Vermont Use of Force and Self-Defense Laws

Use of Force in Vermont

Vermont's use-of-force law for civilians is a hybrid of a brief statute (13 V.S.A. § 2305) and a substantial body of common law developed by the Vermont Supreme Court. A separate statute (20 V.S.A. § 2368) sets a framework for law-enforcement use of force; it does not govern civilians, but its definitions of "imminent threat" and "totality of the circumstances" are influential as Vermont's most recent codified standards.

Statutory Self-Defense - 13 V.S.A. § 2305 (Justifiable Homicide)

Vermont's core self-defense statute is 13 V.S.A. § 2305. A person is guiltless of homicide who kills or wounds another:

1. In the just and necessary defense of the person's own life or the life of any other person.
2. In the suppression of a person attempting to commit murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, burglary, or robbery, with force or violence.
3. In the case of justifiable use of deadly force by a law enforcement officer acting in compliance with 20 V.S.A. § 2368.

The statute also preserves common-law defenses: "This section shall not be construed to limit or infringe upon defenses granted at common law."

Common-Law Self-Defense

Vermont common law governs the practical contours of self-defense. Key principles from the Vermont Supreme Court's cases:

• Reasonable belief. A person may use force in self-defense when the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend against an imminent unlawful use of force by another. The belief must be honest and objectively reasonable under the circumstances as they appeared to the defender.
• Proportionality. The force used must be proportional to the threat. Non-deadly force may be met with non-deadly force; deadly force is justified only against threats of death, serious bodily injury, or one of the enumerated violent felonies in § 2305.
• Imminence. The threat must be imminent. A fear of future harm, however great, does not justify a preemptive use of deadly force.
• No initial aggressor. The defender generally cannot have provoked the encounter with the intent to use force. A person who provokes the conflict may regain the right of self-defense only by clearly withdrawing and communicating the withdrawal.
• No duty to retreat in the home. Vermont follows a castle-doctrine approach for the home: there is no duty to retreat from a dwelling before using force, including deadly force, against an unlawful intruder. See the Castle Doctrine section.
• Duty to retreat elsewhere is debated. Vermont has not adopted a sweeping Stand Your Ground statute, but the Vermont Supreme Court has held that retreat is one factor in the reasonableness analysis outside the home rather than a strict prerequisite to using force. The practical question in any given case is whether the defender's use of force was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.

Defense of Others

The same standards apply to defense of another person. A defender stands in the shoes of the person being defended; if that person would have been justified in using force, the defender is justified. Mistake-of-fact analysis applies under a reasonableness standard.

Defense of Property

• Non-deadly force may be used in reasonable defense of property.
• Deadly force solely to defend property is not justified under Vermont common law. § 2305 limits deadly force to defense of life and the enumerated violent felonies (murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, burglary, robbery).
• Burglary and robbery, however, are forcible felonies under § 2305 and may justify deadly force when reasonably believed to be in progress.

Imminent Threat Definition (Drawn from 20 V.S.A. § 2368)

Although 20 V.S.A. § 2368 directly governs law enforcement, its definition of "imminent threat" is Vermont's most recent codified articulation of the concept and is informative for evaluating civilian conduct under § 2305 and common law:

An imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury exists when, based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in the same situation would believe that another person has the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury. An imminent threat is not merely a fear of future harm, no matter how great the fear or likelihood of harm, but rather one that, from appearances, must be immediately addressed and confronted.

The three elements - ability, opportunity, and apparent intent - track the standard articulated in Vermont jury instructions and many other jurisdictions.

Totality of the Circumstances

Vermont evaluates use of force on the totality of the circumstances known to the defender at the moment force was used, including:

• The conduct and statements of the attacker.
• The relative size, age, and physical condition of the parties.
• The presence of weapons.
• Prior threats or violence.
• The location of the encounter (home, vehicle, public place).
• Opportunities for retreat or de-escalation.
• The defender's own conduct leading up to the encounter.

Carry With Intent to Injure - 13 V.S.A. § 4003

Independent of self-defense doctrine, 13 V.S.A. § 4003 makes it a crime to carry a dangerous or deadly weapon with the intent to injure another. Carry with intent to defend oneself or another from an unlawful attack is not a § 4003 violation; carry as a means of pursuing or initiating violence is.

Brandishing, Pointing, and Display

Vermont has no specific "brandishing" statute. Pointing a firearm at another person without justification can be charged as:

• Aggravated assault (13 V.S.A. § 1024) - attempting by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury with a deadly weapon.
• Reckless endangerment (13 V.S.A. § 1025) - recklessly engaging in conduct that places or may place another in danger of death or serious bodily injury.

A reasonable, justified display of a firearm to ward off an imminent attack is generally a defense to such charges under the same self-defense framework that governs use of physical force.

Civil Liability

Vermont has no broad civil-immunity statute equivalent to those in some other states. A person who uses justifiable force may nevertheless be sued and must rely on common-law privilege as a defense. A successful criminal-self-defense outcome does not automatically defeat a civil claim, though the same evidence is generally controlling.

Citation Summary