State v. Lee, 370 N.C. 671

Background

On Dec. 31, 2012, after an altercation between Quinton Epps and Jamieal Walker, Epps shot Walker; Walker later died. Defendant (Walker's cousin) then shot and killed Epps seconds later. Defendant claimed he shot Epps in self-defense and to defend Walker.
Defendant was indicted for first-degree murder; at trial he presented evidence supporting self-defense and defense-of-another; the State argued he should have retreated.
The parties agreed at the charge conference the court would give N.C.P.I.-Crim. 206.10 (first-degree murder and self-defense), which includes the “no duty to retreat” language; the court promised that instruction.
At charging, the trial court omitted the “no duty to retreat” / stand-your-ground language (and did not give N.C.P.I.-Crim. 308.10) without notifying the parties; defense counsel made no contemporaneous objection.
The jury convicted defendant of second-degree murder after deliberations; defendant appealed, arguing preserved error from deviation from the agreed pattern instruction and prejudicial omission of the stand-your-ground charge.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether omission of the stand-your-ground language from an agreed-upon pattern instruction preserved error	Court’s deviation was not objected to at trial so only plain error review applies	Omission of an agreed-upon pattern instruction is preserved for appeal without further objection	Preserved error: deviation from promised pattern instruction preserves review under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a) (per Ross)
Whether the trial court’s omission of the stand-your-ground instruction was legally erroneous and prejudicial	Jury could consider failure to retreat as evidence of unreasonableness; omission not prejudicial enough to require reversal	Omission was an inaccurate and misleading statement of law that likely affected the verdict	Reversal: reasonable possibility of a different result had the instruction been given; new trial required
Scope of “any place he or she has the lawful right to be” in statute	Should be limited to home, vehicle, workplace (as Court of Appeals held)	Includes public places where a person has a lawful right to be	Majority: phrase is not limited to home/vehicle/workplace; includes any place the public generally has a right to be
Whether trial court should also have instructed on defense of another	(State) Omission not preserved; evidence did not require instruction	Defendant argued instruction on defense of another was warranted given facts	Concurrence: omission of defense-of-another instruction was error; not preserved so plain-error only, but new trial will allow correct instruction

Key Cases Cited

State v. Walston, 367 N.C. 721 (2014) (importance of the jury charge in criminal trials)
State v. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626 (1986) (competent evidence of self-defense requires instruction)
State v. Ross, 322 N.C. 261 (1988) (deviation from promised pattern instruction is preserved without further objection)
State v. Ramos, 363 N.C. 352 (2009) (prejudice standard: reasonable possibility of a different result)
State v. Smith, 360 N.C. 341 (2006) (jury instructions must apply law to evidence to assist jury in reaching correct verdict)
State v. Blevins, 138 N.C. 668 (1905) (right to stand ground relevant to jury’s necessity determination)
State v. Guss, 254 N.C. 349 (1961) (defendant is entitled to have jury consider defendant’s explanation)
State v. Holloman, 369 N.C. 615 (2017) (limits on justification when initial aggressor provokes with deadly force)
State v. Perry, 338 N.C. 457 (1994) (defense of another judged by defender’s reasonable belief as viewed at time)