State v. Holshouser, 833 S.E.2d 193

On Sept. 28, 2015, law enforcement responded to a domestic-dispute call reporting a subject armed with a shotgun at Defendant Christopher Holshouser’s home; officers later located the shotgun in woods behind the house and arrested Holshouser after learning he was a convicted felon.
Holshouser was indicted for Possession of a Firearm by a Felon (PFF) and later tried in Iredell County Superior Court; the jury found him guilty and he was sentenced as an habitual felon to 120–156 months.
At trial Holshouser testified repeatedly that he never possessed the shotgun at issue (e.g., “that gun, no”), denying the underlying act charged.
The trial court read the standard PFF jury instruction; defense counsel did not request a special jury instruction on the affirmative defense of justification/self‑defense, and no contemporaneous objection was made.
On appeal Holshouser argued (1) the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on the Deleveaux justification test for PFF, and (2) defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request that instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Holshouser)	Held
Whether trial court plain‑erred by not instructing jury on affirmative defense of justification in PFF case	No plain error; justification instruction not required where defendant denies committing the offense	Trial court should have instructed jury that justification/self‑defense could excuse possession under Deleveaux criteria	No error — instruction not required because defendant testified he did not possess the firearm
Whether defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to request a justification instruction	Counsel’s omission was not prejudicial because instruction was unavailable given defendant’s testimony	Counsel’s failure deprived defendant of potential defense and thus was ineffective	No IAC — no prejudice shown; instruction would have been improper given the record

State v. Floyd, 369 N.C. 329 (North Carolina Supreme Court) (defines elements of PFF)
United States v. Deleveaux, 205 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2000) (articulates four‑part justification test applied in PFF context)
State v. Mercer, 818 S.E.2d 375 (N.C. Ct. App.) (applied Deleveaux and ordered justification instruction where defendant presented evidence he seized gun under imminent threat)
State v. Williams, 342 N.C. 869 (North Carolina Supreme Court) (a defendant who testifies he did not commit the act is not entitled to a self‑defense instruction)
State v. Scaturro, 802 S.E.2d 500 (N.C. Ct. App.) (trial court must instruct on essential features; contrasted here because justification is not an element of PFF)
State v. Edwards, 239 N.C. App. 391 (N.C. Ct. App.) (quoting and applying Deleveaux factors in North Carolina decisions)