Duty to Retreat: NJ Supreme Court Clarifies the Castle Doctrine for In-Home Self Defense Cases

New Jersey Supreme Court Reverses Conviction Over Jury Instruction Error on Self Defense Law Castle Doctrine Case

            In a significant ruling on May 6, 2025, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of John T. Bragg, citing a critical omission in the jury instructions regarding the "Castle Doctrine," an important component of self-defense law in the Garden State. In State of New Jersey v. John T. Bragg, the Court determined that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on this doctrine constituted plain error, warranting a new trial.

Background of the Case

          The case originated from a violent altercation on September 30, 2017, in a Trenton apartment. John Bragg, along with Lorenza Fletcher, her cousin Daquan Anderson, and her three-year-old son, entered the apartment, which Bragg claimed to have been subleasing informally for several weeks. The apartment contained personal items, including an air mattress, television, and kitchenware, suggesting Bragg's residence.

            A physical confrontation ensued, leading to injuries for all adults involved. Bragg was arrested and later indicted on multiple charges, including attempted murder. At trial, Bragg asserted self-defense, alleging that Fletcher and Anderson were the initial aggressors. However, the jury was not instructed on the "castle doctrine," which could have negated Bragg's duty to retreat if the apartment was deemed his dwelling.

The Supreme Court's Analysis of Self Defense Law and the Castle Doctrine

           Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, writing for the Court, emphasized that self-defense laws in New Jersey require individuals to retreat if they can do so safely, except when they are in their own dwelling. In its decision, the Court explained the New Jersey’s self-defense law and the “Castle Doctrine,” which recognizes the importance of a person’s home and the special treatment we provide to it.

            The Court explained that self-defense is considered an “affirmative defense” New Jersey’s Criminal Code. See N.J.S.A. 2C:3-1(a)-4(a). It allows the use of force against another person when the actor honestly and reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect himself from unlawful force by the other person.

            Importantly, deadly force is generally not justifiable under New Jersey law if the actor knows he can avoid using such force with complete safety by retreating. This is known as the duty to retreat.

           However, there is an exception to the duty to retreat. An actor is not required to retreat from their dwelling unless he or she was the initial aggressor. This concept, known as the "Castle Doctrine." The principle behind this doctrine is that a person attacked in their own home is not obligated to retreat and may stand their ground and resist the attack. This principle underscores the special treatment given to a home or dwelling.

           The Court found that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on this exception was a significant oversight, especially given the conflicting testimonies about who initiated the altercation and whether the apartment was Bragg's dwelling.

           The Court concluded that this omission was "clearly capable of producing an unjust result," thereby constituting plain error. As a result, Bragg's convictions were reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Implications for Legal Practice

          Matt Lafargue, a trial attorney at Kemeny, Ramp & Renaud, who previously served as criminal prosecutor for thirteen years, litigating thousands of cases, took note of the decision, “The Court’s ruling underscores the importance of comprehensive and accurate jury instructions, particularly concerning self-defense claims,” he stated. “For defense attorneys, it highlights the necessity of ensuring that juries are fully informed about all relevant legal doctrines that could impact a defendant's culpability. Prosecutors must also be vigilant in addressing potential defenses and ensuring that jury instructions encompass all pertinent legal standards.”

           At Kemeny, Ramp & Renaud, LLC, we recognize the profound impact that jury instructions can have on the outcome of a trial. This ruling serves as a critical reminder of the need for meticulous attention to legal details in the courtroom. Our trial attorneys remain committed to upholding the highest standards of legal advocacy, ensuring that our clients receive fair and just treatment under the law.