Criminal Practice – Castle Doctrine – Aggressor Instruction

The Castle Doctrine does not apply where person against whom the defensive force was used discontinued all efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the home and has exited the home.

There was no error in Defendant’s trial and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Around 5am in September 2018, the decedent, Christopher Easter, approached Defendant’s residence wearing a mask. Easter grabbed a chainsaw that was on the porch, entered the house, and struck Defendant with the chainsaw. Easter also hit Defendant in the head with a rock-stuffed sock. Defendant pushed Easter out of the house through the front door, and an altercation between the two ensued. Defendant and Easter continued to fight while moving away from the house and towards a used car dealership lot approximately five hundred yards away. As they entered the neighbor’s yard, Easter slipped and dropped the chainsaw. Defendant also fell around this point, but Easter continued “backing” away from the house. Surveillance footage from the auto dealership, admitted into evidence, showed Easter, with his hands raised, backing into the car lot. Easter was still backing away when Defendant’s wife entered the scene carrying a white trash can. Defendant’s wife hit Easter with the trash can as Easter kept backing up. Defendant and his wife continued to approach Easter until he backed into another car. Defendant and his wife both hit Easter, causing him to fall to the ground. As Easter tried to get back up, Defendant hit him in the head with a rock-filled sock. Defendant repeatedly hit Easter with the rock-filled sock. During the beating, a wrench fell from Easter’s clothes; Defendant picked up the wrench and hit Easter in the head with it. Easter wrapped around Defendant’s knees, causing him to fall to the ground. Around this time, Joshua Chinault arrived. Defendant continued to strike Easter with the wrench while both were on the ground. While Defendant was hitting Easter with the wrench, Defendant’s wife and Chinault started kicking and striking Easter as well. Defendant also began slamming Easter’s head into the concrete. All three kept attacking Easter while he lay on the ground unmoving for over a minute. Defendant, while slamming Easter’s head into the ground, dragged and pulled him over to a parked car. While Easter lay motionless in the road, Defendant continued to beat him. At this point, both Defendant’s wife and Chinault attempted to “get [Defendant] to stop.” But he did not. Eventually, Defendant’s wife pulled him off of Easter. Defendant, his wife, and Chinault then went back to the house, leaving Easter on the ground. Easter died as a result of his injuries.

Defendant was indicted for First-Degree Murder, Felony Assault with a Deadly Weapon with Racial Motivation, and Felony Communicating Threats with Racial Motivation. This case came on for trial in February 2023. In his defense, Defendant asserted self-defense and defense of others. Defendant appealed from judgments entered upon jury verdicts finding him guilty of Second-Degree Murder, Misdemeanor Assault, and Misdemeanor Communicating Threats.

Among other things, Defendant contended on appeal that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the Castle Doctrine. Specifically, Defendant argued the trial court should have instructed the jury his fear for his life was presumptively reasonable; an aggressor instruction clarifying that a person is “not the aggressor while defending their home”; and he was allowed to threaten Easter with lawful force.

The Castle Doctrine presumption does not apply where “[t]he person against whom the defensive force is used (i) has discontinued all efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the home, motor vehicle, or workplace, and (ii) has exited the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-51.2(c)(5) (2023). The question was whether Easter had “discontinued all efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the home[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-51.2(c)(5) (2023). We concluded that Defendant had and, consequently, that the Castle Doctrine does not apply.

Easter was not moving toward Defendant or Defendant’s home at the time Defendant used deadly force. Further, Defendant conceded that Easter “back[ed] away” at various points, consistent with Defendant’s wife’s and neighbor’s testimony. Chinault testified that as Easter backed against one of the cars, Defendant yelled “Where you going, boy? I’m going to kill you[.]”Based on this evidence, we concluded Easter had “discontinued all efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the home” and thus, the Castle Doctrine did not apply. Therefore, Defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction that his fear was presumptively reasonable.

Finally, Defendant contended the trial court plainly erred in failing to provide a jury instruction clarifying that a person is “not the aggressor while defending their home.” Because Defendant was not entitled to an instruction on the Castle Doctrine, we concluded he was therefore not entitled to this aggressor instruction.

No error.

State of North Carolina v. Jason John Carwile (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 011-313-24, 22 pp.) (Tobias Hampson, J.) Appealed from Lincoln County Superior Court (W. Todd Pomeroy, J.) Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Caden W. Hayes, for the State; Christopher J. Heaney for Defendant-Appellant. North Carolina Court of Appeals