Criminal Practice – Aggressor Doctrine – Jury Instruction

The trial court did not err in instructing the jury on the aggressor doctrine because sufficient evidence supported an inference that Defendant acted as the aggressor.

We affirmed Defendant’s conviction for second-degree murder.

An action arose from the 2022 shooting death of Ethan Troutman at Defendant’s home in Marion, North Carolina. Earlier that evening, Troutman had argued by phone with Dante Davidson over money and a Netflix password. During escalating speakerphone exchanges, Defendant told Troutman to come to his residence to collect the money and provided the address. Troutman drove there with two friends. Upon arrival, Davidson met Troutman outside. Although their initial exchange was calm, Troutman reached for a chain Davidson was wearing, and Davidson pushed his hand away. Troutman then pulled out a metal retractable baton. Davidson backed into the yard and shouted that Troutman had a weapon.

Within seconds, Defendant emerged onto the porch with a firearm. As Troutman turned and ran, Defendant fired a single shot, striking Troutman in the back. Troutman fled in his friend’s vehicle but later died from the gunshot wound. After the shooting, several individuals at the house initially lied to police, claiming Troutman had entered the residence.

At trial, Defendant asserted self-defense. Over his objection, the court instructed the jury on the aggressor doctrine, which limits the availability of self-defense to a person who initially provokes or aggressively pursues a confrontation. The jury convicted Defendant of second-degree murder, and he was sentenced to 254 to 317 months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Defendant argued that the aggressor instruction was improper because no evidence showed he was the aggressor. A trial court must give the instruction if the record contains evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that the defendant acted as an aggressor. In making that determination, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State.

North Carolina law does not require a defendant to have initiated the fight to qualify as an aggressor; continuing or escalating a confrontation may suffice. Here, evidence showed that Defendant invited Troutman to his home during a heated dispute, that witnesses testified Troutman never swung the baton at Davidson, and that Defendant shot Troutman in the back. supporting an inference that Troutman was attempting to retreat. A victim being shot in the back can indicate he was trying to leave the altercation.

Although testimony conflicted, assessing credibility was the jury’s role. Because the record contained evidence supporting a reasonable inference that Defendant acted as the aggressor, the trial court properly instructed the jury.

No error.

State of North Carolina v. Villarreal (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-035-26, 6 pp.) (Allegra Collins, J.) Appealed from McDowell County Superior Court (Reggie E. McKnight, J.) Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Special Deputy Attorney General Heidi M. Williams, for the State-Appellee. The Sweet Law Firm, PLLC, by Kaelyn N. Sweet, for Defendant-Appellant. North Carolina Court of Appeals