“Castle doctrine” has become something of a buzz phrase in recent years, and it is mired in the controversy of gun rights and self-defense. A Massachusetts resident defending themselves against an attacker does not have time to consider the potential controversy of their actions, however – and these implications only become important during subsequent criminal cases. A recent assault and battery case in Massachusetts illustrates how castle doctrine may be applied in the Commonwealth.
Defendant Fails to Reduce Murder Charges After Stabbing Roommate
In June of 2025, the Appeals Court in Massachusetts neglected to reduce a second-degree murder charge to voluntary manslaughter for a defendant accused of stabbing his roommate. This case stems from a 2018 incident involving the defendant and his roommate, who were living together in the same apartment at the time. The defendant was living in a makeshift bedroom sectioned off from the rest of the apartment with a curtain, while the other roommate occupied a “real” bedroom.
On the night of the incident, the defendant was reportedly listening to loud music and accessing inappropriate websites on his computer. The roommate became angry at this because his daughter and granddaughter were trying to sleep in another room. After repeatedly asking the defendant to turn down the music and computer audio, the other roommate then ripped down the curtain and smashed his laptop with a blunt instrument.
Moments later, the defendant was spotted by another occupant of the apartment with a knife. The other roommate lay on the ground, wheezing and struggling to get up. The defendant then ran from the apartment before arriving at a friend’s house with blood on his clothing. Meanwhile, the roommate passed away from multiple stab wounds.
The defendant was arrested and charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon (ABDW) and first-degree murder. At the end of the trial, the defendant asked the judge to instruct the jury on castle law (castle doctrine). However, the judge only provided instructions on first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter. The jury convicted the defendant of second-degree murder and ABDW.
On appeal, the defendant tried to argue that the person he stabbed made an unlawful entry into his dwelling. In other words, he argued that tearing down the curtain of his makeshift room is equivalent to kicking down the front door of a house. The appeals court was not convinced. The appeals court noted that the roommate who died never made physical contact with the defendant’s body, and that the defendant “failed to satisfy his duty to retreat.”
Under Massachusetts’ castle doctrine, there is no duty to retreat if someone unlawfully enters your home. Although the defendant argued that his curtain-divided room represented a separate dwelling, the court opined that both parties were “guests” lawfully living in the apartment. In other words, the court defined the “dwelling” in this context as the whole apartment, not the defendant’s separated living space. This key distinction maintained the defendant’s duty to retreat, and it lead to the denial of his appeal.
Contact an Experienced Assault Defense Attorney in Boston
If you face assault and battery charges and you believe that you were acting in self-defense, it might be worth speaking with an experienced defense attorney in Boston. The complexities of castle doctrine can be challenging to understand through online research alone. Expand on this conversation by contacting Edward R. Molari today.