Describing the ‘Make My Day’ Law at a Glance
In November 1986, a referendum was held in Oklahoma for voters to weigh in on an ordinance similar to Colorado’s "Make My Day" statute. The Republican-controlled Oklahoma Legislature introduced State Question 640, which passed in the November election. This led to the passage of the "Make My Day" law in Oklahoma and as the first state in the nation to adopt this law. The "Make My Day" statute provides an exception to Oklahoma’s duty to retreat in places other than one’s dwelling or place of work. The law clarifies that a person does not have a duty to retreat prior to using lethal force in a confrontational situation and grants them the protection of self-defense provided by the law .
A key provision of the "Make My Day" statute states: "A person is justified in using deadly physical force against another when and to the extent he reasonably believes the other is about to: a) Use unlawful deadly physical force against him; or, b) Commit the crime of burglary of a motor vehicle as provided in Section 21-1431 of this title if the person reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent the commission of the crime; or, c) Break and enter his dwelling or place of work and the person reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony therein." By broadening the scope of "justification" for the use of deadly physical force, and eliminating the duty to retreat, "justifiable self-defense" does not include any entry into a residence without permission or authorization.
Legal Protections Afforded Under the Law
In Oklahoma, the "Make My Day" law provides residents with important rights and protections. Under this law, an individual has the right to use reasonable force – including deadly force – against individuals who attempt to unlawfully enter their home, occupied vehicle, or sometimes, their workplace. "Make My Day" essentially gives individuals the right to "stand their ground" in their homes and property when they believe they are facing a real, imminent threat.
A homeowner may legally use deadly force against someone who attempts an unlawful entry if he or she reasonably believes that the person entering the home will commit one of the following crimes: When dealing with a home invasion, you do not need to wait to call the police before reacting. You have the right to effectively command the situation until the police arrive; however, you may not terrorize an intruder. To qualify as "terrorizing" on the part of the homeowner, his or her actions must be illegal in nature. If you are legally justified in using deadly force on an intruder, in most circumstances, it is illegal for the intruder to use deadly force on you as well.
Case Scenarios: Analyzing Precedents
Several cases have tested the boundaries of Oklahoma’s "Make My Day" law in various scenarios. Understanding these interpretations is crucial to grasping the nuances of your rights and responsibilities under this legislation.
One case that illustrates the application of the law is Wofford v. City of Tulsa, where the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the "Make My Day" law, finding it constitutional and enforceable. This decision confirmed the legality of using deadly force in the protection of one’s home in Oklahoma with certain limitations.
In Kirkland v. State, the court examined the details of how the "Make My Day" law should be applied in a case of alleged trespassing. The defendant had used deadly force in shooting a home intruder, claiming self-defense under the law. However, the court found that the circumstances did not meet the specific conditions required for a "Make My Day" claim, such as the absence of any reasonable escape routes from the dangerous situation. As such, the defendant was charged with murder.
Another significant case is Widener v. State, where the court considered a situation in which the resident had fired several warning shots before using lethal force against the intruder. All conditions of the law were met as the homeowner had no confrontation with the intruder and only defended himself through lethal means after all other alternatives were denied. The ruling here supported the allowance of deadly force when absolutely necessary, even if the homeowner had taken preventative steps prior to the incident such as firing warning shots.
These cases demonstrate that while the "Make My Day" law provides broad protections for residents concerning the use of force to protect their homes, each instance is judged on its unique details. It is clear that an actual confrontation with an intruder or assailant must occur for the use of lethal force to be deemed justifiable under Oklahoma law.
Troubles and Controversies Surrounding the Law
Like many "stand your ground" laws across the country (Oklahoma’s law is informally known as the "Make My Day" law because it allows citizens to respond to home intrusions with deadly force if necessary), the legislation has its fair share of challenges, controversies, and general criticisms. As with all self-defense laws, there is a concern over abuse or overreaction. While Oklahoma authorities have not released specific numbers on "Make My Day" cases in Oklahoma, the private sector agency National Crime Victim Bar Association found that "Make My Day" laws "have been misused; primarily by criminals bending the law to serve as legal cover for aggressive behavior toward both citizens and police." Additionally, the National Crime Victim Bar Association found "Make My Day" laws falling short because, "in numerous situations, the law has been misused and victims have been prosecuted despite acting well within their rights under the law to defend their homes….the law has not been tested successfully as a defense in any charge outside of murder; in those cases where it has been used, courts have found it not applicable, overturned convictions, or reduced sentences." Although the Vacant Premises Law in Oklahoma provides an argument in favor of invoking the "Make My Day" law, it appears that "Make My Day" is more often used in ordinary (i.e. non-vacant) premises.
Nonetheless, political support for broad "stand your ground" laws is widespread. According to Dartmouth College survey data gathered by political scientist Michael J. Hummel , 76% of Americans support laws that remove the duty to retreat when attacked, and only 7% oppose such laws. Further, 80% of Americans agree that a person should have the right to use lethal force in his or her own home if meeting violent resistance, while only 8% disagree.
Opponents of the "Make My Day" law argue that the legislation makes it too easy to claim that the home intruder was a threat of death or serious injury. In response to the 2006 shooting of a man in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, then-New Jersey Governor Richard Codey stated, "Am I sympathetic to a homeowner who defends herself? Absolutely. Am I sympathetic to the homeowner of a McMansion who gets new granite counter tops every month and a soft-hearted burglar finds himself in a pickle?" Republican New Jersey Senate President Stephen Sweeney added, "I think what’s wrong with this law — if you want to call it a law — is that it puts so much of a burden on the confronted party to prove that the person coming into your house was intent on harming you." Similarly, witnesses of a case in Omaha, Nebraska testified that "Make My Day" legislation should not apply when both parties are armed. According to journalists in Nebraska, "A jury in Sarpy County will soon decide if the man firing a gun to protect his apartment was justified in applying Nebraska’s so-called ‘make my day’ law. But some lawmakers say there’s a problem with that particular law and they want changes. They say it goes too far and needs to be revised to make it crystal clear when someone can use deadly force."
How It Compares to Other States’ Laws
Oklahoma’s "Make My Day" law falls in the broad range of laws that allow use of deadly force in self defense in the home. Oklahoma’s law is unique, however, in that it is not limited to dwellings but extends to any "residences", as well as a few other selected places. It also expressly extends to threatening or intimidating behavior causing the victim to "reasonably" believe deadly force is necessary, which may create more significant uncertainty than other states’ laws.
Texas has similar "Make My Day" law. Texas law provides that a person may use non-deadly force any time and deadly force if they "reasonably believe" the force is immediately necessary, as long as person had possession of the property and had a right to be present there. However, Texas law is stricter than Oklahoma’s in that it limits valid self-defense to "occupied habitation" (no extension to car/truck as in Oklahoma), and occupation of the habitation must be without effective consent of the owner.
As with Texas, New Mexico law is restricted to the use of force within a "habitation." However, it does not require the victim to have exclusive control over the premises, nor does it explicitly restrict valid defense to "immediately necessary" situations. New Mexico law also extends beyond "threatening behavior", and allows for use of deadly force if the individual "reasonably believes" certain conditions, such as a non-peaceful entry, are true.
Similar to Oklahoma, Arizona law extends to any "residence", and gives rights to those who are present at residence as a result of legal rights. However, Arizona’s law is much stricter than Oklahoma’s in that although threatening behavior appears to be covered in Arizona law, the state law provides an almost identical "reasonable belief" requirement as does Oklahoma law.
California law allows use of deadly force against another in self-defense or in defense of another if the individual "reasonably believes" that: (1) the other person is about to inflict great bodily injury on, or kill, the individual or another; and self-defense is "reasonably necessary" to defend against that danger. California’s law is slightly broader than those mentioned above, as it does not restrict valid defense to "immediate necessity" instances. However, it is not clear whether California law extends to behavior causing fear of such. California law does not extend any further than these provisions.
Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California law all provide clarification for the Oklahoma statute and allow for the use of reasonably necessary force to defend against more than simply the immediate use of deadly force.
Practical Implications and Takeaways for Oklahomans
In light of Oklahoma’s "Make My Day" law, inquiring minds want to know, what does this mean for a typical Oklahoma resident? The Q&A format of the Denver District Attorney’s office web page gives a good overview in a question-by-question manner. A few of their questions and answers are excerpted and paraphrased below:
Q. When is use of force in defense of a dwelling lawful?
A. Oklahoma’s "Make My Day" law allows use of physical force in defense of one’s dwelling only when such use of physical force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate another’s unlawful entry or unlawful act of remaining in a dwelling, or to remove a person who is illegally in a dwelling.
Q. When is use of deadly force (shooting) in defense of a dwelling lawful?
A. Use of deadly physical force (that is shooting someone) in defense of a dwelling is also permissible under Oklahoma law, provided that the resident has a reasonable belief that the use of deadly physical force is necessary:
• To prevent the commission of certain serious felonies, including forcible rape, murder, attempted murder, first degree burglary, and armed robbery; or
• To prevent certain forcible felonies from being committed against a "protected person," which includes any occupant of your home , as well as certain state and local government employees and military personnel.
And while it is theoretically possible to voluntarily relinquish the presumptions that an unauthorized occupant is committing a forcible felony when they forcibly enter a dwelling or carry out certain forcible felonies within a dwelling, the voluntary relinquishment must be done in an obvious way that is verbal and known to the unauthorized occupant, and done before the felony is committed. Putting up a "NO TRESPASSING" sign or going into the house at the time the unauthorized person is trying to get in does not demonstrate that the occupant voluntarily relinquished the presumptions that a forcible felony was being committed. So an owner who opens the door and tells the unknown person to go away while closing the door should not change the presumptions. However, if the tenant had gone outside and then told the unknown person that he did not have permission to be there and then closed and locked the door to the hallway before the unknown person went upstairs, that might be sufficient to prevent problems if the unknown person went upstairs and was subsequently shot by the tenant.
While no law can guarantee that charges will not be filed, following the law will minimize the chance of arrest and charges being filed because according to the Boulder County District Attorney, "In most cases, a shooting in self-defense will not change a person’s freedom of movement."