Another Self-Defense Decision on a Troublesome Doctrine

In State v. Harvey, ___ N.C. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (June 14, 2019), a five to one majority of the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the unpublished decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 817 S.E.2d 500 (2018), holding that the trial judge properly refused to instruct the jury on perfect and imperfect self-defense in a homicide case. In so ruling, the majority in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals relied on the “belief” doctrine created by our courts over the last 25 years. The opinions, four in all, show that our courts are continuing to wrestle with the implications of that doctrine. Facts of the Case. The majority and dissenting opinions in Harvey, in both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, had differing views of the evidence. Here is a summary of the facts described by the majority of the Supreme Court, with some of the differences noted. Briefly, the decedent, Tobias Toler, went to a party at the mobile home of the defendant, Alphonzo Harvey. Toler was drinking a high alcohol beer and began staggering around Harvey’s home, acting in a loud and rowdy manner, and cussing. Harvey told Toler to leave about seven or eight times, but Toler refused to leave unless Harvey went outside with him. Once the two were outside, Toler said he ought to whip Harvey’s “damn ass.” He threw a plastic bottle at Harvey and missed; he also threw a small broken piece of brick [...]