In this Rockingham County case, the Supreme Court modified and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision that defendant had waived appellate review of the denial of his request for a self-defense instruction to the jury. 

In March of 2017, defendant and the mother of one of his sons had an altercation at a hotel in Reidsville. Defendant struck and choked the female victim; eventually the victim grabbed a pistol in the hotel room to defend herself. Testimony differed on whether the victim intentionally fired the pistol into the floor of the hotel or if it went off in a struggle, but defendant was struck in the calf by a bullet. After the altercation, the victim left the hotel room and filed a report with police. Defendant was indicted on several assault and firearm charges. At trial, defendant did not give notice that he planned to argue self-defense, and did not testify on his own behalf; during the jury instruction conference defendant’s counsel agreed with the proposed instructions, which did not include self-defense. However, on the morning after the jury instruction conference, defense counsel requested that the court include an instruction on self-defense, a request that the trial court denied. 

The Court of Appeals held that defendant failed to preserve his challenge to the denial of his requested instruction because he did not object during the jury instruction conference or after instructions were given to the jury, representing invited error. The Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion, explaining that N.C. Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(a)(2) does not require objection specifically during the jury instruction conference, only an objection “before the jury retires to consider its verdict,” meaning defendant’s challenge was sufficient. Slip. Op. at 20-21. Because defendant made his request prior to the jury retiring, and the trial court denied defendant’s request, the court held that “defendant’s challenge . . . was properly preserved for purposes of appellate review even though defendant did not raise the self-defense issue at the jury instruction conference, expressed initial agreement with the trial court’s proposed instructions, and did not lodge any sort of objection to the instructions that the trial court actually gave . . . .” Id. at 21-22. The court also noted that defendant’s failure to provide notice of his intention to argue self-defense as required by G.S § 15A-905(c)(1) did not alter the result, as that requirement is a discovery-related obligation, and the record did not reflect imposition of a discovery sanction precluding the self-defense argument. Id. at 23-24. 

Moving to the substantive issue of whether the trial court erred by denying the self-defense instruction, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the record did not support defendant’s argument of self-defense. Applying the self-defense standard from G.S. § 14-51.3(a), the court found that “the record contains no evidence tending to show that defendant assaulted [the victim] for the purpose of defending himself from the use of unlawful force on the part of [the victim].” Id. at 27. 

Chief Justice Newby, joined by Justices Berger and Barringer, concurred in part and dissented in part, disagreeing with the opinion regarding whether defendant preserved his request on appeal but agreeing with the majority that the trial court properly denied the instruction on self-defense. Id. at 30. 

Justice Earls concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing with the opinion that defendant preserved the issue of his request for appellate review, but disagreeing with the majority regarding the trial court’s denial of defendant’s request for the self-defense instruction. Id. at 37. 

Even if the trial court erred by declining to instruct the jury using the defendant’s requested modified self-defense instruction, the defendant did not demonstrate that any such error was prejudicial.  Testimony at trial described alternate versions of events that ultimately culminated in the defendant fatally stabbing the victim outside the home of the victim’s girlfriend.  Generally, some witnesses described the stabbing as an unprovoked attack while others, including the defendant, testified that the victim threatened the defendant with a two-by-four board.  The trial court instructed the jury on self-defense using N.C.P.I. – Crim 206.10, which states as an element of self-defense that a homicide defendant must believe it necessary “to kill” the victim.  The trial court refused the defendant’s request to instead instruct the jury that he must believe it necessary “to use deadly force against the victim.”  Taking account of other portions of the instruction which informed the jury that the defendant’s belief regarding his use of force must have been reasonable and that he must not have used “excessive force,” the Court concluded that the defendant had not shown that there was a reasonable possibility the jury would have found he acted in self-defense had the trail court given the modified instruction.  The Court noted that the defendant suffered only minor injuries in the incident but had inflicted a “highly lethal wound” upon the victim using a knife so large that it looked like a machete.  The Court said that the “uncontradicted medical evidence strongly suggests that [the] defendant’s use of deadly force was not reasonable under the circumstances but rather it was excessive.”  In a footnote, the Court recommended that the North Carolina Pattern Jury Instruction Committee review N.C.P.I. – Crim 206.10.

The defendant was indicted for attempted first-degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, and possession of a firearm by a felon. On June 7, 2016, the defendant was sitting outside of a neighbor’s house with a group of friends when the defendant’s house guest, Garris, approached defendant and punched him. The defendant got up and began walking home, followed by Garris. When the defendant arrived at his residence, he was thrown against the door and hurled over two chairs by Garris. Garris left the residence and returned with a friend, at which time he continued to strike the defendant. Garris left the home a second time and returned shortly thereafter. At that time, the defendant retrieved a gun and shot Garris, injuring him.

At trial, the defendant gave notice of his intent to rely on self-defense. The trial court denied the defendant’s requested instruction to the jury on self-defense and the defense of habitation. The jury found the defendant guilty of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury and possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by (1) denying his request to instruct the jury on self-defense, (2) failing to instruct the jury on the “stand-your-ground” provision, and (3) denying his request to instruct the jury on the defense of habitation. The Court of Appeals agreed, concluding that there was a reasonable possibility that the jury would have reached a different result if the defendant’s requested jury instruction had been given to the jury.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals, concluding that, viewing the evidence at trial in the light most favorable to the defendant, the defendant was entitled to both instructions. The Court recognized that “the right to use deadly force to defend oneself is provided both by statute and case law.” The defendant relied on both the self-defense statute, G.S. 14-51.3, and the defense of habitation statute, G.S. 14-51.2. The Court reviewed both, as well as the right not to retreat when defending against an aggressor. The Court determined that the defendant in the instant case presented competent and sufficient evidence to warrant the self-defense instruction.

The dissenting Court of Appeals judge focused primarily on the defendant’s testimony at trial about the firing of a warning shot, concluding that the warning shot rebutted the statutory presumption of “reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm” and thereby precluding a jury instruction on self-defense and defense of habitation. The Court noted that the dissenting Court of Appeals judge’s perspective ignored the principle that although there may be contradictory evidence from the State or discrepancies in the defendant’s evidence, the trial court must nonetheless charge the jury on self-defense where there is evidence that the defendant acted in self-defense.

In a 5-to-1 decision, the Court affirmed the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 817 S.E.2d 500 (2018) (unpublished), finding that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense or imperfect self-defense in the stabbing death of the victim. Relying on previous decisions, the majority found that the defendant was not entitled to self-defense instructions because he referred to the stabbing as “the accident,” stated that his purpose in getting a knife was because he was “scared” that the victim was going to try to hurt him, and that what he sought to do with the knife was to make the victim leave. The majority found that the defendant’s testimony did not establish that he feared death or great bodily harm as a result of the victim’s actions or that he inflicted the fatal blow to protect himself from such harm. Because the defendant failed to present evidence that he formed a reasonable belief that it was necessary for him to fatally stab the victim in order to protect himself from death or great bodily harm, he was not entitled to an instruction on perfect or imperfect self-defense. The dissent criticized the majority for usurping the jury’s role in determining whether the killing was justified; imposing a “magic words” requirement for the defendant’s testimony; disregarding evidence favorable to the defendant and crediting contradictory evidence; and failing to take into account that the defendant was inarticulate. The opinions do not discuss the statutes on self-defense in North Carolina. [John Rubin blogged about this decision here.]

On appeal from a decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 802 S.E.2d 477 (2017), the court affirmed, holding that the trial court committed prejudicial error by omitting stand-your-ground language from the self-defense jury instructions. The incident in question occurred outside of the Bay Tree Apartments. The defendant gave notice of his intent to pursue self-defense and throughout the trial presented evidence tending to support this defense. At the charge conference, the defendant requested that the jury charge include language from Pattern Jury Instruction 308.45 providing, in relevant part, that the defendant has no duty to retreat in a place where the defendant has a lawful right to be and that the defendant would have a lawful right to be at his place of residence. Believing that the no duty to retreat provisions applies only to an individual located in his own home, workplace, or motor vehicle, the trial court declined to give the requested instruction. After deliberations began, the jury asked for clarification on duty to retreat. Outside the presence of the jury, the defendant again requested that the trial court deliver a no duty to retreat instruction, this time pointing to Pattern Jury Instruction 308.10, including its language that the defendant has no duty to retreat when at a place that the defendant has a lawful right to be. The trial court again concluded that because the defendant was not in his residence, workplace, or car, the no duty to retreat instruction did not apply. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court committed reversible error in omitting the no duty to retreat language from its instruction. Reviewing the relevant statutes, the Supreme Court affirmed this holding, concluding that “wherever an individual is lawfully located—whether it is his home, motor vehicle, workplace, or any other place where he has the lawful right to be—the individual may stand his ground and defend himself from attack when he reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.”

The court per curiam affirmed a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 802 S.E.2d 575 (2017). In this assault on a law enforcement officer case, the court of appeals held, over a dissent, that the trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s request for a self-defense instruction. While executing a warrant for the defendant’s arrest at his home, an officer announced his presence at a bedroom door and stated that he was going to kick in the door. The officer’s foot went through the door on the first kick. The defendant fired two gunshots from inside the bedroom through the still-unopened door and the drywall adjacent to the door, narrowly missing the officer. The charges at issue resulted. The defendant testified that he was asleep when the officer arrived at his bedroom door; that when his girlfriend woke him, he heard loud banging and saw a foot come through the door “a split second” after waking up; that he did not hear the police announce their presence but did hear family members “wailing” downstairs; that he was “scared for [his] life . . . thought someone was breaking in the house . . . hurting his family downstairs and coming to hurt [him] next;” and that he when fired his weapon he had “no specific intention” and was “just scared.” Rejecting the defendant’s appeal, the court of appeals explained: “our Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a defendant who fires a gun in the face of a perceived attack is not entitled to a self-defense instruction if he testifies that he did not intend to shoot the attacker when he fired the gun.” Under this law, a person under an attack of deadly force is not entitled to defend himself by firing a warning shot, even if he believes that firing a warning shot would be sufficient to stop the attack; he must shoot to kill or injure the attacker to be entitled to the instruction. This is true, the court of appeals stated, even if there is, in fact, other evidence from which a jury could have determined that the defendant did intend to kill the attacker.

In this Cumberland County case, defendant appealed her conviction for assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, arguing error in altering a pattern jury instruction to include language on the prohibition of excessive force. The Court of Appeals majority agreed, vacating the judgment and remanding for a new trial. 

Defendant and another woman got into a verbal altercation in April of 2021, leading to defendant shooting the victim. Defendant was indicted and came to trial in May of 2022. At trial, witnesses testified that the victim came onto defendant’s front porch, ending with the shooting. Defendant requested the trial court provide North Carolina Pattern Jury Instruction-Criminal (NCPJI) 308.80 on self-defense within a defendant’s home. The trial court modified NCPJI 308.80 by including language “prohibiting the use of ‘excessive force.’” Slip Op. at 2. Defendant objected to the modified instruction but the trial court provided it to the jury, and defendant was subsequently convicted. 

Defendant argued on appeal that the state’s “Castle Doctrine” provided a rebuttable presumption that deadly force was necessary, meaning excessive force was impossible unless the presumption that deadly force was necessary was rebutted by the State. Reviewing defendant’s argument, the Court of Appeals noted that in North Carolina, the “Castle Doctrine” in G.S. 14-51.2 does not prohibit the use of excessive force, and “ultimate force is presumed necessary unless the presumption is rebutted.” Id. at 4. Likewise, North Carolina’s “Stand Your Ground” law in G.S. 14-51.3 permits the use of deadly force and does not require the defendant to retreat if they are in a legally occupied place. Id. Summarizing the two overlapping doctrines, the court noted:

The Stand Your Ground Doctrine overlaps with the Castle Doctrine because the Stand Your Ground Doctrine also applies in Castle Doctrine scenarios, i.e., self-defense situations within the home. So if the Castle Doctrine presumption applies, deadly force is presumed necessary, and you need not retreat. Said differently: If you reasonably believe an intruder is unlawfully entering your home, you have a presumed right to use deadly force under the Castle Doctrine, and you need not retreat under the Stand Your Ground Doctrine

Id. at 5 (citations omitted). The court also made a distinction between State v. Benner, 380 N.C. 621 (2022), and the current case, noting that Benner concerned excessive force under the Stand Your Ground doctrine, not the Castle Doctrine. Id. at 5-6. Summarizing applicable precedent, the court concluded “[u]nder the Castle Doctrine, excessive force is impossible unless the State rebuts the Castle Doctrine presumption, but under the Stand Your Ground Doctrine, excessive force is possible if the defendant acts disproportionately.” Id. at 7. 

The court moved on to the instruction in this case, explaining that “[h]ere, when the trial court conclusively stated that ‘defendant does not have the right to use excessive force,’ the trial court concluded that the State rebutted the Castle Doctrine presumption.” Id. at 8. This was error as it removed the jury’s role in determining whether the Castle Doctrine presumption was rebutted by the State. The court also concluded that the instruction was confusing to the jury, and represented prejudice sufficient to overturn the judgment and order a new trial.

Judge Hampson dissented by separate opinion, and would have held that the instruction was appropriate under applicable North Carolina precedent on the use of force in self-defense scenarios. 

In this Mecklenburg County case, defendant appealed his convictions for assault with a deadly weapon and discharging a weapon into a building and vehicle in operation, arguing error by (1) allowing the prosecutor to tell potential jurors that probation was within the potential sentencing range and (2) substituting an alternative juror after deliberations began, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court of Appeals found no prejudicial error. 

In December of 2019, defendant was involved in an altercation at a Cook Out in Charlotte, eventually firing several shots that hit a car and the exterior wall of the Cook Out. The matter came for trial in March of 2022. On the second day of deliberations, one of the jurors was ill and did not report for jury duty. The trial court substituted an alternate juror and directed the jury to restart deliberations under G.S. 15A-1215(a). Defendant was subsequently convicted and appealed. 

Taking up (1), the Court of Appeals explained that it reviewed a trial court’s management of jury selection for abuse of discretion. Here, the State’s choice to mention probation during voir dire was “questionable” as “a probationary sentence under these facts requires the trial judge to find extraordinary mitigation,” but the statement was “technically accurate” as a statement of law. Slip Op. at 5. The court concluded there was no abuse of discretion in these circumstances as it was not a totally unsupported possibility. Turning to (2), the court explained that defendant argued that “more than twelve persons” were involved in the jury verdict, but defendant failed to preserve the issue for review and the court dismissed it.  

Reaching (3), the court explained that defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument contained two points, (a) that defense counsel should have objected to the trial court’s jury instructions on self-defense, and (b) that counsel should have requested a jury poll. Looking at (3)(a), defendant argued that the instruction did not require the jury to consider whether other patrons at the Cook Out had guns. The court explained that the instruction closely tracked the applicable language of the statute and directed the jury to consider whether “defendant reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary,” which would encompass the consideration of whether other people at the scene had guns. Id. at 9. The court could not conclude that a different instruction specifically mentioning a gun would have led to a different result, meaning the argument could not support the ineffective assistance claim. The court likewise dispensed with (3)(b), explaining that the trial court was not required to poll the jury unless requested, but “both the jury foreman and the other jurors, as a group, affirmed—in open court—that their verdicts were unanimous.” Id. at 10. Because there was no evidence of coercion or inducements to the jury, there was no reasonable probability a jury poll would have created a different result for defendant. 

In this Guilford County case, the defendant and the victim were cousins. They went out for an evening together, each accompanied by a girlfriend. The victim had a history of assaulting his girlfriend, and again that night became enraged and began beating her. The defendant shot the victim twice in the chest. He was charged with first-degree murder, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and being a violent habitual felon. He pled guilty to the gun charge and went to trial on the others. The jury convicted him of second-degree murder and of being a violent habitual felon. He was sentenced to life in prison and appealed.

The principal issue concerned the jury instructions. The defendant asked for an instruction on the defense of another. The trial court ruled that he was disqualified from claiming the defense under G.S. 14-51.4, which makes that defense off-limits to a person who “[w]as attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a felony,” in this case possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial judge therefore gave only a “limited” instruction on defense of others. The reviewing court said that this was error under State v. McLymore, 2022-NCSC-12, __ N.C. __ (2022), a case decided after the defendant’s trial. McLymore ruled that a person is disqualified under G.S. 14-51.4 only if there is a causal nexus between the felony and the need to use defensive force. There was no such nexus here, so the defendant was not disqualified and the jury should have been instructed on the defense of another.

The Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based on defense of another. There was sufficient evidence that the defendant did not act in defense of another to submit the case to the jury, including evidence that the defendant was frustrated with the victim and that the victim’s girlfriend did not suffer severe injuries. Therefore, the court ordered a new trial with proper jury instructions.

The defendant lived with his parents in a mobile home trailer in Craven County. The owner of the trailer, Ms. Patterson, lived on the property in a different mobile home and was lifelong friends with the defendant and his parents. Ms. Patterson lived with one of the defendant’s nephews pursuant to an informal arrangement with child’s father, although the Division of Social Services (“DSS”) was investigating the child’s safety there. Ms. Patterson and the child’s biological mother were involved in an altercation at the child’s school during an orientation session. According to the defendant, once Ms. Patterson returned from the school, she called out for the defendant to come to her trailer. The defendant claimed to have seen a black object in her hand shortly beforehand, which he believed to be a gun. When the defendant arrived in the trailer, Ms. Patterson expressed concern that DSS would remove the child from her home and became upset, using obscenities and “throwing her hands around.” The defendant thought he saw the same black object in the woman’s hands, and immediately hit her in the head with a baseball bat. He initially claimed to have hit her once and then to have blacked out. The next day, the defendant made several statements to various people that he had killed a woman with a bat. He did not mention being in fear or that the woman had a gun, and no gun was found in Ms. Patterson’s trailer. The defendant had blood on his clothes and appeared drunk when making these remarks. Later that evening, the defendant called 911 and reported that he had killed the woman but did not recall why he had killed her. During interrogation by the police, the defendant admitted to hitting the woman “a couple of times” and then “three or four times” with the bat and stated that he killed her because she threatened to evict his family. Blood splatter in the trailer indicated multiple blows, and the victim had no defensive injuries.

At trial, the defendant requested a jury instruction for perfect self-defense. The trial court declined to instruct on self-defense or manslaughter but agreed to instruct on second-degree murder and voluntary intoxication. The jury convicted on second-degree murder and the other offenses, and the defendant appealed. (1) Although the instructions requested by the defense were submitted in writing and argued at the charge conference, defense counsel twice acknowledged his agreement with the ultimate instructions. This was insufficient to preserve the issue for appellate review, and the court therefore reviewed the jury instructions for plain error only. (2) The trial court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in failing to instruct on manslaughter or perfect self-defense. The only evidence in support of the defendant’s reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm was his testimony that the victim was cursing, throwing her hands about, and that he thought he saw a gun in her hands. He did not testify that the woman threatened him, and in his numerous statements to laypeople and law enforcement he never mentioned being in fear or that the woman had a gun. “Even taking this testimony in the light most favorable to defendant, defendant has failed to establish that he believed it was reasonably necessary to kill Patterson to save himself from death or great bodily harm.” Acker Slip op. at 15. (3) The trial court stated during the charge conference that the defendant’s testimony on his need for self-defense amounted to “fantasy.” The defendant argued that this comment was an impermissible assessment of the defendant’s credibility. The court disagreed, noting that the comment was made during the charge conference, outside the presence of the jury, and “was simply . . . the trial court’s reasoning in denying defendant’s request.” Id. at 16. (4) Even if the trial court erred in refusing to instruct on imperfect self-defense and manslaughter, the defendant was not prejudiced as a result. In the words of the court: “The evidence of defendant’s guilt, most of it from statements he freely and voluntarily made, was overwhelming. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not plainly err in declining to instruct the jury on self-defense and manslaughter.” Id. at 17. There was therefore no error in the case.

In this assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury case, the trial court did not err by declining to instruct the jury on the defendant’s requested instruction on the defense of habitation. The victim was riding on his ATV when the defendant attacked him from behind and stabbed him with a steak knife, thinking the victim was on his (the defendant’s) property. During the attack, the victim said “I don’t know who you are.” After the victim identified himself and told the defendant he had permission to ride on the property, the defendant renewed his attack. The defendant testified that the purpose of the attack was get an intruder off his premises, although he also said that he was not aware of the property line. The trial court denied the defendant’s request to instruct the jury on self-defense and defense of habitation, based on the fact that the the victim was not operating the ATV in the curtilage of the defendant’s home and the defendant did not even know where the property line was. The Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s request for an instruction on defense of habitation when there was no evidence that the victim had entered or was in the process of entering his home as required by G.S. 14-51.2(b)(1). Though the definition of “home” includes the home’s curtilage, it does not include an area 200–250 feet away from the defendant’s residence, and apparently not on the defendant’s property at all.

The defendant shot and killed a police officer while the officer was approaching the defendant’s car to serve arrest warrants on him in Robeson County. The defendant claimed that he had been the victim of several recent attempted murders and was “on edge,” so that when he saw the plainclothes officer approaching with a gun on his waist, he fired on the officer from his car. The defendant testified that he thought the victim-officer was going to kill him when he saw the officer’s gun but acknowledged that the gun was not raised or pointed at him. The trial court refused to instruct the jury on self-defense or voluntary manslaughter, finding that the defendant was not under the threat of deadly force. The defendant was convicted of second-degree murder.

The trial court must instruct on all “substantial features” supported by the evidence in a case. If the defendant presents competent evidence in support of self-defense, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, the jury should be instructed on self-defense. “Competent evidence of self-defense is evidence that it ‘was necessary or reasonably appeared to be necessary’ for the defendant ‘to kill his adversary in order to protect himself from death or great bodily harm.’” Id. at 8. The reasonableness of a defendant’s belief of threat is judged by an objective standard. Here, even in the light most favorable to the defendant, the evidence did not establish an objective reasonable belief of death or serious harm as a matter of law. The defendant’s testimony showed that the defendant saw a gun as the officer left his vehicle, that the officer looked at the defendant “real mean,” and that the gun was not pointed at the defendant. “In the mind of a person of ordinary firmness, this evidence would not permit the use of deadly force on a complete stranger getting out of a nearby car. Accordingly, the trial court properly declined to give the requested instruction on self-defense.” Id. at 11.  For the same reason—insufficient evidence supporting self-defense (perfect or imperfect)—the defendant was also not entitled to an instruction on voluntary manslaughter. The trial court was therefore unanimously affirmed.

Defendants Molly Martens Corbett (“Molly”) and Thomas Michael Martens (“Tom”), daughter and father, were convicted of second degree murder in the death of Molly’s husband, Jason Corbett (“Jason”). Evidence at trial established that Tom attempted to stop Jason from choking Molly by hitting Jason with an aluminum baseball bat. Molly also hit Jason with a brick paver. Jason’s skull was fractured from multiple blows and he died at the scene. Jason’s children from a previous marriage, Jack and Sarah Corbett, ages 11 and 8, were at home and sleeping at the time of the altercation. Jack and Sarah’s mother had died unexpectedly when they were very young, and they considered Molly to be their mother.

(1) Defendants argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their Motion for Appropriate Relief (MAR), as well as their request for an evidentiary hearing, because competent evidence demonstrated that certain jurors “committed gross and pervasive misconduct in their private discussions of the case”; jurors engaged in “private discussions” amongst themselves prior to deliberations; and several jurors’ statements during post-trial media interviews showed that they improperly considered and formed opinions about Molly’s mental health. The court rejected this argument, characterizing the defendants’ allegations as being, at best, general, speculative, and conclusory. Furthermore, the court concluded that even if the trial court were to hold an evidentiary hearing, which it was not required to do, precedent prohibiting verdict impeachment would bar the defendants from presenting any admissible evidence to prove the truth of their allegations.

(2) Defendants asserted that the State failed to present substantial evidence to rebut or contradict Molly’s exculpatory handwritten statement, which the State introduced, establishing that Molly and Tom acted in lawful self-defense and defense of others. The Court of Appeals disagreed.

The State was required to present substantial evidence sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that the defendants did not act in self-defense. The appellate court determined that the case was not entirely predicated on Molly’s statement that she and Tom acted in self-defense and defense of each other. Rather, the State presented substantial circumstantial evidence from which a rational juror could reach a contrary conclusion, including that: (1) Jason suffered at least twelve blows to the head; (2) Tom had no visible injuries and Molly had only a “light redness” on her neck; (3) Jason was unarmed when the altercation occurred; (4) Jason’s children remained asleep throughout the entire altercation; (5) EMS, paramedics, and law enforcement responders observed that some of the blood on Jason’s body had dried, and that Jason’s body felt cool; (6) Tom told a coworker that he hated Jason; and (7) Jason had a life insurance policy, of which Molly was the named beneficiary.

(3) The Court of Appeals concluded, over a dissent, that certain evidentiary errors were so prejudicial as to inhibit the defendants’ ability to present a full and meaningful defense.

(a) The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erroneously concluded that statements Jack and Sarah Corbett made to workers at a children’s advocacy center were inadmissible under the hearsay exception for medical diagnosis or treatment. At the time of trial, Jack and Sarah had been taken to Ireland to live with their aunt and uncle. The appellate court determined that their statements at the advocacy center satisfied the two-part test for admissibility established in State v. Hinnant, 351 N.C. 277 (2000):  (1) the children made the statements to obtain medical diagnosis or treatment; and (2) the statements were reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment. The court explained that the child-friendly atmosphere and the separation of the examination rooms did not indicate that the children’s statements during the interviews were not intended for medical purposes. The children were informed before their interviews that they would be receiving medical interviews together with physical examinations as part of their full evaluations at the facility. The interviewers asked non-leading, open-ended questions, instructed the children that they should not “guess at anything” and emphasized the overall significance of the child medical evaluations that they would be receiving. In addition, the court concluded that the children’s statements were reasonably pertinent to medical treatment or diagnosis. Following their forensic medical interviews, Sarah and Jack were examined by a pediatrician who diagnosed both children as “victim[s] of child abuse based on exposure to domestic violence” and recommended that they “receive mental health services” as treatment.

Moreover, the court concluded that even if the children’s forensic medical interview statements were inadmissible under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception to the rule against hearsay, they (along with statements the children made to DSS workers) were admissible under the residual hearsay exception.

(b) Stuart James, the State’s expert witness in bloodstain pattern analysis, testified at trial about untested blood spatter on the underside hem of Tom’s boxer shorts and the bottom of Molly’s pajama pants. The defendants argued that this testimony was not the product of reliable principles and methods applied reliably to the facts of this case. The Court of Appeals agreed.

While James was “unquestionably qualified to provide expert testimony on the subject” of blood spatter, he did not follow the reliability protocol establish in a treatise he coauthored on the subject. First, these particular stains were not tested for the presence of blood. Second, though James said it was the “best practice” for an analyst to view a photograph of the person wearing the blood-spattered clothes, he never viewed a photograph of Tom “wearing just the boxer shorts.” James further testified that the State provided him with just one photograph of Molly wearing the pajama pants, and that it was not readily apparent from that photograph how the pants actually fit Molly on the night of the incident. The court found James’s failure to follow the reliability standards and protocol prescribed in his own treatise as inherently suspect. It concluded that James’s testimony was based upon insufficient facts and data, and, accordingly, could not have been the product of reliable principles and methods applied reliably to the facts of the case.

The court determined that James's testimony “had the powerful effect of bolstering the State’s claim that Jason was struck after and while he was down and defenseless.” But, given the flawed methodology, the  testimony could only serve to unduly influence the jury to reach a conclusion that it was fully capable of reaching on its own.

(c) The defendants argued that the trial court erred in striking Tom’s testimony that, during the altercation, he “hear[d] Molly scream[,] ‘Don’t hurt my dad.’ ” The Court of Appeals agreed. The court reasoned that Molly’s statement was admissible for the non-hearsay purpose of illustrating Tom’s then-existing state of mind. This was “a particularly relevant issue” in light of the defendants’ claims of self-defense and defense of another.

(d) Tom argued that the trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury that he would not be entitled to the benefit of self-defense or defense of a family member if the jury found that he were the initial aggressor in the altercation with Jason. The Court of Appeals agreed.

First, the appellate court stated that the trial court could not have based its ruling on Tom’s decision to arm himself with the baseball bat before joining the altercation. The mere fact that a defendant was armed is not evidence that he was the aggressor if he did not unlawfully use his weapon.

Moreover, the court deemed it significant that Jason was the first to employ deadly force. Tom testified that from the moment he opened the bedroom door, “Jason had his hands around Molly’s neck,” and he said he was going to kill her. Jason subsequently put Molly in a “very tight chokehold” and Tom noticed that Molly “was no longer wiggling. She was just weight, being dragged back into the hallway.”

Because Tom did not aggressively and willingly enter into the fight without legal excuse or provocation, the Court of Appeals determined that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on the aggressor doctrine. The error, the court reasoned, very likely prejudiced Molly as well as Tom, since the jury was instructed that it could find her guilty under an acting-in-concert theory.

One judge concurred in part and dissented in part. The judge concurred that the trial court did not err by denying defendants’ request for an evidentiary hearing on their MAR and the MAR itself or by denying defendants’ motions to dismiss for insufficient evidence. The judge dissented from the remainder of the majority opinion leading to its conclusion that the defendants are entitled to a new trial.

In this first-degree murder case involving a shooting outside of the defendant’s home where the Court of Appeals opinion was reversed on other grounds, the court noted an error in the trial court’s jury instructions with respect to defense of habitation. Noting a problem in the current pattern jury instruction on defense of habitation, the court stated:

In the instant case, the trial court failed to provide a definition for “home” in the jury instructions. While not argued, a discrepancy exists between N.C.P.I. Crim. 308.80 and the controlling N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-51.2. The jury could have potentially believed that Defendant could only have exercised his right of self-defense and to defend his habitation only if [the victim] was attempting to enter the physical confines of Defendant’s house, and not the curtilage or other areas.

            The absence of a definition for “home” or “curtilage” in the pattern instruction, and the reference to State v. Blue and the now repealed statute, is not consistent with the current statute. The pattern instruction should be reviewed and updated to reflect the formal and expanded definition of “home” as is now required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-51.2.

[Note: I will bring this issue to the attention of the Pattern Jury Committee]

In a case where the defendant was found guilty of second-degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling, the trial court committed prejudicial error by failing to include no duty to retreat and stand your ground provisions in the jury instruction on self-defense. Viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, the defendant was aware of the victim’s violent and dangerous propensities on the night of the shooting. The defendant’s testimony established, among other things, that the victim had achieved high-ranking gang membership by killing a rival gang member, that the defendant saw the victim rob others multiple times, and that he knew the victim always carried a gun. The defendant’s knowledge of the victim’s violent propensities, being armed, and prior acts support a finding that the defendant reasonably believed it was necessary to use deadly force to save himself from death or great bodily harm. Prior to the shooting, the victim stood outside of the defendant’s apartment with two others and waited to confront the defendant about an alleged prior incident. The defendant also testified that he borrowed a gun for protection. When the victim noticed the defendant walking towards his apartment, the victim told the defendant, “this is war, empty your pocket”, continued to advance after the defendant fired two warning shots, and lunged at the defendant while reaching behind his back towards his waistband. In the light most favorable to the defendant, a jury could conclude that the defendant actually and reasonably believed that the victim was about to shoot him and it was necessary to use deadly force to protect himself. The fact that the defendant armed himself does not make the defendant the initial aggressor. Although law enforcement officers did not find a gun when they searched the victim’s body, evidence presented at trial suggested that he may have been armed. Thus, a jury could infer that the defendant reasonably believed the victim was armed at the time of the altercation.

In this voluntary manslaughter case, the trial court committed prejudicial error by denying the defendant’s request for a jury instruction on defense of habitation. The trial court denied the defendant’s requested instruction, finding no evidence that the victim was “trying to break in.” According to the trial court, the defendant’s evidence demonstrated that he was attempting to prevent injury to himself, not trying to prevent someone coming into his curtilage or home. The trial court’s ruling was erroneous. As explained in the “Note Well” in the jury instruction, the use of force is justified when the defendant is acting to prevent a forcible entry into the defendant’s home or to terminate an intruder’s unlawful entry into the home, a term that includes the curtilage. Here, the victim was standing within the curtilage of the defendant’s property when the defendant fired the fatal shot. The court rejected the State’s argument that the defendant was not entitled to the instruction because the victim never came onto the defendant’s porch and never tried to open the door to the defendant’s trailer, finding that it “defies the plain language of the statute.” Despite numerous requests to leave and multiple orders from law enforcement, the victim continued to return to the curtilage of the defendant’s property while repeatedly threatening bodily harm. Thus, the trial court erred by denying the defendant’s request for the jury instruction, and this error required reversal.

No prejudicial error occurred with respect to the trial court’s self-defense instructions. With respect to an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill charge, the defendant raised the statutory justifications of protection of his motor vehicle and self-defense. The trial court found that the defendant’s evidence did not show that his belief that entry into his motor vehicle was imminent and gave the pattern jury instruction N.C.P.I.-Crim 308.45 (“All assaults involving deadly force”) and not N.C.P.I.-Crim. 308.80 (“defense of motor vehicle”), as requested by defendant. The trial court instructed the jury pursuant to N.C.P.I.-Crim 308.45, incorporating statutory language indicating that self-defense is not available to one who was attempting to commit, was committing, was escaping from the commission of a felony. The State requested that the trial court also define for the jury the felonies that would disqualify the defendant’s claim of self-defense. The trial court agreed and instructed the jury, using the language of G.S. 14-51.4(1), that self-defense was not available to one who engaged in specified felonious conduct. On appeal, the defendant first argued that G.S. 14-51.4(1) requires both a temporal and causal nexus between the disqualifying felony and the circumstances which gave rise to the perceived need to use defensive force. The court agreed that the statute contains a temporal requirement but disagreed that it contains a causal nexus requirement.

Second, the defendant argued that the inclusion of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill as a qualifying felony was circular and therefore erroneous. The court agreed, but found the error was not prejudicial.

In this murder case, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss because the State failed to present substantial evidence that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Ample evidence contradicted the defendant’s claim of self-defense, including that the victim had medical issues and was so frail that the VA had approved a plan to equip the victim and the defendant’s home with a wheelchair lift, ramps, and a bathroom modification; the defendant was physically active; after the victim was twice wounded by gunshots, the defendant stabbed him 12 times; and the victim suffered minimal injuries compared to the nature and severity of the victim’s injuries.