State v. Coley, 375 N.C. 156

Background

Defendant John Thomas Coley, who used crutches and a wheelchair after a broken leg, was repeatedly assaulted in June 2016 by Derrick Garris who followed Coley into Coley’s home and struck him on multiple occasions.
After a third forcible entry by Garris, Coley retrieved a gun from beside his wheelchair and shot Garris; Garris was injured.
Coley was indicted for attempted first-degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, and possession of a firearm by a felon.
At trial Coley sought jury instructions on self-defense (including the stand-your-ground provision) and the defense of habitation; the trial court refused and gave no self-defense instruction.
The jury acquitted Coley of intent-to-kill offenses but convicted him of the lesser included assault inflicting serious injury and felon-in-possession; Coley appealed based on the omitted instructions.
The Court of Appeals (majority) held the evidence, viewed in Coley’s favor, required the self-defense and habitation instructions and granted a new trial; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Coley's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing a self-defense instruction	No instruction required because Coley’s conduct (warning shot/firing) exceeded reasonable defensive force	Competent evidence showed Coley reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm	Yes. Evidence viewed in Coley’s favor sufficed to require a complete self-defense instruction, including stand-your-ground
Whether the jury should have been instructed on the stand-your-ground provision (no duty to retreat)	Not applicable because Coley’s use of force was unreasonable	Coley was in his home and had no duty to retreat under N.C.G.S. § 14-51.3 and § 14-51.2	Yes. Stand-your-ground is part of any complete self-defense instruction and was supported by the evidence
Whether the defense-of-habitation instruction was required	The presumption of reasonable fear is rebutted by Coley’s testimony about a warning shot and by Garris’s status as an occasional lawful occupant	Coley was a lawful occupant assaulted during unlawful forcible entries and was entitled to the habitation presumption	Yes. Evidence supported instruction under § 14-51.2(b); factual disputes (occupancy, intent) are for the jury
Whether omission of the instructions was prejudicial (necessitating a new trial)	Any error was harmless because jury convicted on lesser assault and possession	Omission was prejudicial because jury acquitted on intent-to-kill charges and could have reached a different result if properly instructed	Yes. There is a reasonable possibility the outcome would differ; convictions vacated and new trial ordered

Key Cases Cited

State v. Watson, 367 N.C. 721 (N.C. 2014) (importance of correct jury charge)
State v. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626 (N.C. 1986) (defendant entitled to self-defense instruction when competent evidence exists)
State v. Bass, 371 N.C. 535 (N.C. 2018) (complete self-defense instruction includes stand-your-ground provision)
State v. Dooley, 285 N.C. 158 (N.C. 1974) (court must charge self-defense despite contradictory evidence)
State v. Deck, 285 N.C. 209 (N.C. 1974) (self-defense is substantial feature when supported by evidence)
State v. Gladden, 279 N.C. 566 (N.C. 1971) (reasonableness of belief for deadly force is for the jury)
State v. Ayers, 261 N.C. App. 220 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018) (discusses effect of a warning shot on self-defense analysis)
State v. Cook, 254 N.C. App. 150 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017) (warning shot can rebut habitation presumption)
State v. Lee, 370 N.C. 671 (N.C. 2018) (no duty to retreat under statutory provisions)