Utah Code » Title 76, Chapter 2 — Principles of Criminal Responsibility; part 76-2-4 — Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility
Utah Code

Utah Code § 76-2-405 (2026)

Force or deadly force in defense of habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Except as provided in Subsection (2), an actor is justified in using force against an individual when and to the extent that the actor reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the individual's unlawful entry into the actor's vehicle or unlawful entry or attack upon the actor's habitation or place of business or employment.
An actor is justified in using force against the individual described in Subsection (1) that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury to the individual only if:
the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth; and
the actor reasonably believes:
that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or perpetrating personal violence against any individual who dwells in or is present in the habitation or is present in the vehicle, or place of business or employment; and
that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or perpetration of personal violence; or
the actor reasonably believes that:
the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation; and
the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
An actor who uses force or deadly force against an individual to defend the actor's habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is:
unlawful; and
made or attempted:
by use of force;
in a violent and tumultuous manner;
surreptitiously or by stealth; or
for the purpose of committing a felony.
An actor who uses force or deadly force against an individual to defend the actor's vehicle or place of business or employment is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if:
the actor knew or had reason to believe that the individual:
entered, or attempted to enter, unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied vehicle or place of business or employment; or
removed, or attempted to remove, unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's vehicle or place of business or employment; and
the actor:
did not provoke the individual; and
was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a traffic offense, at the time the force was used.
The presumption in Subsection (3)(b) applies to an actor's use of force or deadly force against an individual to protect a third person if:
under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Subsection (3)(b) in using force or deadly force to protect the actor against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force that the actor reasonably believes to be threatening the third person the actor seeks to protect; and
the actor reasonably believes that the actor's intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: State v. Gardiner, 814 P.2d 568 (Utah 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Gardiner, 814 P.2d 568 (Utah 1991). · cites it 24× “Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-405 (1990) (emphasis added).”
State v. Patrick, 2009 UT App 226 (Utah Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 20× “ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW 1 10 On appeal, Patrick first argues that he was entitled to a directed verdict under Utah's defense of habitation statute, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-405 (2008), and that the district court erred in denying his motions for a directed verdict.”
State v. Karr, 2015 UT App 287 (Utah Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 31× “Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-405 (LexisNexis 2012).”
State v. Moritzsky, 771 P.2d 688 (Utah Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 10× “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-405 (1988). Defendant claims that due to his counsel’s failure to request the correct instruction, he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel guarantied him under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
State in Interest of RJZ, 736 P.2d 235 (Utah 1987). · cites it 17× “, 1953, § 76-2-405 (Supp.1986). We vacate and remand.”
State v. Herrera, 895 P.2d 359 (Utah 1995). · cites it 2× “Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-405 (1) states, "A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation.”
State v. Duran, 772 P.2d 982 (Utah Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 5× “Thus, Duran argues the evidence conclusively established the elements of self-defense, Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-402 (1978), and/or defense of habitation, Utah Code Ann.”
State v. Devan, 2024 UT App 193 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “” Utah Code § 76-2-405(1) (2020). 11 And “the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury” was justified “only if” one of the two following circumstances applied: (a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner,…”
State v. White, 2016 UT App 241 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “§ 76-2-405 (“A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation.”
State v. Tuckett, 2000 UT App 295 (Utah Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “§ 76-2-405(1) (1999). Some limited cireumstances allow a homeowner to use "force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury"; however, those cireumstances do not apply here.”
State v. Young, 2026 UT App 64 (Utah Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 12× “Utah Code § 76-2-405 (1985). 3 ¶27 Under the plain text of this statute, it seems to us that there were two distinct variants of this affirmative defense.”
State v. McKenna, 728 P.2d 984 (Utah 1986). · cites it 8× “Section 76-2-405 may justify the use of force by a person to protect his or her habitation: A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s unlawful entry into…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Utah Code § 76-2-405(1): 4 cases
State v. Devan, 2024 UT App 193 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). “” Utah Code § 76-2-405(1) (2020). 11 And “the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury” was justified “only if” one of the two following circumstances applied: (a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner,…”
State in Interest of RJZ, 736 P.2d 235 (Utah 1987). “, 1953, § 76-2-405 (Supp.1986). We vacate and remand.”
State v. Tuckett, 2000 UT App 295 (Utah Ct. App. 2000). “§ 76-2-405(1) (1999). Some limited cireumstances allow a homeowner to use "force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury"; however, those cireumstances do not apply here.”
State v. Young, 2026 UT App 64 (Utah Ct. App. 2026). “Utah Code § 76-2-405 (1985). 3 ¶27 Under the plain text of this statute, it seems to us that there were two distinct variants of this affirmative defense.”
Utah Code § 76-2-405(1)(a): 3 cases
State v. Karr, 2015 UT App 287 (Utah Ct. App. 2015). “Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-405 (LexisNexis 2012).”
State v. Tuckett, 2000 UT App 295 (Utah Ct. App. 2000). “§ 76-2-405(1) (1999). Some limited cireumstances allow a homeowner to use "force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury"; however, those cireumstances do not apply here.”
State v. Young, 2026 UT App 64 (Utah Ct. App. 2026). “Utah Code § 76-2-405 (1985). 3 ¶27 Under the plain text of this statute, it seems to us that there were two distinct variants of this affirmative defense.”
Utah Code § 76-2-405(1)(b): 2 cases
State v. Karr, 2015 UT App 287 (Utah Ct. App. 2015). “Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-405 (LexisNexis 2012).”
State v. Young, 2026 UT App 64 (Utah Ct. App. 2026). “Utah Code § 76-2-405 (1985). 3 ¶27 Under the plain text of this statute, it seems to us that there were two distinct variants of this affirmative defense.”
Utah Code § 76-2-405(2): 4 cases
State v. Patrick, 2009 UT App 226 (Utah Ct. App. 2009). “ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW 1 10 On appeal, Patrick first argues that he was entitled to a directed verdict under Utah's defense of habitation statute, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-405 (2008), and that the district court erred in denying his motions for a directed verdict.”
State in Interest of RJZ, 736 P.2d 235 (Utah 1987). “, 1953, § 76-2-405 (Supp.1986). We vacate and remand.”
State v. Moritzsky, 771 P.2d 688 (Utah Ct. App. 1989). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-405 (1988). Defendant claims that due to his counsel’s failure to request the correct instruction, he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel guarantied him under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
State v. Karr, 2015 UT App 287 (Utah Ct. App. 2015). “Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-405 (LexisNexis 2012).”
Utah Code § 76-2-405(l)(a): 1 case
State in Interest of RJZ, 736 P.2d 235 (Utah 1987). “, 1953, § 76-2-405 (Supp.1986). We vacate and remand.”
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.