The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the right to claim self-defense extends to someone who is inside a locked bedroom of a home even if the person trying to enter has been invited into the main residence.
Tuesday’s ruling vacated the aggravated assault conviction of a Tucson man convicted in a case prosecuted by the Pima County Attorney’s Office.
More importantly, it extends Arizona’s robust self-defense laws to areas previously not covered to anyone in the state.
Six of seven justices agreed that John Logan Brown was entitled to have a jury consider some self-defense arguments precluded by a trial judge. Pima County Superior Court Judge Brenden J. Griffin — and the Arizona Court of Appeals — had ruled otherwise.
Justice James Beene, writing for the majority, said the definition of a “residential structure” in state law includes a separate, locked bedroom and the jury should have been allowed to consider all of Brown’s self-defense arguments.
Beene forcefully rejected the stand of the lone dissenter, Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer, that Brown’s bedroom wasn’t a separate residence under the law.
“Here, we have faithfully adhered to the plain meaning of the Legislature’s words to conclude that Brown’s bedroom constituted a ‘residential structure,’” Beene wrote for the majority.
Timmer disagreed, saying that the trial court judge allowed three self-defense arguments to go before the jury, which rejected them in convicting Brown.
“Nevertheless, Brown argues the court incorrectly declined to additionally instruct the jury on defense of premises and defense of a residential structure,” Timmer wrote. “Brown was entitled to those instructions only if his bedroom qualified as a ‘residential structure.’”
Timmer said she agreed with the trial court that a bedroom doesn’t qualify.
The case arose from a 2022 altercation inside a condo Brown shared with a woman with whom he had an on-again, off-again relationship, according to the decision. The couple had a friend who lived nearby who had told the woman not to reconcile with Brown.
The neighbor and Brown later got into a fight. Brown barred him from the condo, but sometime after that, Brown’s companion invited the man over to their home.
When Brown returned from work that day and found the other man there, he went into his separate bedroom and locked the door. The woman and the man then tried to force their way inside, and Brown swung a microphone stand to stop them, injuring the man. They were identified in court filings only by their initials.
Brown, now 44, was indicted on three counts, but only convicted of one, aggravated assault. He was sentenced to five years in prison, but the high court’s decision voids that sentence.
Beene wrote that state law gives someone the absolute right to use force to prevent someone from entering their residence, even if someone invited them into the larger home.
“Because Brown had the right to exclude M.H. from his bedroom, a jury could conclude that Brown reasonably believed force was necessary to prevent a criminal trespass,” Beene wrote. ”Additionally, even though Brown testified that he did not feel threatened by M.H., (the law’s) presumption establishes that M.H. is presumed to pose an imminent threat.”
In an unusually rapid action, the high court issued a brief order after hearing oral arguments in February saying the trial court judge had got it wrong. Tuesday’s formal opinion explained why the court made that decision.
Pima County prosecutors dismissed the case in April after the initial high court decision, according to county attorney spokesman C.T. Revere. They do not plan to re-try Brown.