Case Title: State v. Coley

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2A19

State: north-carolina

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Date: 2020-08-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
No. 2A19  
Filed 14 August 2020 
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 
v. 
JOHN THOMAS COLEY 
 
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the unpublished decision of a 
divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 263 N.C. App. 249, 822 S.E.2d 762 (2018), 
finding error in and reversing judgments entered on 25 September 2017 by Judge 
Richard S. Gottlieb in Superior Court, Guilford County, and ordering a new trial. 
Heard in the Supreme Court on 5 November 2019. 
 
Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Michael T. Henry, Assistant Attorney 
General, for the State-appellant. 
 
Kimberly P. Hoppin for defendant-appellee. 
 
MORGAN, Justice.  
 
The sole issue before this Court is whether the trial court erred by declining to 
deliver defendant’s requested jury instructions on self-defense and the defense of 
habitation. We hold that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to 
defendant, was sufficient to require the trial court to give defendant’s requested 
instructions to the jury. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals 
reversing defendant’s convictions, vacating the trial court’s judgments, and granting 
defendant a new trial.  
STATE V. COLEY 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-2- 
Factual and Procedural Background 
 
The evidence presented at trial tended to show that Derrick Garris “stayed at 
[defendant’s] house off and on” during the early months of 2016. Although the 
relationship between Garris and defendant was initially cordial, Garris eventually 
suspected that defendant was working with law enforcement in connection with the 
detection of criminal activity. On the evening of 7 June 2016, defendant was sitting 
outside of a neighbor’s house with a group of friends when Garris approached 
defendant and punched him, causing defendant to fall out of his chair. At the time, 
defendant was recovering from a broken leg and his mobility required the use of 
crutches and a wheelchair. After Garris hit defendant, defendant got up and began 
walking home. Garris followed defendant. 
When defendant arrived at his residence, Garris grabbed defendant and threw 
him against the door of the home. After defendant opened the door, Garris seized 
defendant again and hurled him over two chairs. Defendant bounced off of the chairs 
and landed on the floor. Garris then snatched up defendant and flung him against a 
recliner. During this altercation, Garris repeatedly accused defendant of “snitch[ing] 
on [his] brothers” for trafficking in guns. Defendant denied making such statements 
to law enforcement officers. At trial, when asked on direct examination about “what 
happens to snitches,” defendant testified that “it could go from being killed, beaten 
with bats. . . . there’s no limit to what could happen to you.” Garris eventually left 
defendant’s residence but quickly returned, accompanied by a friend, Djimon Lucas. 
STATE V. COLEY 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-3- 
Defendant testified at trial that at this point, he was “[s]cared, fearful” and “didn’t 
know what was going on at the time.” As defendant attempted to explain the earlier 
events to Lucas, Garris struck defendant a couple more times and then departed the 
house again.  
By the time defendant had climbed from the floor into his wheelchair, he saw 
Garris once more entering defendant’s house. Defendant testified at trial that he 
“never knew what he left to go get, as if he might have . . . went and got another 
weapon.” Defendant stated that he feared that “[Garris] was going to jump on [him] 
again or possibly even kill [him].” As Garris burst into defendant’s home for a third 
time, defendant reached down beside his wheelchair, retrieved a gun, and shot 
Garris, injuring him. Defendant was ultimately indicted for the offenses of attempted 
first-degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious 
injury, and possession of a firearm by a felon.  
Defendant had given notice at trial of his intent to rely upon a theory of self-
defense. During the jury charge conference conducted after the presentation of all of 
the evidence, defendant requested jury instructions on self-defense and the defense 
of habitation. The trial court, however, declined to deliver defendant’s requested 
instructions to the jury and instead directed the jury to consider only whether 
defendant was guilty of attempted first-degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon 
with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, and possession of a firearm by a felon. No 
STATE V. COLEY 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-4- 
form of a self-defense instruction was presented to the jury by the trial court. 
Defendant objected and preserved the jury instruction issue for appeal.  
Upon the conclusion of deliberations, the members of the jury found defendant 
not guilty of the offenses of attempted first-degree murder and assault with a deadly 
weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. The jury instead found defendant 
guilty of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury—a lesser-included 
offense of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury—
and possession of a firearm by a felon. Following the jury’s verdicts, the trial court 
sentenced defendant to a term of imprisonment of twenty-six to forty-four months for 
the assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury offense, together with a 
consecutive term of thirteen to twenty-five months of incarceration for the offense of 
possession of a firearm by a felon. Defendant appealed his convictions to the Court of 
Appeals based upon the trial court’s failure to give his requested self-defense and 
defense-of-habitation instructions to the jury. 
On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred by (1) denying his 
request to instruct the jury on self-defense, (2) failing to instruct the jury on the 
“stand-your-ground” provision, and (3) denying his request to instruct the jury on the 
defense of habitation. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals agreed. In reaching its 
decision, the Court of Appeals majority determined that “[d]efendant had an 
objectively reasonable belief [that] he needed to use deadly force to repel another 
physical attack to his person” and prevent death or great bodily harm to his person. 
STATE V. COLEY 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-5- 
State v. Coley, 263 N.C. App. 249, 256, 822 S.E.2d 762, 767 (2018). The Court of 
Appeals majority further concluded that in the event that defendant’s requested jury 
instructions had been properly delivered to the jury, there was a reasonable 
possibility that the jury would have reached a different result. Id. at 258, 822 S.E.2d 
at 768. The majority therefore held that the trial court committed error by failing to 
give instructions to the jury, as requested by defendant, on the law of self-defense 
with the stand-your-ground provision and the law of the defense of habitation because 
the evidence was sufficient to support the instructions submitted by defendant when 
the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to him. Accordingly, the Court of 
Appeals reversed defendant’s convictions, vacated the trial court’s judgments, and 
granted defendant a new trial with complete self-defense instructions. Id. The 
dissenting judge at the Court of Appeals opined that defendant’s warning shot at 
Garris was an act that exceeded the level of force that was reasonably necessary to 
protect defendant from death or serious bodily harm, thus precluding a jury 
instruction on self-defense. Id. at 261, 822 S.E.2d at 770 (Zachary, J., dissenting). The 
dissenting judge also considered the trial court to be correct in declining to give 
defendant’s requested jury instruction on the defense of habitation, viewing 
defendant’s testimony about the warning shot and considering Garris to be a lawful 
occupant of defendant’s residence as obviating the necessity for the delivery of such 
an instruction. Id. at 263, 822 S.E.2d at 771. 
STATE V. COLEY 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-6- 
We agree with the Court of Appeals majority in its resolution of the matters 
presented in this case, as this Court concludes that the decision of the lower appellate 
court is sound and correct.  
Analysis 
“The jury charge is one of the most critical parts of a criminal trial.” State v. 
Watson, 367 N.C. 721, 730, 766 S.E.2d 312, 318 (2014). “It is the duty of the trial court 
to instruct on all substantial features of a case raised by the evidence.” State v. Shaw, 
322 N.C. 797, 803, 370 S.E.2d 546, 549 (1988). This Court has consistently held that 
“where competent evidence of self-defense is presented at trial, the defendant is 
entitled to an instruction on this defense, as it is a substantial and essential feature 
of the case, and the trial judge must give the instruction even absent any specific 
request by the defendant.” State v. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626, 643, 340 S.E.2d 84, 95 
(1986) (emphasis omitted) (citations omitted); see also, e.g., State v. Deck, 285 N.C. 
209, 215, 203 S.E.2d 830, 834 (1974) (“When supported by competent evidence, self-
defense unquestionably becomes a substantial and essential feature of a criminal 
case.”). In determining whether a defendant has presented competent evidence 
sufficient to support a self-defense instruction, we take the evidence as true and 
consider it in the light most favorable to the defendant. State v. Moore, 363 N.C. 793, 
796, 688 S.E.2d 447, 449 (2010). Once a showing is made that the defendant has 
presented such competent evidence, “the court must charge on this aspect even 
though there is contradictory evidence by the State or discrepancies in defendant’s 
STATE V. COLEY 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-7- 
evidence.” State v. Dooley, 285 N.C. 158, 163, 203 S.E.2d 815, 818 (1974). “[A] 
defendant entitled to any self-defense instruction is entitled to a complete self-defense 
instruction, which includes the relevant stand-your-ground provision.” State v. Bass, 
371 N.C. 535, 542, 819 S.E.2d 322, 326 (2018). 
In North Carolina, the right to use deadly force to defend oneself is provided 
both by statute and case law. Pursuant to the applicable statutory law, there are two 
circumstances in which individuals are justified in using deadly force, thus excusing 
them from criminal culpability under the theory of self-defense. Firstly, section 14-
51.3 of the General Statutes of North Carolina provides, in pertinent part, the 
following:  
(a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, 
against another when and to the extent that the person 
reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend 
himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent 
use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the 
use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in 
any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the 
following applies: 
 
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is 
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily 
harm to himself or herself or another. 
 
(2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S.  
14-51.2.  
 
(b) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is 
justified in using such force and is immune from civil or 
criminal liability for the use of such force . . . .  
 
N.C.G.S. § 14-51.3 (2019) (emphases added). Secondly, N.C.G.S. § 14.51.2(b) states 
STATE V. COLEY 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-8- 
the following: 
The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace 
is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent 
death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or 
another when using defensive force that is intended or 
likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to another if 
both of the following apply: 
 
(1) The person against whom the defensive force was 
used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully 
entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a 
home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person 
had removed or was attempting to remove another 
against that person’s will from the home, motor 
vehicle, or workplace.  
 
(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had 
reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry 
or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had 
occurred.   
 
N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2(b) (2019).  
Under either statutory provision a person does not have a duty to retreat but 
may stand his ground against an intruder. State v. Lee, 370 N.C. 671, 675, 811 S.E.2d 
563, 566 (2018); see also Bass, 371 N.C. at 541, 819 S.E.2d at 325–26 (“Both sections 
provide that individuals using force as described . . . have no duty to retreat before 
using defensive force.”) Consequently, when an individual who was not the aggressor 
is located in his home when the assault on him occurred, he “may stand his ground 
and defend himself from attack when he reasonably believes such force is necessary 
to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.” Bass, 371 
N.C. at 541, 819 S.E.2d at 326. “The reasonableness of his belief is to be determined 
STATE V. COLEY 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-9- 
by the jury from the facts and circumstances as they appeared to him at the time” he 
committed the forceful act against his adversary. See State v. Gladden, 279 N.C. 566, 
572, 184 S.E.2d 249, 253 (1971). 
 
Applying these statutory and case law principles to the present case, 
defendant’s evidence shows that Garris was the aggressor toward defendant from the 
very beginning of the interaction between the two of them when Garris confronted 
defendant while defendant was seated outside of the neighbor’s home, striking 
defendant with such force as to knock defendant out of his chair. Without a violent 
response to Garris, defendant arose from the ground and, with his previously injured 
broken leg, retreated to his nearby home on foot. Garris followed defendant and, when 
defendant arrived at his home, Garris once again employed force against defendant 
by grabbing defendant and throwing him against the door of the residence. Garris 
then forcibly entered defendant’s home as he continued to inflict assaultive 
punishment upon defendant in light of Garris’s expressed belief that defendant had 
been a “snitch[ed]” to law enforcement concerning Garris’s brothers. Defendant held 
a fearful belief concerning the potential for physical violence that he felt was wreaked 
upon “snitches” as Garris briefly left defendant’s residence, but immediately returned 
with another individual. During this second uninvited and unlawful entry into 
defendant’s residence by Garris, defendant was pummeled by Garris. After Garris 
departed from defendant’s home and defendant, who was injured, had repositioned 
himself from the floor back into his wheelchair, defendant observed the third entry of 
STATE V. COLEY 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-10- 
Garris into defendant’s home. Due to the force that Garris had been using and the 
harm that had been occurring toward defendant in his home through the increasingly 
violent and unpredictable actions of Garris, when Garris rushed into the residence of 
defendant on the third occasion, defendant shot Garris. 
 
Viewing the evidence at trial in the light most favorable to defendant in order 
to determine whether the evidence was competent and sufficient to support the jury 
instructions on self-defense and the defense of habitation, we conclude that defendant 
was entitled to both instructions. In assessing the provisions of N.C.G.S. § 14-51.3 
governing the right of a person such as defendant to justifiably utilize force against 
another person such as Garris when and to the extent that the person in defendant’s 
position reasonably believed that the conduct was necessary to defend oneself against 
another’s imminent use of unlawful force, this Court determines that defendant in 
the instant case presented competent and sufficient evidence to warrant the self-
defense instruction. This includes the use of deadly force without a duty to retreat in 
any place that he had the lawful right to be when he holds a reasonable belief that 
such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or 
herself. Similarly, in reviewing the elements of N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2(b) regarding the 
presumption of a lawful occupant of a home—such as defendant in his residence—to 
have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or 
herself when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious 
bodily harm to another person, such as Garris here, if such person against whom the 
STATE V. COLEY 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-11- 
defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or 
had unlawfully and forcibly entered, the lawful occupant’s home and the person using 
the defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry 
or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred, we conclude that the 
evidence presented at trial was competent and sufficient to support defendant’s 
requested instruction on the defense of habitation. 
 
The dissenting judge at the Court of Appeals in this case focuses primarily 
upon defendant’s testimony at trial that he fired a warning shot at Garris as rationale 
for the dissenting judge’s view that the trial court correctly declined to instruct the 
jury on self-defense and the defense of habitation. The dissenting judge deems 
defendant’s act as exceeding the response to Garris’s conduct which was reasonably 
necessary to protect defendant from death or serious bodily harm, thereby precluding 
a jury instruction on self-defense, while also precluding a jury instruction on the 
defense of habitation because defendant’s testimony at trial about a warning shot 
rebuts the statutory presumption of “reasonable fear of imminent death or serious 
bodily harm” when using defensive force in one’s home. The dissenting judge relies 
upon the Court of Appeals opinion in State v. Ayers, 261 N.C. App. 220, 819 S.E.2d 
407 (2018), disc. review denied, 372 N.C. 103, 824 S.E.2d 407 (2019), for the conclusion 
that the warning shot demonstrates that defendant “did not ‘inten[d] to strike the 
victim with the blow’ ” so as to preclude defendant from the right to a self-defense 
instruction. Coley, 263 N.C. App. at 260, 822 S.E.2d at 769 (Zachary, J., dissenting) 
STATE V. COLEY 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-12- 
(alteration in original) (quoting Ayers, 261 N.C. App. at 225, 819 S.E.2d at 411). 
Likewise, the dissenting judge cites the Court of Appeals opinion of State v. Cook, 254 
N.C. App. 150, 802 S.E.2d 575 (2017), for the premise that the statutory defense of 
habitation with its presumption of reasonable fear does not apply when a defendant 
testifies that he fired a warning shot and did not intend to shoot the attacker because 
such words disprove the presumption that the defendant was in reasonable fear of 
imminent harm. Coley, 263 N.C. App. at 262–63, 822 S.E.2d at 770. Finally, the 
dissenting judge also submits that defendant did not have a right to a jury instruction 
on the defense of habitation because Garris was a lawful occupant of defendant’s 
home in light of Garris’s occasional residency there, Garris’s possession of a key to 
defendant’s residence, and the presence of some of Garris’s personal possessions 
inside of defendant’s home. Id. at 262–63, 822 S.E.2d at 770–71. 
 
The dissenting judge’s perspective ignores the principle that we set out in 
Dooley that although there may be contradictory evidence from the State or 
discrepancies in the defendant’s evidence, nonetheless the trial court must charge the 
jury on self-defense where there is evidence that the defendant acted in self-defense. 
Indeed, as expressly noted by the Court of Appeals majority in its decision, when 
viewing defendant’s testimony as true, competent evidence was presented from which 
a jury could reasonably infer that defendant intended to “strike the blow” when he 
aimed and fired his gun at Garris. Ultimately, just as the Court of Appeals majority 
correctly observed that “[p]resuming [that] a conflict in the evidence exists as to 
STATE V. COLEY 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-13- 
whether Garris had a right to be in the home, it is to be resolved by the jury, properly 
instructed,” id. at 257, 822 S.E.2d at 767, it is appropriately within the purview of 
the jury to resolve any conflicts in the evidence presented at trial and to render 
verdicts upon being properly instructed by the trial court based upon the evidence 
which competently and sufficiently supported the submission of such instructions to 
the jury for collective consideration. 
 
We agree with the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals that the trial court 
erred by failing to instruct the jury on self-defense and on the defense of habitation. 
We further agree with the lower appellate court’s conclusion that the trial court’s 
failure to properly instruct the jury constituted error that was prejudicial to 
defendant. Subsection 15A-1443(a) states, in pertinent part, that a defendant is 
prejudiced by an error when there is a reasonable possibility that had the error in 
question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial 
out of which the appeal arises. N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a) (2019); see also State v. Ramos, 
363 N.C. 352, 355, 678 S.E.2d 224, 227 (2009). In this regard, the Court of Appeals 
majority astutely observes in its opinion that “[d]efendant was acquitted by the jury 
on all charges involving an intent to kill,” which was a criminal offense element that 
served as a factor in the trial court’s denial of the requested jury instructions at trial. 
Coley, 263 N.C. App. at 258, 822 S.E.2d at 768. 
Conclusion 
 
Based on the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the decision of the Court of 
STATE V. COLEY 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-14- 
Appeals that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support the 
submission of defendant’s requested instructions to the jury on self-defense and the 
defense of habitation. We also affirm the determination of the lower appellate court 
to reverse the convictions of defendant, to vacate the judgments against defendant, 
and to grant a new trial to defendant with complete self-defense instructions, based 
upon our determination that there is a reasonable possibility that had the trial court 
not committed prejudicial error in its presentation of instructions to the jury, a 
different result would have been reached at the trial. 
 
AFFIRMED.