State v. VarnerÂ, 252 N.C. App. 226

Defendant (father) struck his 10‑year‑old son repeatedly with a paddle after the child refused to eat pizza; the child had bruising and temporary pain/limp for several days.
Defendant was indicted for felony child abuse, acquitted of the felony, but convicted of the lesser included misdemeanor child abuse and appealed.
At charge conference the trial judge proposed instructing the jury that a parent may administer "moderate punishment" and originally defined it as punishment not causing "lasting" injury; the judge struck that definition over Defendant’s objection after the State objected.
The trial court instead left “moderate punishment” undefined, telling the jury to apply their "reason and common sense."
Defendant argued on appeal that omitting the "lasting injury" clarification allowed a conviction even where the parent acted honestly (no malice) and the injury was non‑lasting; the Court of Appeals agreed and reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing to define “moderate punishment” as punishment that does not cause lasting (permanent) injury	The term “moderate” should not be limited to non‑lasting injury; leave to juror judgment	The jury must be told that lawful parental corporal punishment is allowed unless it causes lasting injury or is administered with malice; omission allows conviction for honest but excessive discipline	Reversed: error to omit the limiting instruction; jury could otherwise convict despite honest, non‑lasting punishment; remand for new trial

State v. Pendergrass, 19 N.C. 365 (1837) (recognizes parents’ right to administer "moderate" corporal punishment and limits criminal liability to punishment producing lasting injury or inflicted with malice)
State v. Alford, 68 N.C. 322 (1873) (applies Pendergrass principles to a stepfather acting in loco parentis)
State v. Thorton, 136 N.C. 610 (1904) (approves jury instruction that punishment that is excessive but neither malicious nor permanently injurious should not result in conviction)
State v. Osorio, 196 N.C. App. 458 (2009) (explains de novo review of jury instructions on appeal)
State v. Williams, 362 N.C. 628 (2008) (addresses standards for reviewing trial court matters, including jury charge issues)