Criminal Practice — Murder – Castle Doctrine – ‘Immunity’ – Jury Determination – Jury Instructions

Where the castle doctrine provides immunity from “criminal liability” but not immunity from prosecution, and where, as here, there are fact questions concerning the applicability of the castle doctrine, defendant was not entitled to have the trial judge, rather than a jury, determine whether she was immune under G.S. § 14-51.2. The trial court properly permitted the case to proceed to trial so that a jury could resolve the disputed facts.

We find no error in defendant’s conviction for first-degree murder.

Under the castle doctrine, lawful occupants of a home are presumed to believe the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury to themselves or others.

The evidence indicated that the victim knew he was unwelcome at the home of defendant (grandmother to his child), he came onto her property anyway, an altercation ensued, defendant drew a gun, and the gun went off. Then, a bystander saw defendant standing over the victim, who was lying unarmed in defendant’s driveway and pleading, “Please, please, just let me go. Let me go.” The bystander saw defendant take several steps back and then shoot the victim in the head from three to six feet away.

Taken in the light most favorable to the state, this was sufficient evidence from which the jury could determine that the state had rebutted the presumption of the castle doctrine and shown that defendant did not have a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm when she shot the victim in the head as he lay on the ground in her driveway.

State v. Cook, 254 N.C. App. 150, 802 S.E.2d 575 (2017), held that “a defendant who testifies that he did not intend to shoot the attacker is not entitled to an instruction under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-51.2 because his own words disprove the rebuttable presumption that he was in reasonable fear of imminent harm.” Our Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals in a per curiam decision.

Here, the trial court’s jury instructions did not include Cook or any other non-statutory method for overcoming the castle doctrine’s presumption. Instead, the trial court’s instructions mirrored § 14-51.2. The trial court’s instructions were accurate and not erroneous.

No error.

State v. Austin (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-184-21, 19 pp.) (Richard Dietz, J.) Appealed from Caldwell County Superior Court (Lisa Bell, J.) Mary Carla Babb for the state; Daniel Shatz for defendant. 2021-NCCOA-494