Your bedroom is your castle: Arizona Supreme Court clarifies justification for the use of force within the home.
By JohnEdgett on Nov 6, 2025
In many States, including Arizona, homes get extra legal protection when it comes to the use of force by a resident or homeowner being legally justified. You may have heard of this concept referred to as the “Castle Doctrine,” as in, “a person’s home is their castle.” In Arizona, the law doesn’t explicitly mention castles- but the idea is similar.
Arizona law allows a person to use force when that person reasonably believes himself or another person to be in “imminent peril of death or serious physical injury” and the person against whom the force is used is unlawfully in, or unlawfully entering, a residential structure. A.R.S. § 13-418(A).
But what exactly is a “residential structure?” Can an individual bedroom qualify, or only the whole house or apartment? How does the law apply when multiple people live together, and have different opinions about who is allowed inside?
On October 7, 2025, the Arizona Supreme Court issued its opinion in State of Arizona v. Brown, which resolved some of these questions. Here is a link to the Court’s full opinion.
Mr. Brown was convicted by a jury in Pima County of aggravated assault and sentenced to five years in prison. Some of the facts that were described by the Arizona Supreme Court included:
Mr. Brown and J.A. lived in a two-bedroom condo. The alleged victim in the case, M.H., was a neighbor. Mr. Brown had told J.A. that he no longer wanted M.H. at their condo. In December 2021, Mr. Brown had moved out of the condo. A week before the incident that led to this case, Mr. Brown and M.H. had gotten into a fight where Mr. Brown was assaulted. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Brown moved back in with J.A., and they agreed that M.H. would not return to the condo.
However, one day, a week later, M.H. came over when Mr. Brown had left for work. Although Mr. Brown knew M.H. had been invited over by J.A., he was not happy about it. When he got home, he locked himself in his bedroom, and told J.A. to leave him alone. J.A. attempted to unlock the door, and then forced the door open. Eventually, Mr. Brown began swinging a microphone stand to prevent J.A. and M.H. from coming into the bedroom. Mr. Brown and M.H. fought, and M.H. was struck in the face, leading to the aggravated assault charge.
Whenever a case is going to be decided by a jury, a very important phase of the trial is when the Court determines the legal instructions the jury will receive. These instructions can have a major impact on how the jury decides the case. Although Mr. Brown was convicted by the jury, the Arizona Supreme Court reversed the conviction based on their decision that Mr. Brown was improperly denied several important jury instructions.
The Court decided that the trial court had incorrectly omitted instructions dealing with the use of force in defense of a premises, defense of a residential structure, and a legal presumption that applies when a person is defending a residence. In Arizona, a defendant is entitled to have the jury be instructed about self-defense if there is the “slightest evidence” supporting it. State v. King 225 Ariz. 87, 90 (2010).
Arizona law states that “a person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.” A.R.S. 13-407(A).
This law means that, if a person is trespassing on property, and a reasonable person would think physical force was immediately necessary to remove them, that use of force may be legally justified.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a person is justified in threatening to use or using physical force or deadly physical force against another person if the person reasonably believes himself or another person to be in imminent peril of death or serious physical injury and the person against whom the physical force or deadly physical force is threatened or used was in the process of unlawfully or forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or forcefully entered, a residential structure or occupied vehicle, or had removed or was attempting to remove another person against the other person’s will from the residential structure or occupied vehicle.” A.R.S. 13-418(A).
What’s more, a person is legally presumed to reasonably believe that the use of force is immediately necessary if the other person is unlawfully entering the person’s residential structure, and, the trespasser is legally presumed to pose an imminent threat of unlawful deadly harm to the resident. A.R.S 13-419(A) and (B).
In the Brown case, the lower Court had ruled that Mr. Brown was not entitled the benefit of jury instructions on these laws because, among other reasons, Mr. Brown knew that J.A. had invited M.H. to the condominium, and therefore M.H. could not be trespassing. Similarly, Mr. Brown could not have reasonably believed that M.H. was unlawfully or forcefully entering the property.
The Arizona Supreme Court disagreed. The Court held that a separately securable bedroom, like Mr. Brown’s room, could be considered its own “residential structure” under the law. Moreover, the Court ruled that J.A. had no authority to invite M.H. into Brown’s bedroom against his express wishes. Therefore, Mr. Brown was entitled to not only the instructions on defense of premises and defense of property, but that the presumption in A.R.S. 13-419(B) applied. M.H. was “presumed to pose an imminent threat of unlawful deadly harm,” and Brown was justified in using force when J.A. and M.H. forcefully breached his bedroom door. To convict Mr. Brown, the State would have had to disprove this presumption and these justification defenses.
The Court reversed Mr. Brown’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. As of the time of this writing, the State of Arizona has now dismissed the case against Mr. Brown, rather than attempt to try him again.
This case clarified that when two people share a home, one resident has the right to exclude others, from their private space, even guests of another resident. This case may have a huge impact on how self-defense claims are analyzed between multiple people inside of a home.
As you can see, the law on the various forms of legal justification, including self-defense and defense of property can be complex. How the Court instructs a jury has an enormous impact on whether a person is found NOT GUILTY, or GUILTY of a crime.
If you’re facing criminal charges and believe you may have a potential justification defense in your case, it is important to consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney right away.
Blog posts and all other materials on this website are for informational purposes only. They are not legal advice, and do not form an attorney-client relationship. For specific advice about your legal situation or matter, please consult privately with an experienced attorney.