La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 14:20 (2026)

Justifiable homicide

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§20. Justifiable homicide

A. A homicide is justifiable:

(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.

(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.

(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.

(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40) when the conflict began, against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.

B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle when the conflict began, if both of the following occur:

(1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force as provided for in this Section, and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used deadly force had a reasonable belief that deadly force was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving life or great bodily harm or to prevent the unlawful entry.

Added by Acts 1976, No. 655, §1. Amended by Acts 1977, No. 392, §1; Acts 1983, No. 234, §1; Acts 1993, No. 516, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1378, §1; Acts 2003, No. 660, §1; Acts 2006, No. 141, §1; Acts 2014, No. 163, §1, eff. August 1, 2014.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 465 cases (47 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: State v. Free, 127 So. 3d 956 (La. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Free, 127 So. 3d 956 (La. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 11× “R.S. 14:20 provides, in part: A. A homicide is justifiable: (1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.”
State v. Wells, 156 So. 3d 150 (La. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 26× “R.S. 14:20 C. We do, however, decide the matter on a reversible error in the instructions given to the jury, which instructions permitted the jury to consider the possibility of retreat by Mr.”
State v. Ingram, 71 So. 3d 437 (La. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 12× “Louisiana R.S. 14:20 sets out the law in cases where the use of force or violence in defense results in a homicide.”
State v. Seals, 83 So. 3d 285 (La. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 7× “14:20(D) was added to LSA-R.S. 14:20 by Acts 2006, No. 141 § 1, effective August 15, 2006.”
State v. Morris, 22 So. 3d 1002 (La. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 12× “R.S. 14:20(A)(1), which was consistent with the defense theory that the killing was “committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believe[d] that he [was] in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing [was] necessary to save himself…”
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). · cites it 2× “[19] See La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:20(2) (West 1974); Vt.”
State of Louisiana v. Christopher J. Wells, 209 So. 3d 709 (La. 2015). · cites it 14× “R.S. 14:20 and at the time of this homicide provided: A.”
State v. Rouser, 158 So. 3d 860 (La. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 9× “R.S. 14:20, instead of instructing it solely on justifiable homicide.”
State v. Lawson, 1 So. 3d 516 (La. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “Near the end of trial, the defense requested the following special instructions regarding justifiable homicide: (1) if defendant raises the defense of justification, the burden then shifts to the State to prove that the conduct was not justified; and (2) a reading of LSA-R.S.…”
State v. Freeman, 427 So. 2d 1161 (La. 1983). · cites it 5× “14:19 and R.S. 14:20 [3] depending upon whether or not a homicide results.”
State v. Murray, 827 So. 2d 488 (La. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “R.S. 14:20(1); State v. Cotton, [25,940] (La.”
State v. Rosiere, 488 So. 2d 965 (La. 1986). · cites it 2× “There is no issue as to whether defendant killed Glover. The only question is whether defendant acted with specific intent and without justification.”
Show all 465 citing cases →
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:20(1) — 121 cases
State v. Murray, 827 So. 2d 488 (La. Ct. App. 2002). “R.S. 14:20(1); State v. Cotton, [25,940] (La.”
State v. Freeman, 427 So. 2d 1161 (La. 1983). “14:19 and R.S. 14:20 [3] depending upon whether or not a homicide results.”
State v. Spivey, 874 So. 2d 352 (La. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Nash, 475 So. 2d 752 (La. 1985).
State v. Batiste, 947 So. 2d 810 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:20(1)(2) — 1 case
State v. Guillot, 470 So. 2d 360 (La. Ct. App. 1985).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:20(2) — 7 cases
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). “[19] See La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:20(2) (West 1974); Vt.”
State v. Johnson, 948 So. 2d 1229 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Harris, 645 So. 2d 224 (La. Ct. App. 1994).
State ex rel. D.P.B., 846 So. 2d 753 (La. 2003).
State v. Stratton, 521 So. 2d 842 (La. Ct. App. 1988).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:20(3) — 9 cases
State v. Tolbert, 390 So. 2d 510 (La. 1980).
State v. Guillot, 470 So. 2d 360 (La. Ct. App. 1985).
State ex rel. D.P.B., 846 So. 2d 753 (La. 2003).
State v. Quiambao, 833 So. 2d 1103 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Johnson, 948 So. 2d 1229 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:20(4) — 6 cases
State v. Britt, 510 So. 2d 670 (La. Ct. App. 1987).
State ex rel. D.P.B., 846 So. 2d 753 (La. 2003).
State v. Johnson, 948 So. 2d 1229 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Wallace, 612 So. 2d 183 (La. Ct. App. 1992).
State Ex Rel. Dpb, 846 So. 2d 753 (La. 2003).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:20(4)(a) — 1 case
State v. Johnson, 948 So. 2d 1229 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:20(A) — 21 cases
State v. Ingram, 71 So. 3d 437 (La. Ct. App. 2011). “Louisiana R.S. 14:20 sets out the law in cases where the use of force or violence in defense results in a homicide.”
State v. Marlowe, 81 So. 3d 944 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Mincey, 14 So. 3d 613 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Wilkins, 131 So. 3d 839 (La. 2014).
State v. Cook, 86 So. 3d 672 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:20(A)(1) — 83 cases
State v. Lawson, 1 So. 3d 516 (La. Ct. App. 2008). “Near the end of trial, the defense requested the following special instructions regarding justifiable homicide: (1) if defendant raises the defense of justification, the burden then shifts to the State to prove that the conduct was not justified; and (2) a reading of LSA-R.S.…”
State v. Thompson, 259 So. 3d 1257 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Seals, 83 So. 3d 285 (La. Ct. App. 2011). “14:20(D) was added to LSA-R.S. 14:20 by Acts 2006, No. 141 § 1, effective August 15, 2006.”
State v. Rubens, 83 So. 3d 30 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Cook, 86 So. 3d 672 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:20(A)(2) — 4 cases
State v. Morris, 22 So. 3d 1002 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 14:20(A)(1), which was consistent with the defense theory that the killing was “committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believe[d] that he [was] in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing [was] necessary to save himself…”
State of Louisiana v. Joshua James Parks (La. Ct. App. 2025).
State of Louisiana v. Jimmy Ray Cockerhem (La. Ct. App. 2026).
State of Louisiana v. Steve Derozal Williams (La. Ct. App. 2026).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:20(A)(4) — 4 cases
State v. Revish, 185 So. 3d 8 (La. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Gasser, 275 So. 3d 976 (La. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Gasser, 275 So. 3d 976 (La. Ct. App. 2019).
State of Louisiana Versus Ronald Gasser (La. Ct. App. 2019).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:20(A)(4)(a) — 11 cases
State v. Ingram, 57 So. 3d 299 (La. 2011).
State v. Ingram, 71 So. 3d 437 (La. Ct. App. 2011). “Louisiana R.S. 14:20 sets out the law in cases where the use of force or violence in defense results in a homicide.”
State v. Morris, 22 So. 3d 1002 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 14:20(A)(1), which was consistent with the defense theory that the killing was “committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believe[d] that he [was] in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing [was] necessary to save himself…”
State v. Gasser, 275 So. 3d 976 (La. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Revish, 185 So. 3d 8 (La. Ct. App. 2015).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:20(A)(4)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Wells, 156 So. 3d 150 (La. Ct. App. 2014). “R.S. 14:20 C. We do, however, decide the matter on a reversible error in the instructions given to the jury, which instructions permitted the jury to consider the possibility of retreat by Mr.”
State v. Revish, 185 So. 3d 8 (La. Ct. App. 2015).
State of Louisiana v. Cody Salvador Guccione (La. Ct. App. 2026).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:20(A)(S) — 1 case
State v. Morris, 22 So. 3d 1002 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 14:20(A)(1), which was consistent with the defense theory that the killing was “committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believe[d] that he [was] in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing [was] necessary to save himself…”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:20(B) — 8 cases
State v. Ingram, 71 So. 3d 437 (La. Ct. App. 2011). “Louisiana R.S. 14:20 sets out the law in cases where the use of force or violence in defense results in a homicide.”
State v. Morris, 22 So. 3d 1002 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 14:20(A)(1), which was consistent with the defense theory that the killing was “committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believe[d] that he [was] in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing [was] necessary to save himself…”
Shipp v. Wayne Joseph Landry, 147 So. 3d 721 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Gasser, 275 So. 3d 976 (La. Ct. App. 2019).
State of Louisiana v. Kayla Jean Giles Coutee (La. 2025).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:20(B)(1) — 2 cases
State v. Thomas, 981 So. 2d 850 (La. Ct. App. 2008).
Shipp v. Wayne Joseph Landry, 147 So. 3d 721 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:20(C) — 17 cases
State v. Kirk, 98 So. 3d 934 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Free, 127 So. 3d 956 (La. Ct. App. 2013). “R.S. 14:20 provides, in part: A. A homicide is justifiable: (1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.”
State of Louisiana v. Christopher J. Wells, 209 So. 3d 709 (La. 2015). “R.S. 14:20 and at the time of this homicide provided: A.”
State v. Morris, 22 So. 3d 1002 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 14:20(A)(1), which was consistent with the defense theory that the killing was “committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believe[d] that he [was] in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing [was] necessary to save himself…”
State v. Mayes, 154 So. 3d 1257 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:20(D) — 16 cases
State v. Seals, 83 So. 3d 285 (La. Ct. App. 2011). “14:20(D) was added to LSA-R.S. 14:20 by Acts 2006, No. 141 § 1, effective August 15, 2006.”
State of Louisiana v. Christopher J. Wells, 209 So. 3d 709 (La. 2015). “R.S. 14:20 and at the time of this homicide provided: A.”
State v. Free, 127 So. 3d 956 (La. Ct. App. 2013). “R.S. 14:20 provides, in part: A. A homicide is justifiable: (1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.”
State v. Morris, 22 So. 3d 1002 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 14:20(A)(1), which was consistent with the defense theory that the killing was “committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believe[d] that he [was] in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing [was] necessary to save himself…”
State v. Vedol, 113 So. 3d 1119 (La. Ct. App. 2013).
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.