self-defense instruction in North Carolina

2026App. at 202 , 742 S.E.2d at 278 ); see also State v. Juarez, 369 N.C. 351, 358 , 794 S.E.2d 293, 300 (2016) (“When there is no evidence that a defendant was the initial aggressor, it is reversible error for the trial court to instruct the jury on the aggressor doctrine of self-defense.” (citation omitted)).

2026“When there is no evidence that a defendant was the initial aggressor, it is reversible error for the trial court to instruct the jury on the aggressor doctrine of self-defense.” State v. Juarez, 369 N.C. 351, 358 (2016).

2017Further, in determining whether a defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction, the evidence must be viewed “in the light most favorable to the defendant,” State v. Bush, 307 N.C. 152, 159 , 297 S.E.2d 563, 568 (1982) (emphasis added), and the -3- STATE V.

2017Further, in determining whether a defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction, the evidence must be viewed “in the light most favorable to the defendant,” State v. Bush, 307 N.C. 152, 159 , 297 S.E.2d 563, 568 (1982) (emphasis added), and the -3- STATE V.

2026App. 816, 820 (2018). “[A] defendant entitled to any self-defense instruction is entitled to a complete self-defense instruction, which includes the relevant stand-your-ground provision.” Bass, 371 N.C. at 542 . “[T]he trial court must instruct the jury on a defendant’s right to stand his ground, as that instruction informs the determination of whether the defendant’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances, a critical component of self-defense.” Lee, 370 N.C. at 675 .

2024“Where there is evidence that defendant acted in self-defense, the court must charge on this aspect even though there is contradictory evidence by the State or discrepancies in defendant’s evidence.” State v. Dooley, 285 N.C. 158, 163 , 203 S.E.2d 815, 818 (1974) (citations omitted). “[A] defendant entitled to any self-defense instruction is entitled to a complete self-defense instruction, which includes the relevant stand-your-ground provision.” State v. Bass, 371 N.C. 535, 542 , 819 S.E.2d 322, 326 (2018).

2026In determining whether a self-defense instruction must be given, “the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant.” State v. Moore, 363 N.C. 793, 796 , 688 S.E.2d 447, 449 (2010) (citation omitted).

2026In determining whether a self-defense instruction must be given, “the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant.” State v. Moore, 363 N.C. 793, 796 , 688 S.E.2d 447, 449 (2010) (citation omitted).

2017LEXIS 454 (2017) (holding that a defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction when he testified that he did not have the intent to kill when he fired through a closed door at an unidentified person breaking into his bedroom) (quoting State v. Williams , 342 N.C. 869 , 872, 467 S.E.2d 392 , 394 (1996) ) (emphasis omitted).

2017LEXIS 454 (2017) (holding that a defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction when he testified that he did not have the intent to kill when he fired through a closed door at an unidentified person breaking into his bedroom) (quoting State v. Williams , 342 N.C. 869 , 872, 467 S.E.2d 392 , 394 (1996) ) (emphasis omitted).

2024MYERS Opinion of the Court A. Standard of Review A defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction when “competent evidence of self-defense is presented at trial.” State v. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626, 643 , 340 S.E.2d 84, 95 (1986) (emphasis omitted).

2024MYERS Opinion of the Court A. Standard of Review A defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction when “competent evidence of self-defense is presented at trial.” State v. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626, 643 , 340 S.E.2d 84, 95 (1986) (emphasis omitted).

2020App. 150, 153 , 802 S.E.2d 575, 577 (2017) (“[O]ur Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a defendant who fires a gun in the face of a perceived attack is not entitled to a self-defense instruction if he testifies that he did not intend to shoot the attacker when he fired the gun.” (citation and emphasis omitted)); State v. Hinnant, 238 N.C.

2020App. 150, 153 , 802 S.E.2d 575, 577 (2017) (“[O]ur Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a defendant who fires a gun in the face of a perceived attack is not entitled to a self-defense instruction if he testifies that he did not intend to shoot the attacker when he fired the gun.” (citation and emphasis omitted)); State v. Hinnant, 238 N.C.

2010In determining whether a defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction, “the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant” and, “if the defendant’s evidence, taken as true, is sufficient to support an instruction for self-defense, it must be given even though the State’s evidence is contradictory.” Id. (citing State v. Watkins, 283 N.C. 504, 509 , 196 S.E.2d 750, 754 (1973).

2010In determining whether a defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction, “the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant” and, “if the defendant’s evidence, taken as true, is sufficient to support an instruction for self-defense, it must be given even though the State’s evidence is contradictory.” Id. (citing State v. Watkins, 283 N.C. 504, 509 , 196 S.E.2d 750, 754 (1973).

2025“In determining whether a self-defense instruction should discuss the aggressor doctrine, the relevant issue is simply whether the record contains evidence from which the jury could infer that the defendant was acting as an aggressor at the time that he or she allegedly acted in self-defense.” Mumma, 372 N.C. at 239 n.2, - 19 - STATE V.

2025“In determining whether a self-defense instruction should discuss the aggressor doctrine, the relevant issue is simply whether the record contains evidence from which the jury could infer that the defendant was acting as an aggressor at the time that he or she allegedly acted in self-defense.” State v. Mumma, 372 N.C. 226 , 239 n.2, 827 S.E.2d 288, 297 (2019) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2011First, the Court in Clay, in addressing the self-defense instruction to be given in an assault with a deadly weapon case, stated the following: “In cases involving assault with a deadly weapon, trial judges should, in the charge, instruct that the assault would be excused as being in self-defense only if the circumstances at the time the defendant acted were such as would create in the mind of a person of ordinary firmness a reasonable belief that such action was necessary to protect himself from death or great bodily harm.” 4 Id., 297 N.C. at 565-66 , 256 S.E.2d at 183 .

2011First, the Court in Clay, in addressing the self-defense instruction to be given in an assault with a deadly weapon case, stated the following: “In cases involving assault with a deadly weapon, trial judges should, in the charge, instruct that the assault would be excused as being in self-defense only if the circumstances at the time the defendant acted were such as would create in the mind of a person of ordinary firmness a reasonable belief that such action was necessary to protect himself from death or great bodily harm.” 4 Id., 297 N.C. at 565-66 , 256 S.E.2d at 183 .

2024“Where there is evidence that defendant acted in self-defense, the court must charge on this aspect even though there is contradictory evidence by the State or discrepancies in defendant’s evidence.” State v. Dooley, 285 N.C. 158, 163 , 203 S.E.2d 815, 818 (1974) (citations omitted). “[A] defendant entitled to any self-defense instruction is entitled to a complete self-defense instruction, which includes the relevant stand-your-ground provision.” State v. Bass, 371 N.C. 535, 542 , 819 S.E.2d 322, 326 (2018).

2024“Where there is evidence that defendant acted in self-defense, the court must charge on this aspect even though there is contradictory evidence by the State or discrepancies in defendant’s evidence.” State v. Dooley, 285 N.C. 158, 163 , 203 S.E.2d 815, 818 (1974) (citations omitted). “[A] defendant entitled to any self-defense instruction is entitled to a complete self-defense instruction, which includes the relevant stand-your-ground provision.” State v. Bass, 371 N.C. 535, 542 , 819 S.E.2d 322, 326 (2018).

2022App. 291, 297 , 688 S.E.2d 101, 105 (2010). ¶ 21 “When there is no evidence that a defendant was the initial aggressor, it is reversible error for the trial court to instruct the jury on the aggressor doctrine of self-defense.” Juarez, 369 N.C. at 358 , 794 S.E.2d at 300 .

2022App. 291, 297 , 688 S.E.2d 101, 105 (2010). ¶ 21 “When there is no evidence that a defendant was the initial aggressor, it is reversible error for the trial court to instruct the jury on the aggressor doctrine of self-defense.” Juarez, 369 N.C. at 358 , 794 S.E.2d at 300 .

2018State v. Cannon , 341 N.C. 79 , 82, 459 S.E.2d 238 , 241 (1995) (holding that a jury could find that the defendant was the aggressor where the defendant shot the unarmed victim, even though the victim initiated the fight and threatened to kill defendant); State v. Freeman , 275 N.C. 662 , 669, 170 S.E.2d 461 , 466 (1969) (holding that while the victim started the altercation, the "defendant had become and remained the aggressor" when he pursued the fleeing victim); State v. Church , 229 N.C. 718 , 722, 51 S.E.2d 345 , 348 (1949) (holding that while the victim started the fight, the defendant p

2018State v. Cannon , 341 N.C. 79 , 82, 459 S.E.2d 238 , 241 (1995) (holding that a jury could find that the defendant was the aggressor where the defendant shot the unarmed victim, even though the victim initiated the fight and threatened to kill defendant); State v. Freeman , 275 N.C. 662 , 669, 170 S.E.2d 461 , 466 (1969) (holding that while the victim started the altercation, the "defendant had become and remained the aggressor" when he pursued the fleeing victim); State v. Church , 229 N.C. 718 , 722, 51 S.E.2d 345 , 348 (1949) (holding that while the victim started the fight, the defendant p

2018See Allred , 129 N.C.

2018State v. Allred , 129 N.C.

2022App. at 74 , and citing State v. Roseboro, 344 N.C. 364, 373 (1996).

2022App. at 74 , and citing State v. Roseboro, 344 N.C. 364, 373 (1996).

2020A trial court must give the substance of a requested jury instruction if it is “correct in itself and supported by the evidence . . . .” State v. Locklear, 363 N.C. 438, 464 , 681 S.E.2d 293, 312 (2009) (citing State v. Harvell, 334 N.C. 356, 364 , 432 S.E.2d 125, 129 (1993)); see also, e.g., State v. Montague, 298 N.C. 752, 755 , 259 S.E.2d 899, 902 (1979) (holding that if, there is sufficient evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant to support a self-defense instruction, “the instruction must be given even though the State’s evidence is contradictory.”).

2020A trial court must give the substance of a requested jury instruction if it is “correct in itself and supported by the evidence . . . .” State v. Locklear, 363 N.C. 438, 464 , 681 S.E.2d 293, 312 (2009) (citing State v. Harvell, 334 N.C. 356, 364 , 432 S.E.2d 125, 129 (1993)); see also, e.g., State v. Montague, 298 N.C. 752, 755 , 259 S.E.2d 899, 902 (1979) (holding that if, there is sufficient evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant to support a self-defense instruction, “the instruction must be given even though the State’s evidence is contradictory.”).

2020A trial court must give the substance of a requested jury instruction if it is “correct in itself and supported by the evidence . . . .” State v. Locklear, 363 N.C. 438, 464 , 681 S.E.2d 293, 312 (2009) (citing State v. Harvell, 334 N.C. 356, 364 , 432 S.E.2d 125, 129 (1993)); see also, e.g., State v. Montague, 298 N.C. 752, 755 , 259 S.E.2d 899, 902 (1979) (holding that if, there is sufficient evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant to support a self-defense instruction, “the instruction must be given even though the State’s evidence is contradictory.”).

2020A trial court must give the substance of a requested jury instruction if it is “correct in itself and supported by the evidence . . . .” State v. Locklear, 363 N.C. 438, 464 , 681 S.E.2d 293, 312 (2009) (citing State v. Harvell, 334 N.C. 356, 364 , 432 S.E.2d 125, 129 (1993)); see also, e.g., State v. Montague, 298 N.C. 752, 755 , 259 S.E.2d 899, 902 (1979) (holding that if, there is sufficient evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant to support a self-defense instruction, “the instruction must be given even though the State’s evidence is contradictory.”).

2020A trial court must give the substance of a requested jury instruction if it is “correct in itself and supported by the evidence . . . .” State v. Locklear, 363 N.C. 438, 464 , 681 S.E.2d 293, 312 (2009) (citing State v. Harvell, 334 N.C. 356, 364 , 432 S.E.2d 125, 129 (1993)); see also, e.g., State v. Montague, 298 N.C. 752, 755 , 259 S.E.2d 899, 902 (1979) (holding that if, there is sufficient evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant to support a self-defense instruction, “the instruction must be given even though the State’s evidence is contradictory.”).

2020A trial court must give the substance of a requested jury instruction if it is “correct in itself and supported by the evidence . . . .” State v. Locklear, 363 N.C. 438, 464 , 681 S.E.2d 293, 312 (2009) (citing State v. Harvell, 334 N.C. 356, 364 , 432 S.E.2d 125, 129 (1993)); see also, e.g., State v. Montague, 298 N.C. 752, 755 , 259 S.E.2d 899, 902 (1979) (holding that if, there is sufficient evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant to support a self-defense instruction, “the instruction must be given even though the State’s evidence is contradictory.”).

2014“In determining whether the self-defense instruction should have been given, the facts are to be interpreted in the -9- light most favorable to the defendant.” State v. Moore, 111 N.C.

2003“In determining whether the self-defense instruction should have been given, ‘the facts are to be interpreted in the light most favorable to [the] defendant.’ ” State v. Moore, 111 N.C.

2018State v. Cannon , 341 N.C. 79 , 82, 459 S.E.2d 238 , 241 (1995) (holding that a jury could find that the defendant was the aggressor where the defendant shot the unarmed victim, even though the victim initiated the fight and threatened to kill defendant); State v. Freeman , 275 N.C. 662 , 669, 170 S.E.2d 461 , 466 (1969) (holding that while the victim started the altercation, the "defendant had become and remained the aggressor" when he pursued the fleeing victim); State v. Church , 229 N.C. 718 , 722, 51 S.E.2d 345 , 348 (1949) (holding that while the victim started the fight, the defendant p

2018State v. Cannon , 341 N.C. 79 , 82, 459 S.E.2d 238 , 241 (1995) (holding that a jury could find that the defendant was the aggressor where the defendant shot the unarmed victim, even though the victim initiated the fight and threatened to kill defendant); State v. Freeman , 275 N.C. 662 , 669, 170 S.E.2d 461 , 466 (1969) (holding that while the victim started the altercation, the "defendant had become and remained the aggressor" when he pursued the fleeing victim); State v. Church , 229 N.C. 718 , 722, 51 S.E.2d 345 , 348 (1949) (holding that while the victim started the fight, the defendant p

2026App. 816, 820 (2018). “[A] defendant entitled to any self-defense instruction is entitled to a complete self-defense instruction, which includes the relevant stand-your-ground provision.” Bass, 371 N.C. at 542 . “[T]he trial court must instruct the jury on a defendant’s right to stand his ground, as that instruction informs the determination of whether the defendant’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances, a critical component of self-defense.” Lee, 370 N.C. at 675 .

2019Moreover, "it is clear that a defendant entitled to any self-defense instruction is entitled to a complete self-defense instruction, which includes the relevant stand-your-ground provision." Bass , --- N.C. at ----, 819 S.E.2d at 326 (citing Lee , 370 N.C. at 674 -75 , 811 S.E.2d at 566 ).

2020We conclude that it is not necessary to change the self-defense instruction to read necessary ‘to shoot or use deadly force’ in order to properly instruct a jury on the elements of self-defense.1 Id. at 592 , 461 S.E.2d at 729 .

2020We conclude that it is not necessary to change the self-defense instruction to read necessary ‘to shoot or use deadly force’ in order to properly instruct a jury on the elements of self-defense.1 Id. at 592 , 461 S.E.2d at 729 .

2019The lower appellate court cited: (1) our decision in State v. Blankenship , 320 N.C. 152 , 155, 357 S.E.2d 357 , 359 (1987), for the principle that "a defendant cannot benefit from a self-defense instruction where he claims that the killing was accidental", Harvey , --- N.C.

2019The lower appellate court cited: (1) our decision in State v. Blankenship , 320 N.C. 152 , 155, 357 S.E.2d 357 , 359 (1987), for the principle that "a defendant cannot benefit from a self-defense instruction where he claims that the killing was accidental", Harvey , --- N.C.