State v. Mercer, 818 S.E.2d 375

Defendant Sydney Mercer (a convicted felon) was tried on charges of possession of a firearm by a felon and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill; jury acquitted him of the assault charges but convicted him of the felon-in-possession charge.
Incident occurred 30 March 2016 after a neighborhood altercation: a crowd of Mingos came to Mercer’s home intending to fight; multiple people displayed firearms and shots were fired.
Mercer testified he took a gun from his cousin Wardell only after hearing guns being cocked and seeing multiple people with guns, pointed the gun to make the crowd back up, fired once (the gun jammed), tossed the gun back to Wardell, and then ran home.
The State’s witnesses described multiple people firing, and identified Mercer as armed and as firing shots during the altercation.
At the charge conference Mercer timely requested a jury instruction on justification as a defense to the felon-in-possession charge; the trial court refused. During deliberations the jury asked whether a convicted felon could claim justification; the court re-read reasonable doubt and possession instructions but did not give a justification instruction.
On appeal Mercer argued the court erred by refusing the justification instruction; the Court of Appeals concluded Mercer was entitled to the instruction and ordered a new trial.

Issue	State's Argument	Mercer's Argument	Held
Whether defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on justification as a defense to possession of a firearm by a felon	The State argued Mercer had reasonable legal alternatives (e.g., leave the scene or call 911) and therefore could not satisfy the Deleveaux test’s requirement that no reasonable legal alternative existed	Mercer argued he grabbed the gun only after hearing guns being cocked and seeing an imminent threat, he did not negligently place himself in danger, had no reasonable legal alternative at that moment, and his possession was causally connected to avoiding harm	The court held Mercer presented substantial evidence on each Deleveaux element and was entitled to a justification instruction; failure to give it was prejudicial and requires a new trial

United States v. Deleveaux, 205 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2000) (articulating four-element justification test for felon-in-possession defense)
State v. Monroe, 233 N.C. App. 563 (N.C. Ct. App.) (discussing Deleveaux framework and reviewing whether imminent threat existed when defendant obtained firearm)
State v. Floyd, 369 N.C. 329 (N.C.) (elements of felon-in-possession offense)
State v. Craig, 167 N.C. App. 793 (N.C. Ct. App.) (quoting and applying Deleveaux test)
State v. Rose, 323 N.C. 455 (N.C.) (prejudice from failure to give requested jury instruction)