State v. Ayers, 261 N.C. App. 220

Defendant Charles Ward Ayers was indicted for discharging a firearm into an occupied and operating vehicle and misdemeanor injury to personal property after he shot a pickup’s rear tire while both vehicles were on a dark, wet two‑lane public highway.
Ayers testified the pickup (driven by Timothy Parker) persistently tailgated, paced, and twice attempted to pass him; at one point Parker’s truck came so close Defendant’s passenger‑side tires went into mud and he feared losing control.
Ayers fired one shot into the truck’s rear tire to disable the vehicle; Parker stopped and later identified Ayers’ plate. Ayers surrendered his gun to officers and asserted self‑defense at trial.
At the charge conference Ayers requested a jury instruction that he had no duty to retreat where he had a lawful right to be (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14‑51.3(a)); the trial court declined and gave a standard self‑defense instruction without the no‑duty‑to‑retreat language.
The jury convicted Ayers on both counts; he appealed arguing (1) the court erred by omitting the no‑duty‑to‑retreat language, (2) plain error in failing to instruct on right to use non‑deadly force, and (3) the court should have struck certain prosecutor closing remarks sua sponte. The Court of Appeals vacated the convictions and ordered a new trial based on the missing no‑duty‑to‑retreat instruction.

Issue	State's Argument	Ayers' Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing a requested no‑duty‑to‑retreat (stand‑your‑ground) instruction under § 14‑51.3(a)	No error: standard self‑defense instruction was sufficient	Ayers was entitled to jury instruction that he had no duty to retreat where he lawfully was (he was in his car on a public highway)	Reversed and remanded for new trial: court erred by omitting no‑duty‑to‑retreat language; reasonable possibility of different outcome
Whether the court committed plain error by failing to instruct on right to use non‑deadly force in self‑defense	Any non‑deadly‑force instruction was unnecessary or incomplete given the instructions given	Ayers argued jury should have been instructed on right to use non‑deadly force as part of self‑defense scheme	Not reached on merits: decision to remand on stand‑your‑ground ground rendered this issue moot
Whether trial court should have struck prosecutor’s allegedly improper closing statements sua sponte	Prosecutor’s argument was proper closing advocacy	Ayers argued some remarks invited the jury to require retreat and were prejudicial	Not reached on merits: remand on instructional error made this claim moot

State v. Shaw, 322 N.C. 797 (trial court must instruct jury on all substantial features raised by the evidence)
State v. Allred, 129 N.C. App. 232 (self‑defense instruction required when evidence permits reasonable inference of self‑defense)
State v. Moore, 363 N.C. 793 (view evidence in light most favorable to defendant when deciding instruction question)
State v. Richardson, 341 N.C. 585 (self‑defense instruction available in general‑intent homicide cases; no requirement of specific intent to kill)
State v. Lee, 370 N.C. 671 (reaffirming availability of self‑defense instruction for second‑degree murder; stand‑your‑ground analysis)
State v. Blankenship, 320 N.C. 152 (self‑defense instruction not warranted where defendant claims accidental discharge)
State v. Evans, 19 N.C. App. 731 (defendant charged with firing into occupied vehicle entitled to self‑defense instruction on similar facts)
State v. Benge, 272 N.C. 261 (question of excessive force is for the jury)
State v. Jackson, 74 N.C. App. 92 (vehicle may be a deadly weapon if used dangerously or recklessly)
State v. Holland, 193 N.C. 713 (recognition of right of self‑defense as a fundamental natural right)