Issue

With a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury—jury instructions—castle doctrine—proportionality of force used—improper

Summary

In a prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury arising from defendant having shot the victim after the victim entered defendant's front porch, the trial court erred by instructing the jury that defendant did "not have the right to use excessive force" when defending her home, even under the castle doctrine. Based on the statutory formulation of the castle doctrine, which provides that a lawful occupant of a home who uses deadly force against an intruder is presumed to have had a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm, the jury could not consider the proportionality of defendant's force unless it found that: (1) defendant was not entitled to the presumption of reasonable fear, or (2) defendant qualified for the presumption to apply, but the State adequately rebutted the presumption. Instead of granting defendant a new trial, the matter was remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions to analyze whether the trial court's error was prejudicial.

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