(a) The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as the person reasonably believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which the person has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.
(c) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the defendant reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect the defendant against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.
(d) The use of force is not justifiable under this section to resist an arrest which the defendant knows or should know is being made by a peace officer, whether or not the arrest is lawful.
(e) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:
(1) The defendant, with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury, provoked the use of force against the defendant in the same encounter; or
(2) The defendant knows that the necessity of using deadly force can be avoided with complete safety by retreating, by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that the defendant abstain from performing an act which the defendant is not legally obligated to perform except that:
a. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant’s dwelling; and
b. The defendant is not obliged to retreat in or from the defendant’s place of work, unless the defendant was the initial aggressor; and
c. A public officer justified in using force in the performance of the officer’s duties, or a person justified in using force in assisting an officer or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape, need not desist from efforts to perform the duty or make the arrest or prevent the escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom the action is directed.
11 Del. C. 1953,
§
464;
58 Del. Laws, c. 497,
§
1;
59 Del. Laws, c. 203,
§
5;
70 Del. Laws, c. 186,
§
1;
83 Del. Laws, c. 73,
§
1;
Notes of Decisions
Timothy Lawrence Doscoli v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 786 S.E.2d 472 (Va. Ct. App. 2016).
“243) ("The use of force is not justifiable under this section to resist an arrest which the defendant knows or should know is being made by a peace officer, whether or not the arrest is lawful.”
Smith v. State, 913 A.2d 1197 (Del. 2006).
“1977)(" 11 Del.C. § 464... may not be used where the defendant provoked the incident or can avoid the necessity of using deadly force.”
Delaware Accessories Trade Ass'n v. Gebelein, 497 F. Supp. 289 (D. Del. 1980).
“§§ 78dd-1, 78dd-2, 1397, 1916, 2068, 2614; 18 U.S.C. §§ 491 , 922, 954, 1384, 2154, 2251, 2423, 2512; 26 U.”
Coleman v. State, 320 A.2d 740 (Del. 1974).
· cites it 2× “As support for this position, the defendant maintains that 11 Del.C. § 464(a), the portion of the new Criminal Code [1] dealing with the use of self-protective force as a defense, creates such subjective standard in lieu of the "reasonable man" objective test formerly prevailing…”
Pendry v. State, 367 A.2d 627 (Del. 1976).
“” * * * * * 11 Del.C. § 464 provides: “(c) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the defendant believes that such force is necessary .”
Hamilton v. State, 343 A.2d 594 (Del. 1975).
· cites it 2× “Several provisions of the new Code are involved: 11 Del.C. § 464 2 supplanted in extensive detail the former Delaware law of self-defense as to which the burden of proof was upon the defendant.”
United States ex rel. Wilson v. Delaware, 437 F. Supp. 407 (D. Del. 1977).
“11 Del.C. § 464(e). The additional information, however, conceivably could have induced the jury to convict the defendant of manslaughter instead of second degree murder.”
Feliciano v. State, 332 A.2d 148 (Del. 1975).
“Defendant argues that he was entitled to such charge in addition to the instruction on self-defense, 11 Del.C. § 464, which was given by the Court.”
State v. Smith (Del. Super. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 3× “Self-Defense 11 Del. C. §464(a) reads: The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the…”
State v. Taylor (Del. Super. Ct. 2021).
· cites it 3× “2 11 Del. C. § 464 (a)–(c) (2021) (amending 11 Del.”
Smith v. State (Del. Super. Ct. 2025).
· cites it 3× “24, 2022); see also 11 Del. C. § 464. 43 Postconviction Hr’g Joint Ex.”
State v. Coleman (Del. Super. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 2× “'? It has long been recognized that a person very plainly has no right to provoke a quarrel and then take advantage of it to justify the homicide arising from the quarrel which he himself provoked.”
— 11 Del. C. § 464(a) — 9 cases
Coleman v. State, 320 A.2d 740 (Del. 1974).
“As support for this position, the defendant maintains that 11 Del.C. § 464(a), the portion of the new Criminal Code [1] dealing with the use of self-protective force as a defense, creates such subjective standard in lieu of the "reasonable man" objective test formerly prevailing…”
State v. Smith (Del. Super. Ct. 2017).
“Self-Defense 11 Del. C. §464(a) reads: The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the…”
State v. Taylor (Del. Super. Ct. 2021).
“2 11 Del. C. § 464 (a)–(c) (2021) (amending 11 Del.”
— 11 Del. C. § 464(c) — 4 cases
Smith v. State (Del. Super. Ct. 2025).
“24, 2022); see also 11 Del. C. § 464. 43 Postconviction Hr’g Joint Ex.”
State v. Smith (Del. Super. Ct. 2017).
“Self-Defense 11 Del. C. §464(a) reads: The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the…”
— 11 Del. C. § 464(d) — 1 case
Timothy Lawrence Doscoli v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 786 S.E.2d 472 (Va. Ct. App. 2016).
“243) ("The use of force is not justifiable under this section to resist an arrest which the defendant knows or should know is being made by a peace officer, whether or not the arrest is lawful.”
— 11 Del. C. § 464(e) — 2 cases
United States ex rel. Wilson v. Delaware, 437 F. Supp. 407 (D. Del. 1977).
“11 Del.C. § 464(e). The additional information, however, conceivably could have induced the jury to convict the defendant of manslaughter instead of second degree murder.”
State v. Smith (Del. Super. Ct. 2017).
“Self-Defense 11 Del. C. §464(a) reads: The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the…”
— 11 Del. C. § 464(e)(2) — 2 cases
State v. Coleman (Del. Super. Ct. 2020).
“'? It has long been recognized that a person very plainly has no right to provoke a quarrel and then take advantage of it to justify the homicide arising from the quarrel which he himself provoked.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.