K.S.A. » Chapter 21
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 21-5223 (2026)

Defense of dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle; no duty to retreat

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

21-5223. Defense of dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon such person's dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle.

(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force to prevent or terminate unlawful entry into or attack upon any dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or another.

(c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person's dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle.

History: L. 2010, ch. 136, § 22; L. 2011, ch. 30, § 8; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · leading case: State v. Waldschmidt, 546 P.3d 716 (Kan. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Waldschmidt, 546 P.3d 716 (Kan. 2024). · cites it 2× “See K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 21-5226 (justifications described in K.”
State v. Barlett, 418 P.3d 1253 (Kan. 2018). “K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5223 allows an individual to use deadly force when the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect one's occupied vehicle.”
State v. Lindemuth, 470 P.3d 1279 (Kan. 2020). “He appealed to the Court of Appeals. The sole issue before the panel was whether the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to give defense counsel's proposed jury instruction on a workplace- defense theory under K.”
State v. Lindemuth, 417 P.3d 262 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Then, K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5223 also speaks to the two types of force and sets out when a person can legally defend his or her workplace: • A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it appears to such person and such person reasonably…”
State v. Collins, 425 P.3d 630 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). “21-5223 (justifiable use of force in defense of a dwelling, place of work, or occupied vehicle); K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5225 (justifiable use of force in defense of property other than a dwelling, place of work, or occupied vehicle); K.”
State v. Andrew, 340 P.3d 476 (Kan. 2014). “Rather, K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5223, refers generically to a “person,” stating: “(a) A person is justified in the use of force against anodrer when and to the extent that it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes drat such use of force is necessary to prevent…”
State v. Evans, 360 P.3d 1086 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “" K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-5223 states: "(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry…”
State v. Campbell, 300 P.3d 72 (Kan. 2013). “, K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 21-5223(a) (creating a defense to criminal charges when a person justifiably uses appropriate force to protect the person’s dwelling).”
State v. Andrew, 340 P.3d 476 (Kan. 2014). “Rather, K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5223, refers generically to a “person,” stating: “(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to prevent…”
Kline v. Bergstrom (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 8× “Turning our attention to Bergstrom's remaining argument—his second labeled argument, in a single paragraph in his appellate brief, we note that Bergstrom contends that the district court erred because it relied on K.S.A. 21-5223 when it denied his 18 immunity motion.”
State v. Sinclair (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “Sinclair's Remaining Issues on Appeal ⦁ For the first time on appeal, Sinclair complains the district court should have instructed the jury on the privileged use of force to prevent an "attack upon" or "unlawful entry" into an occupied vehicle under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5223.…”
State v. Jameson (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “" Subsection (c) of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5222 and K.S.A. 2020 Supp.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 21-5223(a) — 6 cases
State v. Lindemuth, 470 P.3d 1279 (Kan. 2020). “He appealed to the Court of Appeals. The sole issue before the panel was whether the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to give defense counsel's proposed jury instruction on a workplace- defense theory under K.”
State v. Campbell, 300 P.3d 72 (Kan. 2013). “, K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 21-5223(a) (creating a defense to criminal charges when a person justifiably uses appropriate force to protect the person’s dwelling).”
Kline v. Bergstrom (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “Turning our attention to Bergstrom's remaining argument—his second labeled argument, in a single paragraph in his appellate brief, we note that Bergstrom contends that the district court erred because it relied on K.S.A. 21-5223 when it denied his 18 immunity motion.”
State v. Sinclair (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “Sinclair's Remaining Issues on Appeal ⦁ For the first time on appeal, Sinclair complains the district court should have instructed the jury on the privileged use of force to prevent an "attack upon" or "unlawful entry" into an occupied vehicle under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5223.…”
State v. Jameson (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “" Subsection (c) of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5222 and K.S.A. 2020 Supp.”
— K.S.A. § 21-5223(b) — 3 cases
State v. Sinclair (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “Sinclair's Remaining Issues on Appeal ⦁ For the first time on appeal, Sinclair complains the district court should have instructed the jury on the privileged use of force to prevent an "attack upon" or "unlawful entry" into an occupied vehicle under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5223.…”
Alvarez v. State (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Drake (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 21-5223(c) — 1 case
Alvarez v. State (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
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.