Key Points:

• Arizona Supreme Court rules self-defense extends to a locked bedroom.

• Decision overturns an aggravated assault conviction of a man who injured another man

• One justice disagreed, saying a bedroom is not separate from the rest of a residence

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Oct. 7 that the right to claim self-defense extends to someone who is inside a locked bedroom of a home, even if the person trying to enter has been invited into the primary residence.

The ruling vacated the aggravated assault conviction of a Tucson man convicted in a case prosecuted by the Pima County Attorney’s office. 

More importantly, it extends Arizona’s robust self-defense laws to areas previously not covered by any other state law.

The high court, with six of the seven justices agreeing, said that John Logan Brown was entitled to have a jury consider some self-defense arguments that had been precluded by a trial judge. Pima County Superior Court Judge Brenden J. Griffin — and the Arizona Court of Appeals — had ruled otherwise.

Justice James Beene, writing for the majority, said the definition of a “residential structure” in state law includes a separate, locked bedroom, and the jury should have been allowed to consider all of Brown’s self-defense arguments.

Beene forcefully rejected the stand of the lone dissenter, Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer, that Brown’s bedroom wasn’t a separate residence under the law.

“Here, we have faithfully adhered to the plain meaning of the Legislature’s words to conclude that Brown’s bedroom constituted a “residential structure,” Beene wrote for the majority.

Timmer disagreed, saying that the trial court judge allowed three self-defense arguments to be presented to the jury, which rejected them in convicting Brown.

“Nevertheless, Brown argues the court incorrectly declined to additionally instruct the jury on defense of premises and defense of a residential structure,” Timmer wrote. “Brown was entitled to those instructions only if his bedroom qualified as a “residential structure.” 

Timmer said she agreed with the trial court that a bedroom doesn’t qualify.

“The majority’s contrary conclusion lacks statutory support and, in my view, invites confusion in future cases,” she wrote. “With great respect for my colleagues, I dissent.”

The case arose from a 2022 altercation inside a condo Brown shared with a woman with whom he had an on-again, off-again relationship, according to the decision. The couple had a friend who lived nearby who had told the woman not to reconcile with Brown.

The neighbor and Brown later got into a fight. Brown barred him from the condo, but sometime after that, Brown’s companion invited the man over to their home.

When Brown returned from work that day and found the other man there, he went into his separate bedroom and locked the door. The woman and the man then tried to force their way inside, and Brown swung a microphone stand to stop them, injuring the man. They were identified in court filings only by their initials.

Brown, now 44, was indicted on three counts, but only convicted of one, aggravated assault. He was sentenced to five years in prison, but the high court’s decision voids that sentence.

Beene wrote that state law grants someone the absolute right to use force to prevent someone from entering their residence, even if the person has been invited into the larger home.

“Because Brown had the right to exclude M.H. from his bedroom, a jury could conclude that Brown reasonably believed force was necessary to prevent a criminal trespass,” Beene wrote. ”Additionally, even though Brown testified that he did not feel threatened by M.H., (the law’s) presumption establishes that M.H. is presumed to pose an imminent threat.”

In an unusually rapid action, the high court issued a brief order after hearing oral arguments in February, stating that the trial court judge had erred. Tuesday’s formal opinion explained why the court made that decision.

Pima County prosecutors dismissed the case in April after the initial high court decision, according to county attorney spokesman C.T. Revere. They do not plan to retry Brown.