Issue

Defenses—statutory castle doctrine—inaccurate jury instructions—plain error analysis

Summary

After a jury convicted him of second-degree murder for fatally shooting someone who was standing in the doorway outside of his home, defendant was entitled to a new trial on the murder charge because the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the castle doctrine under N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2 by: (1) indicating that defendant had to prove he reasonably believed the victim would kill or inflict serious bodily harm and that deadly force was necessary, where the castle doctrine automatically presumes a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm if the statutory criteria are met; (2) telling the jury that the presumption of reasonable fear could be rebutted by "any evidence to the contrary" when, in fact, it could only be rebutted by five specific circumstances listed in section 14-51.2(c); and (3) failing to instruct the jury that the curtilage of the home was protected under the castle doctrine. The court's inaccurate instructions amounted to plain error where: (1) defendant was deprived of a complete self-defense instruction–a fundamental error at trial, and (2) the error had a probable impact on the trial's outcome, since the jury could have found that defendant's actions were lawful under the correctly stated castle doctrine and therefore acquitted him.

Summary from the North Carolina Reports digest (official subject index). Read the opinion →