The contours around Alaska law permitting or allowing deadly force in self-defense, are governed by multiple tangents like “reasonable belief,” and retreat rules. A common question that also arises is how to proceed and what to expect if a person is charged in the process.

Introduction

What exactly does the law expect from a person when encountered with terrifying moments in life, under the impression that someone is about to seriously hurt, injure, or kill. The question which arises is whether a person would be legally allowed to use deadly force when faced with such circumstances. 

The seriousness of the answer could carry serious reverberations because failing to make the right choice can lead to life impacting criminal chargers raising to the pedestal of manslaughter or even murder even if it was believed that the person is defending themselves. 

Under Alaskan law use of deadly force is only limited to clearly defined situations which are discussed hereunder. Satisfying the situations is however not enough and the actor must display that the belief of the actor and their actions were such that the court may consider them to be reasonable at the time. 

Before proceeding further, please note that this write-up is informational and is not written in a manner to provide specific legal advice. Self-defense cases pose a complex web of facts and circumstances and therefore immediately upon an incidence of a deadly force being employed, immediate legal advice should be sought from criminal defense attorneys. This blog post tends to highlight the relevant rules, gray areas, and courts tendencies in interpretation of self-defense rules. 

Deadly Force Defined:

It may be important to understand the distinction between the definition of deadly force which under Alaska law is defined broadly as any force capable of causing death or serious physical injury and per the AS Title 11 §11.81.900 (17) provides that ‘deadly force’ means force that the person uses with the intent of causing, or uses under circumstances that the person knows create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious physical injury; ‘deadly force’ includes intentionally discharging or pointing a firearm in the direction of another person or in the direction in which another person is believed to be and intentionally placing another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument. 

At this juncture, since dangerous instruments are alluded to, it may be important to understand what such instruments/ weapons mean. 11 §11.81.900 (18) provides that these instruments entail any firearm, or anything designed for and capable of causing death or serious physical injury, including a knife, an axe, a club, metal knuckles, or an explosive. 

Essentially, in self-defense context, use of deadly force, or force through deadly weapons would entail results of deadly force 

Alaskan Basic Rule on Deadly Force

As already state, deadly force encapsulates any force capable of causing death or serious physical injury. As the starting point, the use of deadly force in self-defense cases is directly linked to the use of non-deadly force as encapsulated under the AS. § 11.81.335(a). A person who may be justified in using nondeadly force in self defense may use deadly force in self defense upon another person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary for self-defense against seven different eventualities: (1) death; (2) serious physical injury; (3) kidnapping (except not custodial interference); (4) sexual assault in first degree; (5) sexual assault in second degree; (6) sexual abuse of a minor in first degree; or (7) robbery in any degree. 

The critical elements that would permit the use of deadly force in any of the seven eventualities are that (1) reasonable belief, and (2) necessity for the use of deadly force. It is not sufficient that the actor was scared or concerned for their safety. Rather the courts tend to ask/ evaluate the question from the perspective of a reasonable person, whether the use of deadly force was necessary in the circumstances. 

If the defense fails on account of either reasonable belief or necessity the defense self-defense would fail if deadly force was employed. On the contrary, even if the reasonable belief or necessity requirements are met but the situation in which deadly force has been employed is outside of the seven eventualities under which deadly force is permitted then the defense would fail. 

However, it should be borne in mind that every case would depend on context or circumstances like distance, threats, opportunity to escape, and whether the attacker continued advancing, thus absent all factors and circumstances around a case a general blanket defense cannot be assumed.

Rule Against Use of Deadly Force

The knowledge of the actor is the key factor that impacts the permission to allow deadly force as a defense. A person may not use deadly force if the person/ actor knows that with complete personal safety and with complete as to others being defended, the person can avoid the necessity of using deadly force by leaving the area of the encounter, except there is no duty to leave the area if the person is (1) on premises (A) that the person owns or leases; (B) where the person resides, temporarily or permanently; or (C) as a guest or express or implied agent of the owner, lessor, or resident; (2) a peace officer acting within the scope and authority of the officer’s employment; (3) in a building where the person works in the ordinary course of the person’s employment; (4) protecting a child or a member of the person’s household; or (5) in any other place where the person has a right to be.

Deadly Force and “Stand-Your-Ground” Obligation

Alaska is a ‘stand your ground’ state and therefore generally there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force provided that the actor is in a place that they have a right to be in.

The right to stand your ground is however not absolute. However, the right is not absolute. While an actor who is justified to use nondeadly force in self-defense may use deadly force in self-defense if it is necessary to meet the seven eventualities which have been mentioned above. The starting point therefore remains whether under the circumstances the use of nondeadly force would have been permitted. In this regard AS § 11.81.330 provides that. The use of nondeadly force is not allowed if the actor is inter alia the initial aggressor, provoked the confrontation, engaged in certain criminal conduct, acted out of revenge, retaliation or in response to actual or perceived conduct by a rival or perceived rival. 

In this regard if the actor is an initial aggressor or provoked the confrontation then in those circumstances then actor in self-defense would not have the liberty to act in self-defense with deadly force nor have the option to stand their ground. 

Interpretation of “Reasonable Belief”

Courts have maintained and emphasized that self-defense is evaluated from the perspective of the moment that the issue arose in and not in hindsight. Ha v. State, 892 P.2d 184 (Alaska App. 1995), the court of appeal laid out how the juries assess the defendant would believe that deadly force was necessary in the circumstances. The law tests reasonableness of actions, the in view of all circumstances as they would have appeared. The issue remains what a reasonable person would have done in the defendant’s circumstances. Reasonableness in the context of self-defense would encompass various aspects of defendant’s knowledge, experience, and physical situation, and even the mental condition of the actor/ defendant. 

While self-defense would generally be assessed from the lens of fear and urgency, and under such circumstances a perfect judgment cannot be expected from the actor, it is nevertheless expected that the reasonable judgment from the actor will be exercised.

Per Werner v. State, 711 S.W.2d 639, 645 reasonable belief required in the necessity of self-defense cases, is one that would be held by an ordinary and prudent person in the same circumstances as the actor. Therefore, the person who claims self-defense and has used deadly force such actor would have to establish that the as a prudent person it was necessary to rely on lethal/ deadly force.

Overreaction vs. Reasonable Force

Convictions have been overturned on the basis of improper jury instructions. The ultimate calculus of assessment is that the actions must be reasonable and necessary. The idea of reasonableness and necessity would emanate from the factors governing the transaction at the time and not as an afterthought. 

In Jones-Nelson v. State, 446 P.3d 797 (Alaska 2019), the court reiterated that jurors must understand that defendants are judged based on their perspective at the time of their actions and not in perfect hindsight. So, in a nutshell self-defense must be evaluated in light of what the defendant reasonably believed at the moment deadly force was used.” 

Self Defense and Starting a Fight

If an actor intentionally provokes confrontation, then as discussed, the self-defense protection is lost. In this regard it is important to bear in mind that if an initial aggressor withdraws and clearly communicates withdrawal, but the other person continues to attack, self-defense may then be restored to.

In this regard and while assessing the courts carefully analyze recordings, witnesses, and body-cam footage if those are available.

Defense Against Police Actions

Use of deadly force against law enforcement agencies is by in large considered unlawful, regardless of the belief or reality i.e., whether the arrest is wrong or whether the actor believes that the arrest is wrong. The only exception that remains is when the force used against the actor is unlawful deadly force. 

With this extremely narrow exception, the safest path is to challenge unlawful police force in court and not to resist and challenge it in the moment. 

Self-Defense and Past Transactions

Self-defense would no longer apply if the threat which is being responded to has passed and the danger is not imminent. If the danger is no longer imminent and the threat has passed and the actor chooses to chase someone, confront them later, or retaliate self-defense would be not available, left alone the use of deadly force. 

A point that has to be understood in context of deadly force and self-defense is that it is only available as a recourse if something is happening right now. 

Misunderstandings That Lead to Charges

Common arrest occur normally because an actor has (1) escalated a fistfight into a weapons encounter; (2) misinterpreted verbal threats without physical danger; (3) continued using force after the attacker retreated; (4) fired warning shots (which courts still view as deadly force); (5) chased a fleeing intruder. 

Be that as it may, in any case the question would be asked is whether the deadly force necessary, and if yes then were there other safe options available. If there were other safe alternatives then the charges may follow. However, at the cost of reiteration, self-defense cases are critically complex and have to assessed on a case-by-case basis. 

Burden of Raising Self-Defense

The actor is required to present some evidence of justified use of force. Once some evidence has been produced Alaska requires the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the force was not justified. 

Potential Weapons Charges in Justified Self-Defense Incident

Even if justified self defense force has been used and established the potential repercussions that an actor may still face could potentially be: (1) weapons possession violations; (2) concealed carry violations; (3) intoxication-related firearm charges, (4) unlawful discharge ordinances. Note that Self-defense does not automatically erase unrelated gun law violations.

Practical Takeaways

• Deadly force is a last resort — only when serious harm appears imminent
•  Your belief must be reasonable, not merely fearful.
•  You usually do not have to retreat — but provoking a fight destroys the defense.
• Courts judge the situation as it appeared to you at the time.
•  Even justified force may lead to weapons-related charges.

And if ever faced with charges: do not give lengthy statements without counsel present.