The defendant was indicted for one count of second-degree murder arising out of a fight at a party in which the victim was stabbed and later died. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The jury indicated that the verdict was unanimous, and assented to the verdict again when the jurors were individually polled. However, during the judge’s parting remarks to the jury and before the judgment was entered, a majority of the jurors disclosed that they did not believe the state’s witnesses and they were not sure of the defendant’s guilt, but they voted guilty anyway because “that man died, so someone needs to go to prison.” The jurors’ comments were not recorded at the time, but were reconstructed on the record during a conference in chambers the next day. The defense moved to set aside the verdict, based on the jurors’ statements and other grounds, and the motion was denied. The defendant appealed, arguing that jury’s disregard of the court’s instructions on reasonable doubt constituted structural error.

The Court of Appeals conducted a de novo review and unanimously agreed, reversing the conviction. The court explained that structural error is a rare form of constitutional error that occurs when there is a defect in the trial mechanism that is so serious that the trial cannot reliably serve as a vehicle for determining guilt or innocence. U.S. Supreme Court precedent has established that only a limited number of errors rise to the level of being structural error, but the appellate court held that “the circumstances here present the same type of constitutional error present in some of those cases” because the defendant has a constitutional right to a verdict based upon a determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. On appeal, the defendant was not required to demonstrate prejudice resulting from this type of error; instead, the burden was on the state to demonstrate that the structural error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, which the state failed to do. 

The appellate court rejected the state’s argument that this analysis was an impermissible inquiry into the validity of jury’s verdict, in violation of Rule 606. In this case, the trial judge had immediate concerns about the jury’s verdict and discussed it with them in open court, confirming that a majority of the jurors had voted for guilt despite their doubts about the defendant’s guilt. Additionally, the jury’s misconduct went “to the very heart of the defendant’s right to a presumption of innocence and the requirement that he be convicted only upon proof ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’” In the court’s view, these facts distinguished the case from the type of post-trial “inquiry” based on “mere suspicion” contemplated by Rule 606 and addressed in prior cases.

The defendant had also filed an MAR within 10 days after the trial, raising similar arguments to those made on appeal. The trial court denied the MAR, and the defendant appealed that denial. The appellate court vacated the ruling denying the MAR for the reasons given above, but also clarified that the portion of the trial court’s order which purported to bar the defendant from raising arguments in a future MAR was erroneous.  G.S. 15A-1419(a) provides for denial of a motion if the defendant “attempts to raise an issue in a MAR which has previously been determined if he was in the position to raise it in a prior motion or appeal,” but the statute  “does not give a trial court authority to enter a gatekeeper order declaring in advance that a defendant may not, in the future, file an MAR; the determination regarding the merits of any future MAR must be decided based upon that motion.”

In an assault on a firefighter with a firearm case, the trial court did not err by denying the defendant's request for a jury instruction on the elements of assault where the defendant failed to submit his requested instruction in writing. 

The trial court did not err in this murder case by declining to include a special jury instruction on specific intent in the final mandate. On the issue of specific intent, the trial judge gave the jury an instruction regarding voluntary intoxication and its effect on specific intent, but did not repeat the instruction as part of the final mandate. The appellate court held that the defendant failed to preserve the issue by not objecting, and further held that it was not plain error because the trial judge was not required to restate the specific intent instruction in the final mandate.

No plain error occurred with respect to the trial court’s final mandate to the jury on a first-degree murder charge. The trial court instructed the jury that it could find the defendant guilty of first-degree murder as to victim Frink under the following theories: premeditation and deliberation, felony-murder, and lying in wait. After instructing the jury on all theories, the trial court continued: “If you do not so find or have a reasonable doubt as to one or more of these things, it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.” The defendant argued that the jury could have construed this not guilty mandate as applying solely to the theory of lying in wait—the last theory explained in the instructions--as opposed to the overall charge of first-degree murder. The court rejected that argument, concluding first that “[w]hile the better practice would have been for the trial court to make clear to the jury that its final not guilty mandate applied to all three theories of first-degree murder, this — by itself — is not sufficient to establish plain error.” Next the court examined the verdict sheet and concluded that it “clearly informed the jury of its option of returning a not guilty verdict regarding this charge.” Finally, the court compared the not guilty mandate at issue with the analogous mandate regarding the first-degree murder charge as to a second victim, Jones. In the course of this examination, the court noted that “the final not guilty mandate in the Frink instruction is worded more appropriately than that in the Jones instruction,” because the “former informed the jury of its ‘duty’ to return a verdict of not guilty while the latter merely stated that the jury ‘would’ return a not guilty verdict if the State failed to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” In the end, the court concluded that even if the trial court erred, the error did not rise to the level of plain error.

Although the trial judge did not expressly instruct the jury that if it failed to find the required elements it must find the defendant not guilty, the defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court’s alternative final mandate language (“If you do not so find . . . you will not return a verdict of guilty”). Notably, the verdict sheet provided an option of returning a not guilty verdict.

In this sexual assault case, no plain error occurred when the trial court referred to the complaining witness as “the victim” in the jury instructions. It is well-settled that when a judge properly places the burden of proof on the State, referring to the complaining witness as “the victim” does not constitute plain error. The court noted however that the best practice is for the trial court to modify the pattern jury instructions at the defendant’s request to use the phrase “alleged victim” or “prosecuting witness” instead of “victim.” Here however the defendant did not request such a change and the trial court properly placed the burden of proof on the State.

In this child sexual abuse case, the trial court did not err by referring to the victim as the “alleged victim” in its opening remarks to the jury and referring to her as “the victim” in its final jury instructions. The court distinguished State v. Walston, 229 N.C. App. 141 (2013), rev’d, 367 N.C. 721 (Dec. 19, 2014), on grounds that in this case the defendant failed to object at trial and thus the plain error standard applied. Moreover, given the evidence, the court could not conclude that the trial court’s word choice had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.

In this child sex case, the trial court did not commit plain error by using the word “victim” in the jury instructions. The court distinguished State v. Walston, 229 N.C. App. 141 (2013) (trial court’s use of the term “victim” in jury instructions was prejudicial error), rev’d, 367 N.C. 721 (Dec. 19, 2014). First, in Walston, the trial court denied the defendant’s request to modify the pattern jury instructions to use the term “alleged victim” in place of the term “victim,” and objected repeatedly to the proposed instructions; here, no such request or objection was made. Second, in Walston, the evidence was conflicting as to whether the alleged sexual offenses occurred; here no such conflict existed. Finally, in Walston the trial court committed prejudicial error; here, the defendant did not assert that he suffered any prejudice because of the use of the term “victim.” 

(1) The trial court did not coerce a verdict by giving an Allen charge pursuant to G.S. 15A-1235. The jury sent the judge a note at 3:59 pm, after 70 minutes of deliberations, indicating that they were split 11-to-1 and that the one juror “will not change their mind.” The court rejected the defendant’s argument that a jury’s indication that it may be deadlocked requires the trial court to immediately declare a mistrial, finding it inconsistent with the statute and NC case law. (2) The trial court did not coerce a verdict when it told the deliberating jury, in response to the same note about deadlock, that if they did not reach a verdict by 5 pm, he would bring them back the next day to continue deliberations. Although threatening to hold a jury until they reach a verdict can under some circumstances coerce a verdict, that did not happen here. After receiving the note at approximately 4:00 pm, the trial judge told the jurors that although they were divided, they had been deliberating for only approximately 75 minutes. The judge explained that he was going to have them continue to deliberate for the rest of the afternoon and that if they needed more time they could resume deliberations the next day. The trial judge further emphasized that the jurors should not rush in their deliberations and reminded them that it was “important that every view of the jury be considered, and that you deliberate in good faith among yourselves.” The court found that these statements cannot be viewed as coercive. 

(1) The trial court did not abuse its discretion by giving an Allen charge. During the jury’s second day of deliberations in a murder case, it sent a note to the trial judge stating that the jurors could not agree on a verdict. The trial judge inquired as to the numerical division, instructing the foreperson not to tell him whether the division was in favor of guilty or not guilty. The foreperson informed the judge that the jury was divided eleven to one. The trial court then gave additional instructions based on G.S. 15A-1235(b) and the jury found the defendant guilty almost two hours later. (2) Although the trial court’s Allen instruction (which was almost identical to N.C.P.I.—Crim. 101.40) varied slightly from the statutory language, no error occurred.

Upon being notified that the jury was deadlocked, the trial judge did not err by giving an Allen instruction pursuant to N.C. Crim. Pattern Jury Instruction 101.40 and not G.S. 15A-1235, as requested by the defendant. Because there was no discrepancy between the pattern instruction and G.S. 15A-1235, it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to use the pattern instruction.

The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in giving an Allen instruction. After an hour of deliberation, the jury foreman sent a note stating that the jury was not able to render a verdict and were split 11-1. The trial court recalled the jury to the courtroom and, with the consent of the prosecutor and defendant, instructed the jury in accordance with N.C.P.I. Criminal Charge 101.40, failure of the jury to reach a verdict. The jury then returned to deliberate for 30 minutes before the trial judge recessed court for the evening. The next morning, before the jury retired to continue deliberations, the trial court again gave the Allen instruction.

After the defendant’s wife left him due to his drinking and violence, the defendant committed a number of threatening and destructive acts towards her that culminated in the defendant shooting his estranged wife twice in the head outside her work. The victim survived and called 911, and the defendant was arrested in the woods nearby a few hours later. The defendant was indicted for attempted first degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and possession of a firearm by a felon. The defendant was convicted of all charges, sentenced to consecutive terms of 207-261 months and 96-128 months in prison, and raised three arguments on appeal.

First, the defendant argued that the trial court committed plain error by admitting a cell phone video of him kicking a dog, claiming it was irrelevant, prejudicial, and improper character evidence. Since the defendant did not object to the video at trial, the appellate court only considered whether admission of the video rose to the level of plain error. Viewed in context, the video was insignificant when compared to the other overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, such as witness testimony about his prior threats against the victim, his prior possession and use of a firearm that matched the one used to shoot his wife, his arrest nearby shortly after the shooting, matching ammunition found on his person when he was arrested, and the statements he made during his arrest. Therefore, the court held that it was not plain error to admit the video, since the defendant could not show that he was prejudiced by its admission even if it was error.

Next, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by allowing opinion testimony from the state’s firearms and ballistic expert, contending that it was not based on reliable principles or methods applied to the facts of the case. At trial and again on appeal, the defendant cited to studies and cases from other jurisdictions disputing the reliability of ballistics identification. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, and held that the evidence was properly admitted under Rule 702 based on the extensive voir dire of the witness which showed that her testimony was based on sufficient facts and data, was the product of reliable principles and methods, and those principles and methods were applied to the facts of the particular case. The appellate court stressed that its role was only to review the trial court’s decision under an abuse of discretion standard, and the record demonstrated that the lower court’s decision on this issue was reasoned and not arbitrary. Moreover, as in the first argument, even if it was error, the defendant could not show prejudice due to the overwhelming evidence of his guilt even without the challenged testimony.

Finally, the defendant argued that it was error to give a jury instruction on flight under the facts of this case, but the appellate court again disagreed. The court acknowledged that mere evidence of leaving the scene is not enough to support the instruction; there must also be some evidence of taking steps to avoid apprehension, but that evidence was present in this case. After shooting his wife, the defendant did not go home but was instead found five hours later near a wooded area. When the defendant and officers saw each other, the defendant entered the woods twice and a K-9 unit had to search for the defendant, eventually finding him curled up in a ball behind a large tree. Viewed in the light most favorable to the state, there was at least some evidence reasonably supporting the theory that the defendant fled.

Judge Zachary concurred with two of the majority’s conclusions, but dissented as to the admission of the forensic firearms expert testimony based on the dispute regarding the error rate and reliability of the analysis.

In this assault case, the trial court did not err by instructing the jury that it could consider the defendant’s alleged flight as evidence of guilt. The court began: “The probative value of flight evidence has been ‘consistently doubted’” in our legal system, and we note at the outset that we similarly doubt the probative value of Defendant’s alleged flight here.” However, it went on to conclude that the evidence supports a flight instruction. Specifically, witnesses testified that the defendant ran from the scene of the altercation.

In this assault and discharging a firearm into occupied property case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by providing a jury instruction on flight. The defendant fired his weapon at the victims as a vehicle carrying the defendant sped from a gas station. The court rejected the defendant’s argument because he was a passenger in the car—and not the driver—that there was no evidence supporting a flight instruction. The court noted that the bar for an instruction on flight “is low.” Here, the defendant fired his gun while the vehicle in which he was a passenger was speeding away from the gas station; the defendant later told the driver to stop at a specified location and then abandoned the vehicle and left the area on foot; and the defendant intentionally disposed of his weapon shortly thereafter. This evidence “plainly supports an instruction on flight in spite of the fact that Defendant was not actually driving the [vehicle] when it fled the … station.”

In this homicide case, the trial court properly instructed the jury on flight where evidence showed that the defendant shot the victim, got into his vehicle, drove off for a short period of time, and returned; the firearm used to shoot the victim was never recovered. Noting that mere evidence that the defendant left a crime scene is not enough to support an instruction on flight, the court found that here there was evidence that the defendant took steps to avoid apprehension. Specifically the evidence supported the theory that the defendant drove away briefly to dispose of the firearm used in the homicide.

In a homicide case, the trial court did not err by instructing on flight. The State’s evidence showed that officers were unable to locate the defendant for several months following the shooting. The defendant resided at his aunt’s house before the 2:30 am shooting and instead of returning there, he left the state and went to Florida. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that his presence in Florida, his home state, was not indicative of whether he avoided apprehension.

The evidence was sufficient to warrant an instruction on flight. During the first robbery attempt, the defendant and a co-conspirator fled from a deputy sheriff. During the second attempt, the defendant fled from an armed neighbor. After learning of the defendant’s name and address, an officer canvassed the neighborhood, looking for the defendant. The defendant was later arrested in another state.

There was sufficient evidence to support an instruction on flight. A masked man robbed a store and left in a light-colored sedan. Shortly thereafter, an officer saw a vehicle matching this description and a high speed chase ensued. The vehicle was owned by the defendant. The driver abandoned the vehicle; a mask and a gun were found inside. Although the defendant initially reported that his car was stolen, he later admitted that his report was false. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the instruction was improper because there was only circumstantial evidence that defendant was the person who fled the scene.

In this Davidson County case, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a felon after he shot and killed a man who was visiting his home. The trial judge rejected the defendant’s request for an instruction under N.C.P.I.—Crim. 308.10, which informs the jury that a defendant who is situated in his own home and is not the initial aggressor can stand his or her ground and repel force with force regardless of the character of the assault being made upon the defendant. The State had objected to the defendant’s request because it is based on a statutory right of self-defense in G.S. 14-51.2 and -51.3 that is not available to a person “attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a felony,” and the defendant here was committing the felony of possession of firearm by felon when he shot the victim. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial judge erred by refusing his requested instruction. The Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the trial court’s refusal, writing that it was bound by its prior decision in State v. Crump, 259 N.C. App. 144 (2018), which had held that the statutory self-defense rights at issue were not available to a defendant committing a felony even when there was no “causal connection” between that felony and the defendant’s need to use force in self-defense. State v. Benner, 276 N.C. App. 275, 2021-NCCOA-79 (unpublished). The Supreme Court allowed the defendant’s petition for discretionary review.

The Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury in accordance with N.C.P.I.—Crim. 308.10 deprived the defendant of a complete self-defense instruction, because the court concluded that the instruction the trial court gave adequately conveyed the substance of the defendant’s request. The Court saw no material difference between the trial court’s instruction that the defendant had “no duty to retreat” and the defendant’s requested instruction that he could “stand [his] ground.” Slip op. ¶ 27. Moreover, the Court did not view the given instruction’s lack of language concerning the defendant’s right to “repel force with force regardless of the character of the assault” as problematic in light of the given instruction, which (unlike instructions in prior cases which the Court distinguished) did not tell the jury that the defendant was not entitled to use a firearm to protect himself from death or great bodily injury by an unarmed assailant. The Court concluded that the trial court therefore did not err. But even if the trial court did err in rejecting the defendant’s request, the Court added, the defendant failed to establish a reasonable probability that a different result would have been reached in the absence of the error in light of the instruction the trial judge gave, as well as the “more than sufficient” evidence that the defendant used excessive force. 

Having decided the case on that ground, the Court did not reach the issue of the trial court’s application of the commission-of-a-felony disqualification from the self-defense statutes at issue. The Court did, however, note that a refusal to instruct on that basis “may be inconsistent with [G.S.] 14-51.2(g), which upholds the continued validity of the common law with respect to the exercise of one’s right to defend one’s habitation, as well as [the Court’s recent] decision in [State v.] McLymore [summarized here by Phil Dixon on February 15, 2022].” Id. ¶ 26.

Finally, the Court concluded that the defendant’s argument regarding the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the defendant’s presumption of reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm was not properly preserved for appellate review under Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(a)(2).

The Court thus affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Justice Hudson, joined by Justice Earls, dissented, writing that the trial judge erred by not giving the requested instruction. She wrote that the defendant was not barred from the statutory justification for defensive force in G.S. 14-51.2 and -51.3 by virtue of his commission of the felony offense of possession of firearm by felon in light of the Court’s recent ruling in State v. McLymore, supra, holding that there must be an immediate causal nexus between the felony and the circumstances giving rise to the defendant’s perceived need to use force for the disqualification to apply. She went on to write that the given instruction’s omission of language indicating that the defendant could stand his ground and repel force with force “regardless of the character assault” was a meaningful substantive difference between it and the requested instruction. As such, she would have held that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred, and that the error was prejudicial.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.