State v. Holloman, 369 N.C. 615

Early morning Jan. 1, 2014: Holloman shot Darryl Bobbitt multiple times; Bobbitt suffered serious injuries. Witnesses differed on who fired first.
Holloman testified Bobbitt fired first after Holloman approached with a gun at his side to pick up Mariah Mann; State witnesses said Holloman fired first after exiting his car with a gun.
Indicted for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and inflicting serious injury; jury convicted Holloman of the lesser included offense (assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury) and sentenced him to probation with a short active term.
At trial Holloman requested jury instructions on self-defense and on regaining the right to defend oneself after provoking an attack under N.C.G.S. § 14-51.4(2)(a); the trial court gave a modified pattern self-defense charge that stated an aggressor who displays a firearm intending deadly force cannot claim self-defense.
Court of Appeals reversed, holding the instructions misstated the law by suggesting an aggressor can never regain the right to defend himself, and remanded for a new trial.
Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the trial court’s self-defense instructions were erroneous in light of § 14-51.4(2)(a).

Issue	State's Argument	Holloman's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court misinstructed the jury by saying an aggressor using deadly force cannot regain the right to self-defense and by not instructing on regaining under § 14-51.4(2)(a).	Instruction was correct: an aggressor who acts with murderous intent (intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm) cannot claim self-defense; legislature did not intend to let murderous aggressors use § 14-51.4 to legitimize deadly contests.	Trial court failed to allow jury to consider that Holloman might have regained the right to defend himself under § 14-51.4(2)(a); instruction misstated law and prejudiced Holloman because jury could have acquitted if properly instructed.	Court reversed Court of Appeals: instruction not erroneous. § 14-51.4(2)(a) permits a provoking aggressor to regain defensive rights only when initial provocation did not involve deadly force; no evidence Holloman provoked using non-deadly force, so trial court was correct not to give the requested instruction.

State v. Anderson, 230 N.C. 54 (court applies homicide self-defense principles to assaults)
State v. Mize, 316 N.C. 48 (an aggressor with intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm may not claim self-defense)
State v. Wetmore, 298 N.C. 743 (historical rule: aggressor who commences deadly quarrel cannot rely on self-defense)
State v. Roache, 358 N.C. 243 (defendant entitled to requested instruction if supported by evidence; court may give substance rather than exact wording)
State v. Smith, 360 N.C. 341 (trial judge must instruct jury on law arising from the evidence to aid correct verdict)