Del. P.J.I. Crim. No. 5.13

JUSTIFICATION - USE OF FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY

The defendant has asserted as a defense to [charge] that the defendant was

justified in using force for the protection of property. This defense is available, if the

defendant believed that such force was immediately necessary, in any one of the

following three circumstances:

to prevent a criminal trespass or burglary in a building or upon land belonging

to the defendant or belonging to another person the defendant sought to protect; or

to prevent entry upon land belonging to the defendant or belonging to another

person the defendant sought to protect; or

to prevent theft, criminal mischief or any unlawful taking of tangible, moveable

property belonging to the defendant or belonging to another person the defendant

sought to protect.

In any one of these circumstances, the defendant may use such force as the

defendant believes necessary to protect the threatened property. However, before

using force against a person, the defendant must first ask that person to stop

interfering with the property. There is no obligation to make such request if the

defendant believe that, under the circumstances:

the request would be useless; or

it would be dangerous to make such a request; or

substantial harm would be done to the property before such a request could be

made.

[The use of deadly force for the protection of property is justifiable only if one

of the following two circumstances existed:

the person against whom the force was used was attempting to remove the

defendant from the defendant’s dwelling; or

the person against whom the force was used was attempting to commit arson,

burglary, robbery, felonious theft or property destruction and: either that person used

or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the defendant, or under the

circumstances existing at that time, the defendant believed that the other person’s use

of force other than deadly force would expose the defendant, or another person in the

defendant's presence, to the reasonable likelihood of serious physical injury.

If, after considering all the evidence tending to support this defense, you find

that the evidence raises a reasonable doubt in your mind about the defendant’s guilt,

you must find the defendant not guilty of the crime. You must consider evidence of

this defense along with all the other evidence in determining whether the State has

satisfied its burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.