(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the
defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent:
(a) The commission of criminal trespass, robbery, burglary, or other felony
involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to
KRS 503.055, in a dwelling, building or upon real property in his or her
possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he or
she acts;
(b) Theft, criminal mischief, or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable
property in his or her possession or in the possession of another person for
whose protection he or she acts; or
(c) The commission of unlawful camping in violation of KRS 511.110, when:
1. The offense is occurring on property owned or leased by the defendant;
2. The individual engaged in unlawful camping has been told to cease; and
3. The individual committing the offense has used force or threatened to
use force against the defendant.
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable
under subsection (1) of this section only when the defendant believes that the
person against whom such force is used is:
(a) Attempting to dispossess him or her of his or her dwelling otherwise than
under a claim of right to its possession; or
(b) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony
involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to
KRS 503.055, of such dwelling; or
(c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a dwelling or other building in
his or her possession.
(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she
has a right to be.
Effective: July 15, 2024
History: Amended 2024 Ky. Acts ch. 174, sec. 21, effective July 15, 2024. -- Amended
2006 Ky. Acts ch. 192, sec. 5, effective July 12, 2006. -- Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch.
406, sec. 33, effective January 1, 1975.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case:
Mondie v. Commonwealth, 158 S.W.3d 203 (Ky. 2005).
Mondie v. Commonwealth, 158 S.W.3d 203 (Ky. 2005).
· cites it 6× “KRS 503.080 provides: (1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent: (a) The commission of criminal trespass or burglary in a dwelling, building or upon real…”
Commonwealth v. Ousley, 393 S.W.3d 15 (Ky. 2013).
· cites it 3× “055, but also to protect property, see KRS 503.080. The latter statute goes so far as to allow the use of deadly physical force when the defendant believes it necessary to prevent the occurrence of any of a list of crimes, some of which are serious (criminal trespass, robbery,…”
Jewell v. Commonwealth, 549 S.W.2d 807 (Ky. 1977).
“070), protection o/property (KRS 503.080), use of force in law enforcement (KRS 503.”
Holly v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., 163 F. Supp. 3d 465 (W.D. Ky. 2016).
· cites it 2× “See Ky. Rev. Stat. § 503.080(1) (in criminal context, defense-of-property justification applies only if defendant believed use of force was “immediately necessary to prevent” taking of property (emphasis added)); Black’s Law Dictionary 512 (10th ed.”
Caudill v. Commonwealth, 374 S.W.3d 301 (Ky. 2012).
“070(3); KRS 503.080(3). Where the prosecution’s case, and the Appellant’s liberty, turn on the jury’s determination of which man was the initial aggressor and “who fired first,” creating the erroneous impression, strengthened by *311 implied judicial approval, that the Appellant…”
Fuston v. Commonwealth, 217 S.W.3d 892 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “We note that we analyze this issue under the version of KRS 503.080 as it existed prior to the 2006 amendment effective July 12, 2006.”
Richardson v. Commonwealth, 559 S.W.2d 738 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977).
“There was no request at trial for an instruction based on KRS 503.080(2)(b) and appellant does not allege any error as regards the instructions that were given.”
Willard E. Calhoun v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 4× “]” KRS 503.080(1)(a). Further, the use of deadly force by a defendant is deemed justifiable “only when the defendant believes that the person against whom such force is used is .”
Ruben Johnson, IV v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2023).
“Because the trial court specifically concluded there was no evidence Latasha Martin was physically injured as required by the fourth-degree assault statute, KRS 503.080(1)(a), Johnson argues he could not simultaneously be guilty of first- degree robbery or complicity thereto,…”
Maxum Indem. Co. v. Gribbins (W.D. Ky. 2019).
“2011) (emphasis in original) (citing KRS 503.080(2)). As the incident was unrelated to a dwelling, Gribbins is estopped from arguing that his use of force was a reasonable exercise of defense of his property.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 503.080(1) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Ousley, 393 S.W.3d 15 (Ky. 2013).
“055, but also to protect property, see KRS 503.080. The latter statute goes so far as to allow the use of deadly physical force when the defendant believes it necessary to prevent the occurrence of any of a list of crimes, some of which are serious (criminal trespass, robbery,…”
Holly v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., 163 F. Supp. 3d 465 (W.D. Ky. 2016).
“See Ky. Rev. Stat. § 503.080(1) (in criminal context, defense-of-property justification applies only if defendant believed use of force was “immediately necessary to prevent” taking of property (emphasis added)); Black’s Law Dictionary 512 (10th ed.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 503.080(1)(a) — 3 cases
Willard E. Calhoun v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
“]” KRS 503.080(1)(a). Further, the use of deadly force by a defendant is deemed justifiable “only when the defendant believes that the person against whom such force is used is .”
Ruben Johnson, IV v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2023).
“Because the trial court specifically concluded there was no evidence Latasha Martin was physically injured as required by the fourth-degree assault statute, KRS 503.080(1)(a), Johnson argues he could not simultaneously be guilty of first- degree robbery or complicity thereto,…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 503.080(2) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Ousley, 393 S.W.3d 15 (Ky. 2013).
“055, but also to protect property, see KRS 503.080. The latter statute goes so far as to allow the use of deadly physical force when the defendant believes it necessary to prevent the occurrence of any of a list of crimes, some of which are serious (criminal trespass, robbery,…”
Maxum Indem. Co. v. Gribbins (W.D. Ky. 2019).
“2011) (emphasis in original) (citing KRS 503.080(2)). As the incident was unrelated to a dwelling, Gribbins is estopped from arguing that his use of force was a reasonable exercise of defense of his property.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 503.080(2)(b) — 4 cases
Mondie v. Commonwealth, 158 S.W.3d 203 (Ky. 2005).
“KRS 503.080 provides: (1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent: (a) The commission of criminal trespass or burglary in a dwelling, building or upon real…”
Fuston v. Commonwealth, 217 S.W.3d 892 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).
“We note that we analyze this issue under the version of KRS 503.080 as it existed prior to the 2006 amendment effective July 12, 2006.”
Richardson v. Commonwealth, 559 S.W.2d 738 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977).
“There was no request at trial for an instruction based on KRS 503.080(2)(b) and appellant does not allege any error as regards the instructions that were given.”
Willard E. Calhoun v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
“]” KRS 503.080(1)(a). Further, the use of deadly force by a defendant is deemed justifiable “only when the defendant believes that the person against whom such force is used is .”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 503.080(3) — 2 cases
Caudill v. Commonwealth, 374 S.W.3d 301 (Ky. 2012).
“070(3); KRS 503.080(3). Where the prosecution’s case, and the Appellant’s liberty, turn on the jury’s determination of which man was the initial aggressor and “who fired first,” creating the erroneous impression, strengthened by *311 implied judicial approval, that the Appellant…”
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.