On October 3, 2025, the Massachusetts Appeals Court convened to hear oral arguments regarding a pivotal case centered on the duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. The discussions, presided over by Justices Rubin, Shin, and Singh, highlighted the complexities of self-defense laws in Massachusetts, particularly in relation to the Second Amendment.

The core of the argument revolved around jury instructions concerning the duty to retreat. The defense contended that the current model instruction misguides jurors by not clearly defining what constitutes a "reasonable" duty to retreat. They argued that if an individual is attacked in their own home and believes that using force is necessary for their safety, they should not be required to retreat first. This perspective aligns with the notion that individuals have a right to defend themselves without the obligation to seek safety elsewhere when faced with immediate danger.

The prosecution, represented by Attorney Sarah Lewis, countered that the jury instruction is consistent with Massachusetts law, which mandates a duty to retreat unless it is unsafe to do so. Lewis emphasized that the instruction does not infringe upon Second Amendment rights, as it does not restrict gun ownership but rather clarifies the circumstances under which deadly force may be legally employed.

A significant point of contention was whether the jury was adequately instructed on the implications of the defendant's actions prior to the confrontation. The defense argued that the jury should have been limited in considering certain facts related to the defendant's intent, which could have influenced their understanding of the duty to retreat.

The justices engaged in a thorough examination of these arguments, questioning the clarity and application of the jury instructions. They explored whether the language used could lead jurors to misunderstand the timing and necessity of retreat in self-defense scenarios.

As the court deliberates on these critical issues, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for self-defense laws in Massachusetts. The case underscores the ongoing debate about the balance between individual rights and public safety, particularly in a state that does not recognize "stand your ground" laws. The court's decision will likely shape future interpretations of self-defense and the responsibilities of individuals when confronted with threats to their safety.