Background

• Chew fired at two men fleeing Chew's apartment after being attacked inside the dwelling, with shots later hitting property in the parking lot.
• Chew sought a jury instruction under Wis. Stat. § 939.48(lm) (castle doctrine); the trial court refused, citing lack of evidence the men were in Chew's dwelling.
• The castle doctrine statute presumes force was necessary if the victim was in the actor's dwelling and certain unlawful entry conditions are met; Chew argued the evidence supported subdivision 2.
• The court held the statute does not apply because Lee and Lucas were not in Chew's dwelling; they were fleeing across an open parking lot.
• Dwelling is defined in Wis. Stat. § 895.07(1)(h) as residentially devoted premises on the lot, excluding a shared parking lot; Chew did not have exclusive control over the parking lot.
• Affirmed judgment; castle doctrine does not justify continued deadly force when the intruder is no longer in the actor's dwelling.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• State v. Castillo, 213 Wis. 2d 488 (1997) (decided on narrow grounds; interpret statute language)
• State v. Williams, 198 Wis. 2d 479 (1996) (statutory interpretation framework)
• Petrowsky v. Krause, 223 Wis. 2d 32 (Ct. App. 1998) (ambit of statutory ambiguity and application)
• State v. Popenhagen, 309 Wis. 2d 601 (2008) (definition of dwelling in residential context)
• Kalal v. Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633 (2004) (proper approach to statutory interpretation)
• State v. Hubbard, 313 Wis. 2d 1 (2008) (discretion in jury instruction submissions; facts sufficiency standard)
• State v. Head, 255 Wis. 2d 194 (2002) (de novo review of jury instruction adequacy)
• State v. Earl, 320 Wis. 2d 639 (2009) (appellate review for grounds beyond trial court rationale)
• State v. Peters, 258 Wis. 2d 148 (2002) (whether some evidence supports self-defense instruction)