AN ACT RELATING TO TAXATION -- LEVY AND ASSESSMENT OF LOCAL TAXES

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Stephen Casey and 3 co-sponsors

The bill codifies a Castle Doctrine: occupants may use reasonable, including deadly, force to defend against unlawful entry without a duty to retreat, with immunity from criminal/c

03/04/2025 Committee recommended measure be held for further study

Summary — HB 5688: "An Act Adopting the Castle Doctrine"

Status and effective date
- Introduced: April 23, 2025. Referred to the Joint Committee on Judiciary.
- Passed both chambers in May 2025. Transmitted to the Governor April 24; filed without the Governor’s signature on June 20, 2025.
- Became effective September 1, 2025.

Purpose / intent
- The bill adopts a “Castle Doctrine” rule for the state: it codifies legal protections for persons who use force, including deadly force, to defend themselves against an unlawful intruder in their dwelling (and commonly in a vehicle or place of business). The intent of such laws is to remove or limit a duty to retreat and to provide criminal and sometimes civil immunity to occupants who act in self-defense against home-invasion threats.

Key provisions (based on the bill title; full text not provided)
- Use of force allowed inside dwelling: Occupants are authorized to use reasonable force, including deadly force, against an intruder who unlawfully and forcibly enters or attempts to enter their residence, vehicle, or workplace.
- No duty to retreat: An occupant who is lawfully present in the dwelling is not required to retreat before using defensive force.
- Presumption of reasonable fear: The occupant’s use of force in response to an unlawful entry is presumed to be reasonable and justified in many circumstances (subject to rebuttal by the prosecution or civil plaintiff).
- Criminal and civil immunity: The bill likely provides for immunity from criminal prosecution and/or from civil liability for occupants who use force consistent with the statute.
- Exceptions and limitations: Commonly included limits (and likely in this bill) are exclusions for an occupant who is committing a crime, the initial aggressor, or where the occupant’s belief of imminent harm is not objectively reasonable. Law enforcement and statutory reporting requirements may also be specified.
- Burden of proof and procedure: The statute typically shifts initial evidentiary burdens (e.g., creating a presumption of justification) while preserving prosecutorial authority to overcome that presumption with evidence.

Who is affected
- Primary: residents, household members, and lawful occupants of private dwellings (and possibly vehicles/businesses).
- Secondary: law enforcement, prosecutors, defense attorneys, courts, civil plaintiffs (injured intruders or family members), and insurers (changes in liability exposure).
- Public-safety implications: Potential effects on prosecution rates for defensive-shooting cases, civil litigation, and police investigation practices.

Procedural notes and next steps
- The summary above is based on the bill title and legislative history; the official statutory language (definitions, exact scope, exceptions, and procedures) must be consulted to determine precise legal obligations and protections. Readers seeking implementation details should review the enrolled bill text and any accompanying committee reports or legislative findings.