In this second-degree murder case where the defendant’s girlfriend was fatally shot in the eye with a pistol, the trial court did not err by omitting a jury instruction on the defense of accident or by sentencing the defendant as a Class B1 felon.  The trial court did not err by omitting an instruction on the defense of accident because the defendant testified that he did not commit the shooting or witness it and that he was unsure how it happened.  The defendant’s testimony “flatly contradicted” the evidence suggesting he was involved in an arguably accidental shooting.  The Court explained that the defendant could not “simultaneously deny that he committed the shooting and claim that he accidentally committed the shooting.” 

As to the sentencing issue, while a general verdict of guilty for second-degree murder is ambiguous for sentencing purposes where there is evidence supporting either a Class B2 offense based on depraved-heart malice or a Class B1 offense based on another malice theory, the court concluded that there was no evidence in support of depraved-heart malice in this case.  Neither the defendant’s testimony, which asserted that he left the unloaded pistol unattended, or other testimony suggesting that the victim grabbed the pistol as the defendant held it while arguing with her, was sufficient to show that the defendant committed an inherently dangerous act in a manner indicating a depraved heart.  The trial court therefore did not err by sentencing the defendant as a Class B1 felon and also did not err by omitting an instruction to the jury on the definition of depraved-heart malice.

In a case involving attempted murder and other charges, the defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of accident. The defendant testified that his gun discharged accidentally during the fight with the victim. The evidence, however, even considered in the light most favorable to the defendant, shows the defendant was engaged in wrongdoing when he shot the victim. The defendant admitted that he physically assaulted the victim and had his hand on the trigger of his gun when it discharged. By his own admission, he was engaged in wrongful conduct when he shot the victim. He thus was not entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of accident.

The trial court did not commit plain error by instructing the jury that the defendant had the burden of persuasion to prove the defense of automatism. Automatism is an affirmative defense, and the burden is on the defendant to prove its existence to the jury.

Although the defendant met his burden of production with respect to diminished capacity in this murder and assault case in which the defendant stuck various persons with a vehicle, the State introduced sufficient evidence of specific intent to kill. The State did not present expert witnesses. Rather, the State’s evidence focused on the defendant's acts before, during, and after the crime as showing that he had the specific intent to kill necessary for first-degree murder based on premeditation and deliberation and the other felony assaults. The State’s evidence showed for example that the defendant specifically targeted the victims and that he did not just hit them and drive on but rather continued to injure them further after the first impact.

The trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on duress as a defense to a charge of first-degree murder on the basis of premeditation and deliberation. Duress is not a defense to such a charge.

The court rejected the defendant’s argument that he could not be convicted of aiding and abetting a sexual offense and child abuse by sexual act on grounds that the person who committed the acts—his son—was under duress from the defendant. Even if the son was under duress, his acts were still criminal.

In this drug trafficking case, the trial court did not err by refusing the defendant’s request to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of entrapment.  The trial court did err, however, by entering a civil judgment against the defendant for attorney’s fees without first giving the defendant an opportunity to be heard on that issue. 

Viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, the evidence showed that the defendant was persuaded by Jason Ford, a confidential informant working with the Onslow County Sheriff’s Office, to commit the crimes for which he was convicted.  As to the jury instruction on entrapment, the court explained that under precedent from the North Carolina Supreme Court,

The defense of entrapment is available when there are acts of persuasion, trickery or fraud carried out by law enforcement officers or their agents to induce a defendant to commit a crime and when the origin of the criminal intent lies with the law enforcement agencies. We note that this is a two step test and a showing of trickery, fraud or deception by law enforcement officers alone will not support a claim of entrapment. The defendant must show that the trickery, fraud or deception was practiced upon one who entertained no prior criminal intent.

(quoting and adding emphasis to State v. Hageman, 307 N.C. 1, 28 (1982)).  The court found that the defendant’s evidence showed the first element of entrapment but did not show the second, noting that the defendant’s testimony established that (1) the criminal opportunity at issue originated with a third party who was not working for or affiliated with the State; (2) the defendant told Ford about the opportunity; and (3) Ford thereafter encouraged the defendant to take advantage of the criminal opportunity and offered to help facilitate.  Reviewing the record, the court found that it demonstrated that Ford “merely afford[ed] the defendant an opportunity to commit the crime[s]” which he was predisposed to commit and, therefore, the defendant was not entitled to an instruction on entrapment.

The State conceded that the indigent defendant was not given an opportunity to be heard before the trial court entered the civil judgment against him for attorney’s fees and that this was error.  The court set aside the civil judgment and remanded for a new hearing on attorney’s fees.

(1) In a delivery of cocaine case where the defendant presented sufficient evidence of the essential elements of entrapment, the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on that defense. The defendant’s evidence showed that an undercover officer tricked the defendant into believing that the officer was romantically interested in the defendant in order to persuade the defendant to obtain cocaine for him, that the defendant had no predisposition to commit a drug offense such as delivering cocaine, and that the criminal design originated solely with the officer. The court rejected the State’s argument that the evidence showed that the officer merely afforded the defendant the opportunity to commit the offense.

The trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s request for an entrapment instruction where no credible evidence suggested that he would not have committed the crime except for law enforcement’s persuasion, trickery or fraud or that the crime was the creative production of law enforcement authorities.

In a drug trafficking case, the trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s request for a jury instruction on entrapment. After an individual named Shaw repeatedly called the defendant asking for cocaine, the defendant told Shaw he would “call a guy.” The defendant called a third person named Armstrong to try to obtain the cocaine. When Armstrong did not answer his phone, the defendant drove to his house. The next day, the defendant picked up Armstrong and drove him to a location previously arranged to meet Shaw. The court found that these actions illustrate the defendant’s “ready compliance, acquiescence in, [and] willingness to cooperate in the criminal plan” and thus his predisposition. Additionally, the court noted, the defendant admitted that he had been involved as a middle man on a prior deal; this admission further demonstrates predisposition.

In a drug case, the evidence failed to establish that the defendant was entitled to the entrapment defense as a matter of law. Thus, the trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss on grounds of entrapment and submitting the issue to the jury.

The defendant was convicted of and sentenced to death for killing his wife, who had filed for divorce, his two teenage daughters, and his wife’s grandmother, with whom the victims were staying. Before trial, the defendant filed a motion arguing that Kansas’ law on insanity violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Before statutory changes enacted in 1995, Kansas followed the M’Naghten test for insanity. Under that test, a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity if either (1) he did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or (2) if he did know, he did not know his act was wrong. In 1995, Kansas legislatively abolished the M’Naghten insanity defense and adopted a mens rea defense. The pertinent statute provides that it is a defense to prosecution that the defendant, as a result of mental disease or defect, lacked the culpable mental state required as an element of the offense charged. The statute provides further that a mental disease or defect is not otherwise a defense. The Kansas courts rejected the defendant’s due process challenge. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed.

The six-member majority began by observing that the M’Naghten insanity formulation consists of two tests: a cognitive incapacity test (the defendant did not know the nature and quality of his act); and a moral incapacity test (the defendant did not know his act was wrong). The Kansas’ mens rea defense, according to the Court, retains the cognitive incapacity test for insanity and jettisons the moral incapacity test. For a state rule on criminal liability to violate the Due Process Clause, it must offend “some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” Slip Op. at 14. The Court held that the moral capacity test is not such a principle and that the Due Process Clause does not compel states to adopt an insanity defense that turns on a defendant’s ability to know his act was wrong. The Court also noted that Kansas law allows a defendant to present mental health evidence at sentencing and that a judge may replace a defendant’s prison term with commitment to a mental health facility.

The three dissenting justices argued that Kansas had eliminated the core of the insanity defense by disallowing the defense for a defendant, who by reason of mental illness, “lacked the mental capacity necessary for his conduct to be considered morally blameworthy.” Dissenting Op. at 1. The dissent gave two examples to illustrate its view.

In Prosecution One, the accused person has shot and killed another person. The evidence at trial proves that, as a result of severe mental illness, he thought the victim was a dog. Prosecution Two is similar but for one thing: The evidence at trial proves that, as a result of severe mental illness, the defendant thought that a dog ordered him to kill the victim. Under the insanity defense as traditionally understood, the government cannot convict either defendant. Id. at 1–2.

 Under Kansas’ law, the defendant in Prosecution One could defend against the charge by showing that his mental illness prevented him from forming the mens rea for murder (intentional killing of a human being). The defendant in Prosecution Two has no defense under Kansas law because he acted with the necessary level of intent. The dissent observed that mental illness typically does not deprive individuals of the ability to form intent; rather, it affects their motivations for acting. As a result, Kansas’ approach requires conviction of a broad swath of defendants who would be adjudged not guilty under any traditional formulation of the insanity defense. In the dissent’s view, this result “offends deeply entrenched and widely recognized moral principles underpinning our criminal laws.” Id. at 21. The dissent rejected the idea that consideration of mental capacity at sentencing satisfies due process, finding that an insane defendant should not be found guilty in the first place.

Under G.S. 14-51.4, a person may not claim self-defense if the person was attempting a felony, committing a felony, or escaping from the commission of a felony at the time of the use of force. The defendant was charged with first-degree murder, armed robbery, and fleeing to elude in Cumberland County. He claimed self-defense and testified on his behalf. Evidence showed that the defendant had multiple prior felony convictions and that he possessed a weapon at the time of the murder. The trial court gave a general instruction on statutory self-defense and instructed the jury that the defendant could not claim self-defense if he was committing the felony of possession of firearm by a felon at the time of his use of force. The jury convicted on all counts and the defendant was sentenced to life without parole. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the defendant was disqualified from claiming statutory self-defense under State v. Crump, 259 N.C. App. 144 (2018) (strictly interpreting the felony disqualification) and determining that G.S. 14-51.4 supplanted the common law right in the situations covered by the statute. On discretionary review, the Supreme Court modified and affirmed.

(1)  The trial court and Court of Appeals correctly rejected the defendant’s argument that the statutory self-defense disqualification did not apply because the defendant was claiming common law, rather than statutory, self-defense. The Court agreed with the lower courts that G.S. 14-51.3 and 14-51.4 were intended to abolish the common law right to perfect self-defense in the circumstances identified by the statute, noting that the language of G.S. 14-51.3 closely followed the common law definition of self-defense and that the legislature had failed to express an intent to retain the common law (unlike other parts of the statutory self-defense laws, where such an intention was expressly stated). In the words of the Court:

[A]fter the General Assembly’s enactment of G.S. 14-51.3, there is only one way a criminal defendant can claim perfect self-defense: by invoking the statutory right to perfect self-defense. Section 14-51.3 supplants the common law on all aspects of the law of self-defense addressed by its provisions. Section 14-51.4 applies to the justification described in G.S. 14-51.3. Therefore, when a defendant in a criminal case claims perfect self-defense, the applicable provisions of G.S. 14-51.3—and, by extension, the disqualifications provided under G.S. 14-51.4—govern. McLymore Slip op. at 8-9 (cleaned up).

The trial court therefore did not err by instructing the jury on statutory self-defense, including on the felony disqualifier.

(2) The defendant’s objections to the jury instructions were sufficient to preserve his arguments relating to a “causal nexus” requirement for the felony disqualification provisions of G.S. 14-51.4, and his arguments were also apparent from the record. Among other reasons, the State argued, and the trial court relied on, the Crump decision (finding no causal nexus requirement for the felony disqualifier) in rejecting the defendant’s proposed jury instruction.

(3) The Court agreed that G.S.14-51.4 must be read to require a nexus between the defendant’s use of force and felony conduct used to disqualify the defendant from use of defensive force. A strict interpretation of this statute would lead to absurd and unjust results and would also contract the common law right to self-defense. “[A]bsent a causal nexus requirement, each individual [committing a felony not related to the need for defensive force] would be required to choose between submitting to an attacker and submitting to a subsequent criminal conviction.” McLymore Slip op. at 18. The Court also noted that a broad interpretation of the felony disqualifier may violate the North Carolina Constitution’s protections for life and liberty. N.C. Const. art. I, sec. 1. The Court therefore held that the State has the burden to demonstrate a connection between the disqualifying felony conduct and the need for the use of force, and the jury must be instructed on that requirement. Crump and other decisions to the contrary were expressly overruled. In the Court’s words:

[W]e hold that in order to disqualify a defendant from justifying the use of force as self-defense pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 14-51.4(1), the State must prove the existence of an immediate causal nexus between the defendant’s disqualifying conduct and the confrontation during which the defendant used force. The State must introduce evidence that ‘but for the defendant’ attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a felony, ‘the confrontation resulting in injury to the victim would not have occurred.’ McLymore Slip op. at 20.

(4) Though the trial court’s instructions on the felony disqualification were erroneous, this error did not prejudice the defendant under the facts of the case. The jury convicted the defendant of armed robbery based on his theft of the victim’s car immediately after the murder. This necessarily showed that the jury found the defendant was committing or escaping from the commission of a felony related to his need to use force. According to the court:

Based upon the outcome of McLymore’s trial, it is indisputable that there existed an immediate causal nexus between his felonious conduct and the confrontation during which he used assertedly defensive force, and the felony disqualifier applies to bar his claim of self-defense. Id. at 23.

However, the Court rejected the State’s argument that the defendant would be categorically barred from self-defense with a firearm due to this status as a convicted felon. The defendant was not charged with possession of firearm by felon in the case and had no opportunity to defend against that charge. Additionally, the jury was not instructed on a causal connection between the defendant’s mere possession of the firearm and his need for use of force. According to the Court:

To accept the State’s argument on this ground would be to effectively hold that all individuals with a prior felony conviction are forever barred from using a firearm in self-defense under any circumstances. This would be absurd. Id. at 22.

The Court of Appeals was therefore modified and affirmed. Chief Justice Newby wrote separately to concur in result only, joined by Justice Barringer. They would have found that the causal nexus argument was not preserved and should have not been considered. Alternatively, they would have ruled that the felony disqualification does not require a causal nexus.

In this felony murder case based on the underlying felony of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on self-defense and the doctrine of transferred intent.  The evidence at trial showed that the defendant and a friend arrived at the apartment of Beth and Jon intending to buy marijuana from Jon.  By the time the defendant and his friend left the apartment, Jon, Beth, and the defendant had been shot.  Jon died as a result.  The defendant testified that while in the apartment living room, he picked up a gun he found on a coffee table because “it looked cool,” which caused Jon to become aggressive and Beth to emerge from a bedroom pointing a gun at the defendant.  After convincing Beth to drop her weapon by threatening to kill Jon, the defendant testified that he ran from the apartment, saw Jon pull a gun, and felt himself be shot in the side.  This caused the defendant to shoot in Jon’s direction “as best as [he] could” and “intentionally” at him.  The court explained that this testimony taken in the light most favorable to the defendant entitled him to a jury instruction on perfect self-defense for any shot intended for Jon because , if believed, it showed (1) he subjectively believed that he was going to die if he did not return fire; (2) such a belief was reasonable; (3) he was not the aggressor; and (4) did not use excessive force.  Further, he was entitled to an instruction on self-defense through transferred intent for the AWDWIKISI charge relating to Beth as her injury could have been caused by a bullet intended for Jon.  The trial court correctly gave a self-defense instruction on premeditated murder but erred by refusing to give the defendant’s requested self-defense instruction on felony murder or any underlying felony, including the assault.  This error was prejudicial because it impaired the defendant’s ability to present his defense to felony murder and the assault charge. 

In addition, the Court of Appeals erred by remanding the case for entry of a judgment convicting the defendant of second-degree murder, a verdict the jury returned after the trial court accepted a partial verdict on the felony murder charge and directed the jury to continue to deliberate on the premeditated murder charge.  The trial court’s decision to require continued deliberation and its associated instructions could have resulted in an improper finding by the jury that the defendant was guilty of second-degree murder.  Thus, the court remanded for a new trial on all charges.

Justice Newby dissented, stating his view that the trial court’s jury instructions, which included a general transferred-intent instruction but not the specific instruction requested by the defendant, enabled the defendant to make the jury argument he desired.  Justice Newby interpreted the jury’s verdicts as a rejection of the defendant’s self-defense theory.

Confronting a question of first impression, the court held that “in narrow and extraordinary circumstances” the common law defense of justification may be an affirmative defense to a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon under G.S. 14-415.1.  Noting that justification is an affirmative defense which a defendant carries the burden of proving at trial, the court joined the Court of Appeals in adopting an analysis from United States v. Deleveaux, 205 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2000) andheld that a defendant invoking justification as a defense to a violation of G.S. 14-415.1 must show: 

(1) that the defendant was under unlawful and present, imminent, and impending threat of death or serious bodily injury; (2) that the defendant did not negligently or recklessly place himself in a situation where he would be forced to engage in criminal conduct; (3) that the defendant had no reasonable legal alternative to violating the law; and (4) that there was a direct causal relationship between the criminal action and the avoidance of the threatened harm.

Having established that justification is a defense to a violation of G.S. 14-415.1, the court examined whether the defendant in this case was entitled to a jury instruction on the defense.  Such an instruction is required, the court explained, when each of the four “Deleveaux factors” is supported by evidence taken in the light most favorable to the defendant.  The defendant’s evidence suggested that he was under a qualifying threat as it showed that he and two friends, J and Wardell, arrived to his home to find that a group of fifteen people, some of whom were armed, had assembled at the home intending to fight the defendant.  As tensions elevated towards violence, the defendant took Wardell’s gun as Wardell seemed unfamiliar with it and, in the defendant’s view, would be unable to use it in their defense.  The court concluded that there was evidence of each of the Deleveaux factors under these facts and that the trial court committed prejudicial error by denying the defendant’s request to instruct the jury on the defense.

A dissenting justice, Justice Morgan, “welcom[ed] the establishment of the justification defense” for this criminal offense but did not believe that the evidence in the instant case was sufficient to require the trial judge to give the instruction.

On writ of certiorari from a divided decision of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 811 S.E.2d 215 (2018), the court held that the trial court’s decision to include an “aggressor” instruction in its self-defense instructions did not constitute plain error. The trial court, without any defense objection instructed the jury on self-defense, stating that the defendant would not be excused from murder or manslaughter on self-defense grounds if he “was the aggressor with the intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm upon the deceased.” According to the defendant, no evidence was introduced showing him to be the aggressor. The court noted however that because he did not object to the instruction at trial, he waived his right to challenge the aggressor instruction on appeal. Applying the plain error standard, the court found it not satisfied. It noted that the defendant sent multiple text messages to another individual in the hours before the victim’s death indicating that he wanted to kill the victim. Additionally, the record contains no physical evidence tending to validate the defendant’s otherwise unsupported claim of self-defense and does contain substantial physical evidence tending to undercut this claim, including evidence that the victim sustained defensive wounds to her hand, that she sustained stab wounds inflicted from the rear, and that the defendant’s wounds were much less severe than those inflicted upon the victim. As a result, given that the defendant’s claim to have acted in self-defense rested on his otherwise unsupported testimony and that the record contained ample justification for questioning the credibility of the defendant’s account surrounding the victim’s death, the court found itself unable to conclude that any error associated with the instruction rose to the level of plain error.

On discretionary review of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 789 S.E.2d 679 (2016), the court reversed because of errors in the jury instructions on self-defense. At trial, the parties agreed to the delivery of N.C.P.I.–Crim. 206.10, the pattern instruction on first-degree murder and self-defense. That instruction provides, in relevant part: “Furthermore, the defendant has no duty to retreat in a place where the defendant has a lawful right to be.” Additionally, N.C.P.I.–Crim. 308.10, which is incorporated by reference in footnote 7 of N.C.P.I.–Crim. 206.10 and entitled “Self-Defense, Retreat,” states that “[i]f the defendant was not the aggressor and the defendant was . . . [at a place the defendant had a lawful right to be], the defendant could stand the defendant’s ground and repel force with force.” Although the trial court agreed to instruct the jury on self-defense according to N.C.P.I.–Crim. 206.10, it ultimately omitted the “no duty to retreat” language of N.C.P.I.–Crim. 206.10 from its actual instructions without prior notice to the parties and did not give any part of the “stand-your-ground” instruction. Defense counsel did not object to the instruction as given. The jury convicted defendant of second-degree murder and the defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the law limits a defendant’s right to stand his ground to any place he or she has the lawful right to be, which did not include the public street where the incident occurred. The Supreme Court allowed defendant’s petition for discretionary review and reversed.

(1) The court held that when a trial court agrees to give a requested pattern instruction, an erroneous deviation from that instruction is preserved for appellate review without further request or objection. Here, because the trial court agreed to instruct the jury in accordance with N.C.P.I.–Crim. 206.10, its omission of the required stand-your-ground provision substantively deviated from the agreed-upon pattern jury instruction, thus preserving this issue for appellate review.

(2) By omitting the relevant stand-your-ground provision, the trial court’s jury instructions were an inaccurate and misleading statement of the law. The court concluded, in part, that “[c]ontrary to the opinion below, the phrase “any place he or she has the lawful right to be” is not limited to one’s home, motor vehicle, or workplace, but includes any place the citizenry has a general right to be under the circumstances.” Here, the defendant offered ample evidence that he acted in self-defense while standing in a public street, where he had a right to be when he shot the victim. Because the defendant showed a reasonable possibility that, had the trial court given the required stand-your-ground instruction, a different result would have been reached at trial, the court reversed the Court of Appeals, finding that the defendant was entitled to a new trial.

Reversing the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that the trial court’s self-defense instructions were not erroneous. The court began by considering whether “North Carolina law allows an aggressor to regain the right to utilize defensive force based upon the nature and extent of the reaction that he or she provokes in the other party.” Although historically North Carolina law did not allow an aggressor using deadly force to regain the right to exercise self-defense when the person to whom his or her aggression was directed responds by using deadly force in defense, changes in statutory law allow aggressor to regain that right under certain circumstances. But, G.S. 14-51.4(2)(a), allowing an aggressor to regain the right to utilize defensive force under certain circumstances, does not apply where the aggressor initially uses deadly force against the person provoked. Thus, the trial court did not err by instructing that a defendant who was the aggressor using deadly force had forfeited the right to use deadly force and that a person who displays a firearm to his opponent with the intent to use deadly force against him or her and provokes the use of deadly force in response is an aggressor. The court continued, noting that it also must determine whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury, in accordance with the defendant’s request, that he might have regained the right to use defensive force based on the victim’s reaction to any provocative conduct in which the defendant might have engaged. The court concluded that a defendant “could have only been entitled to the delivery of such an instruction to the extent that his provocative conduct involved non-deadly, rather than deadly, force.” Here, there was a complete absence of any evidence tending to show that the defendant used non-deadly force.

The court affirmed the decision below in State v. Monroe, 233 N.C. App. 563 (April 15, 2014) (holding, over a dissent, that even assuming arguendo that the rationale in United States v. Deleveaux, 205 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2000), applies in North Carolina, the trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s request to give a special instruction on self-defense as to the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon; the majority concluded that the evidence did not support a conclusion that the defendant possessed the firearm under unlawful and present, imminent, and impending threat of death or serious bodily injury).

The trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense and defense of a family member. Viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, the evidence showed that the defendant was at his produce stand; the victim was a 16-year-old male, approximately 6 feet tall and 180 pounds; the victim had a physical altercation with the defendant’s wife as he attempted to rob the cash box; the victim struck at the defendant’s wife and violently pulled at the cash box; the defendant’s wife, was “scared to death” and cried out for her husband; when the defendant ordered the victim to “back off”, the victim did so, but placed his hand in his pocket, and as he again approached the defendant and the defendant’s wife, began to pull his hand from his pocket; and defendant shot the victim once because he feared for the safety of his wife, his grandson, and himself. The defendant’s evidence was sufficient to show that he believed that it was necessary to use force to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or a family member. 

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 case where the defendant and his neighbor exchanged gunfire after an argument about the victim’s dogs killing the defendant’s cat, the trial court erred by denying the defendant’s request for a jury instruction on self-defense.  In the light most favorable to the defendant, the evidence at trial tended to show that the defendant confronted the victim at the victim’s residence because the victim’s dogs had killed the defendant’s cat and were still at large.  During this confrontation, the victim struck the defendant with a piece of lumber, causing the defendant to brandish a pistol he was carrying legally.  The defendant did not threaten to use the pistol or point it at the victim.  The victim then went inside his residence, retrieved his own pistol, and came back outside firing it at the defendant, who was at that time walking away.  The defendant, who was grazed by a bullet, returned fire, striking the victim in the leg.  The State argued that the defendant was not entitled to an instruction on self-defense because he was the aggressor by virtue of brandishing his firearm.  The court held that a jury could have determined that the defendant was permitted to brandish his firearm, and did not thereby become the aggressor, because he had a reasonable belief it was necessary to protect himself from death or great bodily harm after the victim struck him with the lumber.  Consequently, it was reversible error for the trial court to deny the defendant’s request for a self-defense jury instruction.

The court went on to determine that even assuming for argument that the defendant was the initial aggressor by virtue of brandishing his firearm, he regained the right to use force in self-defense when the victim reemerged from the residence and fired on him as the defendant was in the process of walking away from the residence towards his vehicle to leave.  The court explained that walking away and towards his vehicle clearly announced the defendant’s intention to withdraw from the encounter.

Judge Tyson fully concurred with the majority opinion but wrote separately to address additional issues the defendant raised on appeal but that the majority did not reach.  Those additional issues were: (1) whether the trial court erred by limiting the defendant’s cross-examination about the victim’s prior felony conviction and his possession of a firearm; (2) whether the trial court erred in preventing inquiry into an agreement between the State and the victim in exchange for his testimony; (3) whether the trial court erred by preventing the defendant from testifying about an after-the-fact reconciliation with the victim.

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and other serious felony charges after he shot and killed his former girlfriend and then pistol-whipped and fired a gun at another woman, a registered nurse. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by failing to give a self-defense instruction despite the defendant’s request for instructions on both perfect and imperfect self-defense. The defendant’s testimony that he did not recall shooting the first victim and his expert’s testimony that he acted involuntarily defeated his self-defense argument.

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 assault case, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the charges due to the insufficiency of the evidence. The defendant asserted that the State’s own evidence showed that the defendant acted in self-defense after he was violently assaulted. The defendant argued that because the State’s evidence tended only to exculpate the defendant, his motion to dismiss should have been granted. The court found that the evidence did not tend only to exculpate the defendant. Rather, there was substantial evidence to contradict the defendant’s claim of self-defense.

Where there was evidence that the defendant was the aggressor, the trial court did not err by instructing the jury on the aggressor doctrine as it relates to self-defense. The court noted that based on the defendant’s own testimony regarding the incident, it was possible for the jury to infer that the defendant was the initial aggressor. Additionally, the victim was shot twice in the back, indicating either that the defendant continued to be the aggressor or shot the victim in the back during what he contended was self-defense. As a result, the trial court properly allowed the jury to determine whether or not the defendant was the aggressor.

In a case where the defendant was charged with attempted murder and assault, the trial court did not err by instructing the jury that the defendant could not receive the benefit of self-defense if he was the aggressor. The incident in question involved a shooting; the defendant argued that he shot the victim in self-defense. The two sides presented differing evidence as to what occurred. During the charge conference, defense counsel objected to the inclusion of the aggressor doctrine in the pattern jury instruction for self-defense. The defendant argued that because the victim had approached his car before the defendant said anything, the victim initiated the fight. The State contended that because its evidence showed only that the victim told the defendant to step out of his vehicle, the question should go to the jury as to who was the aggressor. The trial court overruled the defendant’s objection and gave the aggressor instruction. The jury found the defendant guilty on the assault charge. The court noted that the law does not require that a defendant instigate a fight to be considered an aggressor. Rather, even if his opponent starts a fight, a defendant who provokes, engages in, or continues an argument which leads to serious injury or death may be found to be the aggressor. Where there is conflicting evidence as to which party was the aggressor, the jury should make the determination. Here, the State’s evidence tended to show that the defendant was the aggressor. The victim testified that he told the defendant to step out of his car so they could talk, he did not threaten the defendant, touch the defendant’s car or approach the defendant. And the victim was unarmed. After speaking with the defendant, the victim testified that he stepped into the yard to allow the defendant to exit his car, only to be shot by the defendant. Although the defendant’s testimony materially differed from the State’s evidence, the issue was one for the jury.

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.

In this assault with a deadly weapon case involving two neighbors, the trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s request for an instruction on self-defense. The defendant provoked the confrontation by willingly and voluntarily leaving his property and entering the victim’s property with a loaded rifle. The defendant was not forced into the confrontation. The defendant escalated the confrontation by affirmatively opting to retrieve his rifle, loaded, and carry it with him on to the victim’s property. No evidence showed that the victim possessed a weapon during the altercation or that the defendant had a good faith belief that the victim was armed. The defendant fired the first shot before the victim made any threatening movement. Thus, the defendant was not justified under G.S. 14-51.3 or 14-51.4 to use deadly force against the victim and claim self-defense.

In this homicide case in which defendant was found guilty of second-degree murder, the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s request to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense. The trial court instructed the jury on first-degree murder, second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter based on heat of passion. During the charge conference, defendant requested an instruction on voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense. The trial court denied this request. On appeal, defendant argued that evidence of his stature and weight compared with that of the victim and testimony that the victim held him in a headlock when the stabbing occurred was sufficient to allow the jury to infer that he reasonably believed it was necessary to kill the victim to protect himself from death or great bodily harm. The court disagreed, concluding:

Here, the uncontroverted evidence shows that defendant fully and aggressively participated in the altercation with [the victim] in the yard of [the victim’s] home. No evidence was presented that defendant tried to get away from [the victim] or attempted to end the altercation. Where the evidence does not show that defendant reasonably believed it was necessary to stab [the victim], who was unarmed, in the chest to escape death or great bodily harm, the trial court properly denied defendant’s request for a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter based upon imperfect self-defense.

In this assault and second-degree murder case, the trial court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense and by omitting an instruction on voluntary manslaughter. The court noted that the defendant himself testified that when he fired the gun he did not intend to shoot anyone and that he was only firing warning shots. It noted: “our Supreme Court has held that a defendant is not entitled to jury instructions on self-defense or voluntary manslaughter ‘while still insisting . . . that he did not intend to shoot anyone[.]’” 

In this murder case, the trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s request to instruct the jury on self-defense and imperfect self-defense. The defendant never testified that he thought it was necessary or reasonably necessary to kill his wife, the victim, to protect himself from death or great bodily harm; he only testified that his wife was holding a stun gun and that he pushed her up against the bathroom cabinets to keep her from using it. The defendant was able to push the stun gun into his wife’s side and ultimately subdued her. He did not state that he feared for his life or that he feared he might suffer great bodily harm. 

In this murder case, the trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s request for jury instructions on self-defense and voluntary manslaughter. The defendant’s theory was that the gun went off accidentally. Additionally, there was no evidence that the defendant in fact formed a belief that it was necessary to kill his adversary in order to protect himself from death or great bodily harm.

(1) The trial court did not err by failing to include self-defense in its mandate on felony-murder charges that were based on the underlying offenses of attempted robbery. Self-defense is only relevant to felony-murder if it is a defense to the underlying felony. The court continued: “We fail to see how defendant could plead self-defense to a robbery the jury found he had attempted to commit himself.” (2) The trial court did not err by failing to include self-defense in its mandate on felony-murder charges based on underlying assault offenses. The trial court gave the full self-defense instructions with respect to the assault charges. It then referenced these instructions, and specifically the self-defense instructions, in its instructions concerning felony-murder based upon the assault charges. Taken as a whole, this was not error.

The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to instruct on defense of others. The defendant’s statement that he was defending himself, his vehicle and his wife was not evidence from which the jury could find that the defendant reasonably believed a third person was in immediate peril of death or serious bodily harm at the hands of another.

In an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury case where the weapon was not a deadly weapon per se, the trial court did not err by declining to give self-defense instruction N.C.P.I.—Crim. 308.40 and did not commit plain error by declining to give self-defense instruction N.C.P.I.—Crim. 308.45 over the defendant’s objection. The court clarified that when a defendant is charged with assault with a deadly weapon and the weapon is a deadly weapon per se, the trial judge should instruct that the assault would be excused as being in self-defense only if the circumstances would create in the mind of a person of ordinary firmness a reasonable belief that such action was necessary to protect himself or herself from death or great bodily harm. If, however, the weapon is not a deadly weapon per se, the trial judge should further instruct the jury that if they find that the defendant assaulted the victim but do not find that the defendant used a deadly weapon, that assault would be excused as being in self-defense if the circumstances would create in the mind of a person of ordinary firmness a reasonable belief that such action was necessary to protect himself or herself from bodily injury or offensive physical contact.

In a murder case, the trial court did not err by declining to instruct on self-defense where there was no evidence that would support a finding that the defendant reasonably believed that he needed to use deadly force against the victim to prevent death or serious bodily injury. Although the victim had threatened the defendant repeatedly, there was no evidence that he threatened to kill the defendant or attempted to harm him. There was no evidence that anyone had ever seen the victim with a weapon or attack another person. There was no indication that the victim had a reputation for violence; in fact, although the victim was angry with the defendant for a while, their conflict had never escalated beyond threats. There was no evidence that the victim threatened to hurt or attack the defendant on the day in question or that the encounter between them was more heated than earlier disputes. Instead, the evidence established that the defendant approached the victim with a gun, fired multiple shots at the victim, and continued firing as the victim attempted to retreat. The victim’s prior threats against the defendant, without more, did not establish a reasonable need for deadly force. The defendant’s description of the victim’s conduct immediately prior to the shooting did not, whether considered in isolation or in the context of the victim’s prior threats, suffice to support a self-defense instruction. The fact that the victim may have been “edging up” on the defendant while reaching behind his back did not support a finding that the defendant reasonably believed that he needed to use lethal force given that the defendant did not claim to have seen the victim with a weapon on that or any occasion, the victim had not threatened him immediately prior to the shooting, and the defendant had no other objective basis, aside from prior threats, for believing that the victim was about to attack him and create a risk of death or great bodily injury.

The trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss a charge of second-degree murder based on the defendant’s contention that he acted in self-defense where the evidence was sufficient to establish that rather than acting in self-defense, the defendant went armed after the victim to settle an argument.