Defense of Others in Virginia: When Can You Legally Use Force to Protect Another Person?
Can you legally use force to protect another person in Virginia? Yes. Virginia recognizes the common-law defense of defense of others, which may permit a person to use reasonable force—including, in appropriate circumstances, deadly force—to protect another person from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
The defense, however, is not unlimited. Virginia courts have developed specific requirements for when a defendant may claim that he or she acted lawfully to protect another person.
The Virginia Court of Appeals recently addressed the defense of others in Person v. Commonwealth, 2026 Va. App. LEXIS ___ (Mar. 24, 2026), emphasizing that a proper defense-of-others jury instruction must address both the defendant’s reasonable belief that the person being defended was free from fault and the defendant’s reasonable belief that the other person faced serious bodily harm. The case represents an important recent development in Virginia self-defense law.
What Is the Defense of Others in Virginia?
The defense of others is a criminal defense that applies when a person uses force to protect another person from an unlawful and imminent threat.
It is closely related to Virginia’s law of self-defense, but there is an important distinction:
- Self-defense protects the defendant from an unlawful threat directed at the defendant.
- Defense of others protects another person from an unlawful threat.
Virginia courts have recognized that the right to defend another person is generally commensurate with that person’s own right of self-defense.
In Foster v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 380, 385-86, 412 S.E.2d 198, 201-02 (1991), the Court of Appeals explained that a person claiming defense of others may do so only when the person being defended would have been legally entitled to defend himself or herself. The court recognized that the privilege may extend to the use of deadly force when the defendant reasonably believes that the other person faces an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm and the person being defended was not at fault in creating the situation.
Is Defense of Others Specifically Written Into the Virginia Code?
Unlike some jurisdictions, Virginia’s general defense-of-others doctrine is primarily a common-law defense, rather than a single statute defining the defense.
Virginia’s criminal statutes nevertheless expressly recognize self-defense and defense-of-others principles in particular contexts.
For example, Virginia Code § 18.2-57 contains provisions concerning assault and battery and specifically recognizes reasonable and necessary force used for self-defense or defense of others in certain circumstances involving school personnel.
Virginia Code § 18.2-282, which addresses pointing, holding, or brandishing a firearm or similar object, also expressly provides that the statute does not apply to a person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense.
The absence of a single general “defense of others” statute does not mean that the defense is unavailable. Virginia courts have repeatedly recognized the defense under Virginia common law.
The Three Most Important Questions in a Virginia Defense-of-Others Case
When analyzing a defense-of-others claim, three questions are particularly important:
- Was the person being defended free from fault in provoking the confrontation?
- Did the defendant reasonably believe that the other person faced an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm?
- Was the force used reasonably necessary under the circumstances as they appeared to the defendant?
The answers depend heavily upon the specific facts and, particularly, what the defendant reasonably perceived at the time force was used.
1. The Person Being Defended Must Be Free From Fault
One of the most important limitations on the defense of others is that the person being protected generally must have been without fault in provoking the confrontation.
In Foster, the Court of Appeals held that a defendant may invoke defense of others only when he or she reasonably believes, based upon the circumstances confronting the defendant, that the person being defended was without fault in provoking the fight. 13 Va. App. at 386, 412 S.E.2d at 202.
This is an important distinction.
The question is not necessarily whether the person being defended was actually free from fault.
Instead, the defendant’s reasonable perception of the circumstances matters.
That distinction became particularly important in the Court of Appeals’ 2026 decision in Person v. Commonwealth.
Person v. Commonwealth: A Significant 2026 Defense-of-Others Decision
In Person, the defendant challenged jury instructions relating to defense of others after being convicted of second-degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of murder.
The Court of Appeals explained that a proper defense-of-others instruction must incorporate two concepts:
- the defendant reasonably believed that the person being defended was free from fault; and
- the defendant reasonably believed that the person being defended was in danger of great bodily harm or death.
The Court concluded that an instruction addressing only the “free from fault” requirement was incomplete because the jury also needed to consider the defendant’s reasonable perception of the danger facing the other person.
That is significant for Virginia criminal defense attorneys because it reinforces that the defense-of-others inquiry is not limited to whether the person being protected actually behaved properly.
The defendant’s perspective matters.
The Court of Appeals relied upon McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 562, 248 S.E.2d 808, 810 (1978), for the principle that a defendant may act upon the reasonable appearance of danger and that the question whether danger was reasonably apparent must be evaluated from the defendant’s viewpoint at the time of the incident.
The Supreme Court of Virginia heard the Commonwealth’s appeal of Person in September 2026. Accordingly, practitioners should monitor the case for further clarification of Virginia’s defense-of-others law.
2. The Defendant Must Reasonably Believe the Other Person Faces an Imminent Threat
A defendant cannot simply use force against someone because he or she believes that person is generally dangerous.
Virginia law requires an imminent threat.
In Lynn v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 336, 353, 499 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1998), the Court of Appeals explained that a person may be justified in using deadly force to defend another where the defendant reasonably believes that the person being defended faces an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death and that the person being defended was not at fault in creating the necessity for the use of deadly force.
This requirement can be especially important in cases involving threats, arguments, or confrontations where the alleged victim has not yet actually attacked anyone.
Words Alone May Not Be Enough
Virginia’s self-defense cases generally require more than a generalized fear of future harm.
The Supreme Court of Virginia has explained that there must be an act indicating present peril and an imminent danger of the threatened harm being carried out.
See Commonwealth v. Sands, 262 Va. 724, 729, 553 S.E.2d 733, 736 (2001).
Thus, a threat to harm someone at some unspecified time in the future ordinarily presents a different legal question from an immediate act demonstrating that the threat is about to be carried out.
The same principle applies when the defendant claims defense of another.
The Court of Appeals has explained that the right to defend another is commensurate with the person’s own right of self-defense, meaning that the requirement of an overt act demonstrating imminent danger also applies to defense of others.
But “Imminent” Does Not Mean the Victim Must Already Have Been Injured
A common misconception is that a person must wait until another person is actually struck, shot, stabbed, or otherwise injured before intervening.
That is not the law.
The relevant question is whether the defendant reasonably believed that an imminent threat existed under the circumstances as they appeared to the defendant at the time.
For example, a defendant may have a stronger defense when he or she observes someone:
- raising a firearm;
- reaching for what appears to be a firearm;
- advancing aggressively while making a credible threat to kill;
- choking or strangling another person;
- attacking another person with a knife;
- attempting to inflict serious bodily injury; or
- engaging in conduct that reasonably indicates that an immediately threatened assault is about to occur.
The precise circumstances matter.
3. The Defendant’s Reasonable Perception Matters
Virginia law does not judge self-defense or defense of others solely with hindsight.
The defendant’s perception of the circumstances is important.
In McGhee v. Commonwealth, the Supreme Court of Virginia stated:
“A defendant may always act upon reasonable appearance of danger.”
219 Va. at 562, 248 S.E.2d at 810.
The Court further explained that whether danger was reasonably apparent must be determined from the defendant’s viewpoint at the time the defendant acted.
This principle is particularly important in defense-of-others cases.
Suppose, for example, a defendant sees a person aggressively confronting the defendant’s mother and hears the person threaten to shoot her. The defendant then sees the person make a movement that reasonably appears to be an attempt to retrieve a firearm.
If the defendant intervenes and uses force, the Commonwealth cannot simply argue after the fact that the person did not actually possess a firearm.
The legal question is whether the defendant reasonably perceived an imminent threat based upon the circumstances as they appeared at the time.
The difference between an actual firearm and an object that reasonably appears to be a firearm can therefore be extremely important.
4. The Amount of Force Must Be Reasonable
Defense of others does not give a person unlimited authority to use violence.
The amount of force must correspond to the threat perceived by the defendant.
Generally, nondeadly force may be used to repel an unlawful threat of bodily harm when the force is reasonably necessary.
Deadly force, however, requires a significantly greater threat.
Virginia cases recognize that deadly force may be justified in defense of another when the defendant reasonably believes the other person faces an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
Lynn, 27 Va. App. at 353, 499 S.E.2d at 9.
This makes proportionality a critical issue in many defense-of-others cases.
For example, the legal analysis may be very different when:
- a defendant pushes someone away from another person;
- a defendant punches someone who is attacking another person;
- a defendant tackles someone who is attempting to shoot another person; or
- a defendant shoots someone whom the defendant reasonably believes is about to kill another person.
The severity and immediacy of the perceived threat matter.
5. Defense of Others Is an Affirmative Defense
Virginia courts have characterized defense of others as an affirmative defense.
This means the defendant is asserting that the otherwise criminal act was legally justified under the circumstances.
Importantly, the defense is not limited to cases involving family members.
Virginia appellate decisions recognize that the doctrine can apply when a defendant intervenes to protect another person, although Virginia cases have specifically recognized the privilege in the context of protecting family members.
See Foster, 13 Va. App. at 385, 412 S.E.2d at 201.
The critical inquiry is the legal entitlement of the person being defended—not simply the relationship between that person and the defendant.
6. When Is a Defendant Entitled to a Defense-of-Others Jury Instruction?
This is one of the most important procedural issues in a Virginia criminal case.
A defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on a defense theory when there is sufficient evidence supporting the theory.
Virginia appellate courts have repeatedly held that a defendant is entitled to an instruction supported by more than a scintilla of evidence.
In Robb v. Commonwealth, the Court of Appeals reiterated that a defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of defense when the evidence provides more than a scintilla of evidence supporting that theory.
The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.
That means the trial judge should not simply decide which witness is more credible and eliminate the defense because the Commonwealth has presented contradictory evidence.
Credibility generally is a matter for the jury.
Why This Matters
A defense-of-others case may involve sharply conflicting evidence.
For example:
Commonwealth’s evidence:
The defendant attacked the alleged victim for no reason.
Defense evidence:
The defendant saw the alleged victim threatening his mother and reasonably believed the mother was about to be seriously injured.
If the defense evidence provides more than a scintilla of evidence supporting the defense, the defendant may be entitled to have the jury instructed on defense of others.
The jury—not the judge—then decides whether the defendant’s version of events is credible.
Virginia appellate decisions have recognized this principle in cases involving defense-of-others instructions.
7. Defense of Others and Family Members
Virginia courts have specifically recognized the right to defend family members.
In Foster, the Court of Appeals cited Virginia Supreme Court decisions recognizing that a person may be privileged to use force in defense of family members. Those cases include:
- Newberry v. Commonwealth, 191 Va. 445, 459, 61 S.E.2d 318, 324 (1950);
- Green v. Commonwealth, 122 Va. 862, 871, 94 S.E. 940, 942 (1918); and
- Hodges v. Commonwealth, 89 Va. 265, 272, 15 S.E. 513, 516 (1892).
Foster, 13 Va. App. at 385, 412 S.E.2d at 201.
This can be particularly important in cases involving a defendant who intervenes when a parent, spouse, child, or other family member is being threatened or attacked.
But family relationship alone does not establish the defense.
The defendant still must satisfy the legal requirements concerning reasonable belief, imminence, fault, and the reasonableness of the force used.
8. Defense of Others Is Different From Revenge or Retaliation
One of the most important distinctions in a criminal defense case is the difference between protection and retaliation.
Defense of others is intended to stop an imminent threat.
It does not ordinarily justify violence after the danger has ended.
Virginia courts have repeatedly emphasized the importance of imminence in self-defense cases. The right to defend oneself or another begins when the necessity for defensive action begins and ends when that necessity ends.
Accordingly, evidence that a defendant continued attacking someone after the threat had ended can substantially undermine a defense-of-others claim.
Conversely, evidence that the defendant stopped using force once the threat was neutralized can support the argument that the defendant’s conduct was defensive rather than retaliatory.
9. Threats to Shoot Can Be Important Evidence
Threats involving firearms can be particularly significant.
Virginia Code § 18.2-282 makes it unlawful to point, hold, or brandish a firearm—or an object similar in appearance—in a manner that reasonably induces fear of being shot or injured. The statute expressly recognizes an exception for excusable or justifiable self-defense.
Although § 18.2-282 is not itself the general defense-of-others statute, the statute illustrates an important principle in Virginia law: the reasonable perception of a firearm-related threat can have significant legal consequences.
In a defense-of-others case, evidence that the alleged aggressor:
- claimed to have a gun;
- threatened to shoot someone;
- displayed what appeared to be a gun;
- reached toward a location where a firearm was believed to be located; or
- acted in a manner reasonably suggesting an imminent shooting
may be highly relevant to whether the defendant reasonably perceived an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.
Again, the defendant does not necessarily lose the defense simply because a firearm was later discovered not to exist.
The critical issue can be what the defendant reasonably believed at the time.
10. The 2026 Person Decision Is Important for Jury Instructions
The recent Person v. Commonwealth decision deserves particular attention from Virginia criminal defense attorneys.
The Court of Appeals explained that a defense-of-others instruction should not merely tell the jury that the defendant must reasonably believe the person being defended was free from fault.
The instruction must also address the defendant’s reasonable belief that the other person faced imminent serious bodily harm or death.
In other words, a proper instruction should address the two central components of the defense:
First: Did the defendant reasonably believe the person being defended was free from fault in provoking the confrontation?
Second: Did the defendant reasonably believe that person was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm?
The Court concluded that omitting the second component could make the instruction incomplete.
Because the Supreme Court of Virginia heard the Commonwealth’s appeal in September 2026, the ultimate appellate status of the doctrine should be monitored.
A Practical Defense-of-Others Analysis
When evaluating a Virginia criminal case involving defense of another person, defense counsel should carefully examine the evidence surrounding several questions.
1. Who was being protected?
Was the alleged victim of the defendant’s conduct:
- a parent;
- child;
- spouse;
- sibling;
- friend;
- stranger; or
- another person?
The relationship may provide important context, but the legal test ultimately focuses on whether the person was legally entitled to defend himself or herself.
2. What did the defendant know?
The defendant’s knowledge at the moment force was used can be critical.
What had the defendant:
- seen?
- heard?
- been told?
- observed immediately before intervening?
3. What did the alleged aggressor do?
The defense should identify the specific acts—not simply general hostility.
For example:
- Was there a weapon?
- Was there a threat to kill?
- Was the person advancing?
- Was the person striking someone?
- Was the person choking someone?
- Was the person reaching for a weapon?
- Was the person preventing the other person from escaping?
4. Was the threat imminent?
The defense should identify precisely what made the danger immediate rather than merely speculative or future.
5. Was the protected person at fault?
What did the defendant reasonably know about the circumstances that led to the confrontation?
6. Was the defendant’s response reasonable?
Was the force used reasonably necessary under the circumstances as they appeared to the defendant?
7. When did the threat end?
Did the defendant stop using force when the danger ended?
This can be particularly important when evaluating whether the conduct was defensive or retaliatory.
Frequently Asked Questions About Defense of Others in Virginia
Is defense of others a defense to assault in Virginia?
Yes. Virginia recognizes defense of others as a common-law affirmative defense. Depending upon the circumstances, lawful defensive force can negate criminal liability for an assaultive act.
The precise analysis depends upon the nature of the force used, the threat faced by the other person, and whether the defendant’s actions were reasonably necessary.
Can I defend a family member in Virginia?
Yes. Virginia courts have expressly recognized the privilege to use force in defense of family members. Foster v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 380, 385, 412 S.E.2d 198, 201 (1991).
The fact that the person is a family member, however, does not automatically establish the defense.
Can I use deadly force to protect another person in Virginia?
Potentially, yes. Deadly force may be justified when the defendant reasonably believes that the other person faces an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm and the person being defended was not at fault in creating the necessity for the deadly force. Lynn v. Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 336, 353, 499 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1998).
Does the person I am protecting have to actually be innocent?
Not necessarily.
Virginia law focuses importantly on the defendant’s reasonable belief, based upon the circumstances as they appeared to the defendant, that the person being defended was free from fault.
The distinction between actual fault and the defendant’s reasonable perception of fault is particularly important after Person v. Commonwealth.
Do I have to wait until someone is actually attacked?
No.
The law requires an imminent threat, not necessarily an injury that has already occurred. But generalized fear or a speculative future threat ordinarily is insufficient. Virginia cases require an overt act or circumstances indicating immediate danger. See Sands v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 724, 729, 553 S.E.2d 733, 736 (2001).
Can I receive a defense-of-others jury instruction if the Commonwealth disagrees with my version of events?
Potentially, yes.
The defendant generally must present more than a scintilla of evidence supporting the defense. If that threshold is met, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant when determining whether the instruction is warranted.
The jury then decides the credibility of competing accounts.
Conclusion: Defense of Others Is a Fact-Specific Virginia Criminal Defense
The defense of others in Virginia is a powerful but carefully limited criminal defense.
The central question is not simply whether the defendant believed that someone needed help. The law asks whether, under the circumstances as they appeared to the defendant, the defendant reasonably believed that the other person was free from fault and faced an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and whether the defendant used force reasonably necessary to protect that person.
Virginia’s appellate decisions—including Foster, Lynn, McGhee, and the recent Person decision—demonstrate that the defendant’s perspective can be critical.
For criminal defendants, the details surrounding the confrontation can therefore make an enormous difference. What the defendant saw, what the alleged aggressor said and did, what the defendant knew about the circumstances, whether a weapon was involved, whether the protected person was provoking the confrontation, and whether the defendant’s response was proportional to the perceived threat may all become important evidence.
If you have been charged with assault, malicious wounding, aggravated malicious wounding, manslaughter, murder, or another Virginia offense arising from an attempt to protect another person, the availability of a defense-of-others instruction and the underlying affirmative defense should be carefully evaluated by experienced Virginia criminal defense counsel.
Recent Comments