Self-Defense and Retreat from Places Where the Defendant Has a "Lawful Right to Be"

Our appellate courts are beginning to issue decisions concerning the impact of the General Assembly’s 2011 changes to North Carolina law on self-defense. A case earlier this summer addressed whether a defendant has a duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense in a place where he or she has a “lawful right to be.” See State v. Bass, ___ N.C. App. ___, 802 S.E.2d 477, temp. stay and rev. granted, ___ N.C. ___, 800 S.E.2d 421 (2017). In Bass, the Court of Appeals held that the defendant did not have a duty to retreat and further had the right to have the jury instructed that he did not have a duty to retreat. Defendant’s evidence. The case concerned an ongoing conflict between the defendant, Bass, and the alleged victim, Fogg, which resulted in Bass shooting Fogg. Bass was charged with attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. The jury convicted him of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury. In determining whether a defendant is entitled to instructions on self-defense and other defenses, the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant. In this case, Bass’s evidence showed that ten days before the shooting, Fogg assaulted him and broke his jaw in three places, requiring surgery, placement of screws in his jaw, and wiring of his jaw shut. Fogg was 240 pounds, Bass was 165 pounds. This incident was captured on video on Fogg’s cellphone. [...]