State v. Coley, 263 N.C. App. 249

On 7 June 2016 Coley, using crutches/wheelchair after a broken leg, was repeatedly assaulted that evening by Derrick Garris inside Coley’s home and outside; Garris accused Coley of being a snitch.
After multiple physical assaults, Garris left and returned; Coley retrieved a gun from beside his wheelchair and fired one shot at Garris.
Grand jury indicted Coley 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; jury acquitted on charges requiring intent to kill but convicted of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury (lesser included) and possession by a felon.
At trial Coley requested jury instructions on self-defense and defense of habitation; the trial court denied those instructions and Coley preserved the objection.
The Court of Appeals majority reversed, holding competent evidence supported both self-defense and defense-of-habitation instructions and therefore ordered a new trial; a dissent argued Coley’s admission that he fired a “warning shot” and that Garris was a lawful occupant foreclosed those defenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Coley was entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense	Coley’s admission that he fired a “warning shot” shows he lacked intent to strike the victim and therefore was not entitled to self-defense instructions	Coley’s testimony — repeated assaults, fear, wheelchair/crutch disability, uncertainty whether Garris was armed, and that the shot was to repel further attack — supplied competent evidence of an objectively reasonable belief deadly force was necessary	Reversed: viewing Coley’s testimony in the light most favorable to him, competent evidence supported a full self-defense instruction (including stand-your-ground); trial court erred and reversal for new trial ordered
Whether Coley was entitled to a jury instruction on defense of habitation (home-defense presumption)	Statutory presumption rebutted because Coley testified he fired a warning shot (not force intended/likely to cause death/serious harm) and Garris had a right to be in the home	Coley argued Garris unlawfully and forcibly entered and had previously assaulted him inside the home; whether Garris was a lawful occupant was disputed and should have been resolved by a jury	Reversed: sufficient evidence supported giving the defense-of-habitation instruction; factual conflicts (occupancy/right to be in home) are for the jury, so instruction should have been given

State v. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626 (competent evidence of self-defense requires jury instruction)
State v. Moore, 363 N.C. 793 (view evidence in light most favorable to defendant when assessing entitlement to self-defense instruction)
State v. Williams, 342 N.C. 869 (firing warning shots into air not entitled to self-defense instruction)
State v. Richardson, 341 N.C. 585 (self-defense involves an admitted, intentional act)
State v. Cook, 370 N.C. 506 (defendant testimony denying intent to shoot precluded self-defense instruction)
State v. Bass, 819 S.E.2d 322 (defendant entitled to complete self-defense instruction including stand-your-ground)
State v. Irabor, 822 S.E.2d 421 (circumstances can support reasonable inference defendant believed attacker was armed)