Title: State v. Greenfield

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
No. 11A19 
Filed 25 September 2020 
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 
v. 
TYLER DEION GREENFIELD 
 
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of 
the Court of Appeals, 262 N.C. App. 631, 822 S.E.2d 477 (2018), vacating judgments 
entered on 23 February 2017 by Judge Phyllis M. Gorham in Superior Court, New 
Hanover County, and remanding for a new trial for the assault with a deadly weapon 
with intent to kill inflicting serious injury charge and for the entry of a judgment 
convicting defendant of second-degree murder. On 11 June 2019, the Supreme Court 
allowed the State’s petition for discretionary review. Heard in the Supreme Court on 
9 March 2020. 
Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney 
General, for the State-appellee.   
 
Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant 
Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant. 
 
 
HUDSON, Justice.  
 
Here, we review (1) whether the trial court erred by failing to give defendant’s 
proposed jury instructions on self-defense and transferred intent with regard to the 
charge of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-2- 
against Beth,1 and (2) whether the trial court’s error prejudiced defendant. Because 
we conclude that defendant was prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to give his 
proposed jury instructions on self-defense and transferred intent in connection with 
the assault charge, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. However, because 
we conclude that the proper remedy for this prejudicial error is to remand the case 
for a new trial on all charges, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the 
Court of Appeals.  
Factual and Procedural Background 
 
On 31 October 2016, a New Hanover County grand jury returned a superseding 
indictment charging defendant with (1) first-degree murder; (2) attempted first-
degree murder; (3) attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon; and (4) assault with 
a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury.2 Defendant’s trial began 
on 6 February 2017.  
 
At trial, the evidence showed that on 2 February 2015, defendant arrived with 
a friend at Jon and Beth’s apartment to purchase marijuana from Jon. Subsequent 
events in the apartment are disputed. However, by the time defendant and his friend 
left the apartment, Jon was dead and both Beth and defendant had been shot.  
                                            
1 We use the pseudonyms “Beth” and “Jon” to refer to the victims in this case, just as 
the Court of Appeals did in its opinion. State v. Greenfield, 262 N.C. App. 631, 634 n.1, 
822 S.E.2d 477, 479 n.1 (2018).  
2 In this opinion we will refer to this as “the assault” or “the assault charge.” 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-3- 
Defendant testified that upon arrival he asked to use the bathroom. Defendant 
testified that he did not notice a safe in Jon’s bedroom or the fact that Beth was asleep 
as he passed through the bedroom on the way to the bathroom. After using the 
bathroom, defendant returned to the living room where Jon and defendant’s friend 
were talking. While they were talking, defendant picked up a gun that he found on a 
coffee table. Defendant testified that he picked the gun up off the coffee table because 
he thought it “looked like something off a movie” and “it looked cool.”  
According to defendant, Jon noticed that defendant picked up the gun from the 
coffee table and “started amping at [him].” Specifically, Jon stood up from where he 
was seated and started acting “crazy” and “aggressive,” asking defendant if he was 
planning to rob him. Then Beth came out of the bedroom holding a gun up to 
defendant as if “she just had every intention on shooting [defendant].” Defendant 
testified that he was “scared” and thought that he was “about to die.” Defendant 
pointed the gun that he picked up from the coffee table at Beth after she pointed her 
gun at him. Defendant then pointed the gun at Jon because he thought he had “to be 
as tough as possible to get out of th[e] situation.” Defendant shouted “[p]ut the gun 
down or I’m gonna shoot him in the head.” Defendant testified that he only made this 
threat to get Beth to put the gun down so that he could get out of the apartment.  
Eventually, Beth put the gun down on the table and defendant tried to run out 
of the apartment. As he tried to leave, defendant saw Jon pull a gun from behind his 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-4- 
back and then defendant felt himself get shot in the side. When he got shot, defendant 
“felt like [he] was going to die” and thought “it was all over” for him. 
Defendant testified that after he was shot, he “just started shooting” and pulled 
the trigger “as many times as [he could] until [he] got to the door.” Defendant stated 
that he was not aiming at anyone in particular, and he was “just . . . shooting and 
running.” However, defendant also testified that he aimed in Jon’s direction “as best 
as [he] could,” and that while running he “intentionally” shot at Jon.  
At trial, Beth testified for the State. Her account of events inside the apartment 
diverged from defendant’s testimony. Specifically, Beth testified that: Jon’s voice got 
“shaky” after defendant asked to use the bathroom; she did not actually hear 
defendant use the bathroom; she would have been able to hear defendant use the 
bathroom from where she was in her and Jon’s bedroom; and defendant’s path to the 
bathroom led him right past the safe in the bedroom.  
According to Beth, when defendant returned to the living room, she heard his 
voice become “more aggressive” and Jon’s voice become “more shaky and more 
scared.” Beth said that she heard defendant aggressively ask Jon where the guns, 
money, and drugs were, and then she grabbed a gun located in the bedroom. As she 
grabbed the gun, a third person that Beth did not recognize entered the apartment 
carrying a black bag, found Beth in the bedroom, and called out that Beth had a gun. 
Beth testified that defendant told her to bring the gun into the living room or he 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-5- 
would shoot Jon in the face. Beth entered the living room with her gun pointed down 
to the ground and placed it on the coffee table.  
Beth then stepped between Jon and defendant. Jon attempted to push her 
away from him as he made a move for the gun that she had just placed on the coffee 
table. She closed her eyes and turned away as shots came at her from defendant’s 
direction. Beth testified that she felt a pain on the left side of her head and that she 
saw defendant pointing his gun at her as she was closing her eyes. Beth lost 
consciousness after she was shot. When she regained consciousness, she saw 
defendant and the third person running out of the apartment. After attempting to get 
help from a neighbor, Beth called 9-1-1 and reported that she and Jon were shot 
during an attempted robbery.  
Prior to trial, defendant gave notice to the State that he was planning to offer 
the affirmative defense of self-defense at trial pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-905(c). At 
the charge conference, defendant asked the trial court to give an instruction on self-
defense for all charges and specifically requested an instruction on “the doctrine of 
transferred intent as [it] relates to self-defense.” Defendant wanted the instruction to 
“capture the idea that an individual . . . lawfully acting in self-defense who 
accidentally injures another is entitled to the transference of his intent from his 
original actions to an innocent bystander.” Up until the charge conference, defendant 
had been referring to the jury instruction as an “accident” instruction, but later 
explained that he had always intended to request an instruction on self-defense.  
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-6- 
Defendant’s proposed instruction provided as follows:  
If a defendant, in acting in the lawful exercise of self-
defense, injures an innocent bystander while lawfully 
defending himself, he is excused from criminal liability for 
any unintentional harm caused to innocent bystanders by 
his actions in his lawful exercise of self-defense. 
 
The trial court ruled that it would not give defendant’s proposed instruction to the 
jury. Instead, the trial court gave the pattern instruction defining “accident,” which 
provided in pertinent part that 
[a]n injury is accidental if it is unintentional, occurs during 
the course of lawful conduct, and does not involve culpable 
negligence. . . . When the defendant asserts the victim’s 
injury was the result of an accident, he is, in effect, denying 
the existence of those facts which the State must prove 
beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict him.  
 
The trial court also gave the following general instruction on transferred intent: 
If the defendant intended to harm one person but instead 
harmed a different person, the legal effect would be the 
same as if the defendant had harmed the intended victim. 
 
The trial court also gave a self-defense instruction for first-degree murder under the 
theory of premeditation and deliberation and its lesser included offenses, but did not 
give a self-defense instruction for first-degree murder under the felony murder rule 
or for any underlying felonies, including the assault charge.  
 
The jury ultimately found defendant guilty of first-degree murder based on the 
felony murder rule with the assault charge as the underlying felony. The jury also 
found defendant guilty of second-degree murder, but the trial court set that verdict 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-7- 
aside. The jury found defendant not guilty of attempted first-degree murder and 
attempted robbery with a deadly weapon. Defendant appealed.  
 
The Court of Appeals held in pertinent part that the trial court erred by not 
instructing the jury on self-defense with regard to the assault charge. State v. 
Greenfield, 262 N.C. App. 631, 642, 822 S.E.2d 477, 485 (2018). Specifically, the Court 
of Appeals reasoned that based on the evidence at trial, “[d]efendant was entitled to 
a self-defense instruction on the homicide of Jon and the assault of Beth, but only if 
the jury determined that those crimes were committed with shots intended for Jon.” 
Id. at 639, 822 S.E.2d at 483. The Court of Appeals determined that defendant was 
not entitled to a self-defense instruction for any shots intended for Beth because 
“[defendant] testified that he did not intend to hit Beth, but that he was only shooting 
at Jon. Defendant also testified that he was only in imminent fear of being killed by 
Jon. He testified that Beth had already put down her gun before he returned fire.” Id. 
at 639, 822 S.E.2d at 483–84.  
 
The court concluded that the trial court’s failure to give a self-defense 
instruction for the assault of Beth was prejudicial error, reasoning that it did 
not know if the jury determined that the shot that struck 
Beth was meant for Jon, which may have been legally 
justified under self-defense, or if it was meant for Beth. . . 
. And based on transferred intent, he should have been 
acquitted if the jury believed he was firing at Jon in self-
defense. 
 
Id. at 642, 822 S.E.2d at 485.  
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-8- 
In addition to remanding the case for a new trial on the assault charge, the 
Court of Appeals vacated the judgment convicting defendant of first-degree murder 
under the felony murder rule. Id. at 643, 822 S.E.2d at 486. The Court of Appeals 
then remanded the case for the entry of a judgment convicting defendant of second-
degree murder, concluding that even though the trial court arrested judgment on that 
conviction, there was no reversible error as to that verdict because the jury was 
instructed on self-defense for that charge. Id. at 643, 822 S.E.2d at 485–86.  
 
The dissenting judge agreed with the majority’s decision to grant a new trial 
on the assault charge but would have granted a new trial to defendant on all charges 
because “it [was] not possible to separate the [assault] conviction from the tangled 
mess of theories and charges.” Id. at 643, 822 S.E.2d at 486 (Stroud, J., dissenting).  
 
Defendant appealed on the basis of the dissenting opinion. We also allowed the 
State’s petition for discretionary review. Accordingly, we now analyze (1) whether the 
Court of Appeals erred by concluding that defendant was prejudiced by the trial 
court’s failure to give his proposed self-defense and transferred-intent instructions on 
the assault charge; and (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred by failing to order a 
new trial on all charges. Because we conclude that the failure to give the proposed 
instructions prejudiced defendant and that he should receive a new trial on all 
charges, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the Court of Appeals. 
 
 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-9- 
Analysis 
I. 
Standard of Review 
“This Court reviews the decision of the Court of Appeals to determine whether 
it contains any errors of law.” State v. Golder, 374 N.C. 238, 244, 839 S.E.2d 782, 
787 (2020) (quoting State v. Melton, 371 N.C. 750, 756, 821 S.E.2d 424, 428 (2018)); 
see N.C. R. App. P. 16(a). “To resolve whether a defendant is entitled to a requested 
instruction, we review de novo whether each element of the defense is supported by 
the evidence, when taken in the light most favorable to defendant.” State v. Mercer, 
373 N.C. 459, 462, 838 S.E.2d 359, 362 (2020) (quoting State v. Mash, 323 N.C. 339, 
348, 372 S.E.2d 532, 537 (1988)). Further, “[w]hether a jury instruction correctly 
explains the law is reviewable de novo.” Piazza v. Kirkbride, 372 N.C. 137, 187, 827 
S.E.2d 479, 510 (2019).  
II. 
Defendant’s Proposed Instructions  
 
We conclude that defendant presented sufficient evidence to require a self-
defense instruction on the assault charge for any shot intended for Jon.3 Accordingly, 
the trial court erred by not instructing the jury according to defendant’s proposed 
self-defense and transferred-intent instructions.  
 
“[W]here 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 
                                            
3 Because this conclusion is sufficient to demonstrate the trial court’s error, we do not 
reach the issue of whether defendant was entitled to a self-defense instruction for any shots 
he intended for Beth. 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-10- 
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) (citations omitted).  
 
Perfect self-defense requires that at the time of defendant’s use of force 
(1) it appeared to defendant and he believed it to be 
necessary to kill [or use force against] the [victim] in order 
to save himself from death or great bodily harm; and 
(2) defendant’s belief was reasonable in that the 
circumstances as they appeared to him at the time were 
sufficient to create such a belief in the mind of a person of 
ordinary firmness; and 
(3) defendant was not the aggressor in bringing on the 
affray, i.e., he did not aggressively and willingly enter into 
the fight without legal excuse or provocation; and 
(4) defendant did not use excessive force, i.e., did not use 
more force than was necessary or reasonably appeared to 
him to be necessary under the circumstances to protect 
himself from death or great bodily harm. 
 
State v. Harvey, 372 N.C. 304, 307–08, 828 S.E.2d 481, 483–84 (2019) (quoting State 
v. Bush, 307 N.C. 152, 158–59, 297 S.E.2d 563, 568 (1982)). “In determining whether 
there was any evidence of self-defense presented, the evidence must be interpreted in 
the light most favorable to defendant.” State v. Webster, 324 N.C. 385, 391, 378 S.E.2d 
748, 752 (1989) (citing State v. Gappins, 320 N.C. 64, 71, 357 S.E.2d 654, 659 (1987)). 
According to the doctrine of transferred intent, a defendant “is guilty or 
innocent exactly as though the fatal act had caused the death of the person intended 
to be killed. The intent is transferred to the person whose death has been caused.” 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-11- 
State v. Dalton, 178 N.C. 779, 781, 101 S.E. 548, 549 (1919) (citation omitted). In the 
self-defense context specifically, we have stated that 
[i]f the killing of the person intended to be hit would, under 
all the circumstances, have been excusable or justifiable on 
the theory of self-defense, then the unintended killing of a 
bystander by a random shot fired in the proper and prudent 
exercise of such self-defense is also excusable or justifiable. 
 
Id. at 782, 101 S.E. at 549 (citation omitted).  
 
Here, the evidence presented at trial, when interpreted in the light most 
favorable to defendant, was sufficient to entitle him to a jury instruction on perfect 
self-defense for any shot that he intended for Jon. Specifically, defendant testified 
that (1) he only picked up the gun from Jon’s coffee table because he thought “it looked 
cool” and “like something off a movie”; (2) when Jon noticed that defendant was 
holding the gun, Jon got “aggressive” and “crazy”; (3) defendant did not point his gun 
at anyone until Beth emerged from the bedroom pointing a gun at him; (4) defendant 
was scared and thought he was about to die when Beth pointed the gun at him, and 
he thought she had “every intention on shooting [him]”; (5) after Beth put her gun 
down, defendant ran for the door to exit the apartment; (6) as defendant was leaving, 
he saw Jon pull a gun and defendant felt a shot to his side; (7) defendant thought that 
he was going to die; and (8) acting out of fear, defendant resorted to “just shooting 
and running” while attempting to aim at Jon “as best as [he] could.”  
 
Defendant’s testimony, taken in the light most favorable to him, entitled him 
to a jury instruction on perfect self-defense. Defendant’s testimony, if believed, would 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-12- 
show that (1) he subjectively believed that he was going to die if he did not return fire 
at Jon; (2) such belief was reasonable given the circumstances; (3) defendant was not 
the aggressor in that he only picked up the gun because he thought “it looked cool,” 
defendant raised the gun only after Beth pointed a gun at him, and defendant only 
fired at Jon after Jon shot defendant while he was trying to escape; and (4) defendant 
did not use excessive force by returning fire at the person he reasonably believed had 
just shot him. 
Further, defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense through 
the doctrine of transferred intent for the assault charge based on any injury to Beth. 
Defendant testified that he “intentionally” shot at Jon after having been shot in the 
side and thinking that he was about to die. From this testimony, the jury could find 
that Beth was struck by a bullet intended for Jon that defendant shot in self-defense. 
Accordingly, in the light most favorable to defendant, he was entitled to have the trial 
court instruct the jury on self-defense according to his proposed instruction for the 
assault charge, and the trial court erred by failing to do so. 
III. 
Prejudice 
An error is prejudicial 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.” N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a) (2019).  
Although perfect self-defense is not a direct defense to felony murder, it “may 
be a defense to the underlying felony, which would thereby defeat the felony murder 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-13- 
charge.” State v. Juarez, 369 N.C. 351, 354, 794 S.E.2d 293, 297 (2016) (citing State 
v. Richardson, 341 N.C. 658, 668–69, 462 S.E.2d 492, 499 (1995)). Here, the trial 
court failed to give any self-defense instruction for the assault charge, which we 
have already concluded was error because defendant’s testimony supported such an 
instruction. We further conclude that such error was prejudicial because it impaired 
defendant’s ability to present his defense to felony murder, and we see a reasonable 
possibility that had the jury been given a self-defense instruction, a different result 
would have been reached at trial. 
 
We also conclude that defendant was prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to 
give his specific, proposed instructions on self-defense and transferred intent for the 
assault charge. Defendant proposed the following instruction:  
If a defendant, in acting in the lawful exercise of self-
defense, injures an innocent bystander while lawfully 
defending himself, he is excused from criminal liability for 
any unintentional harm caused to innocent bystanders by 
his actions in his lawful exercise of self-defense. 
 
This instruction, if given, would have properly informed the jury that if it determined 
that defendant intentionally shot at Jon in self-defense and unintentionally shot Beth 
while exercising that right of self-defense, then his self-defense justification for 
shooting at Jon would have transferred along with the bullet that unintentionally 
struck Beth. Further, because perfect self-defense can serve as a defense to the 
underlying felony for felony murder, and thereby defeat the felony murder charge, 
there is a “reasonable possibility” that if the trial court had given defendant’s 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-14- 
proposed self-defense and transferred-intent instructions, the jury would have 
acquitted him of both the assault charge and the felony murder charge for which the 
assault served as the underlying felony.  
The State’s argument that defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court’s 
failure to give defendant’s proposed self-defense and transferred-intent instructions 
is not persuasive.  
 
First, the State argues that the trial court’s general instruction on transferred 
intent adequately informed the jury that it could acquit defendant if it determined 
that defendant unintentionally shot Beth while aiming for Jon in self-defense. But 
the transferred-intent instruction only informed the jury that defendant’s intent to 
harm would transfer; it did not inform the jury that defendant’s lawful exercise of 
self-defense could transfer. It also seems unlikely that the jury would have 
understood by this general instruction that defendant’s self-defense justification 
would have transferred to any bullet that unintentionally struck Beth when the trial 
court gave no self-defense instruction at all for the assault charge.  
 
Second, the State argues that defendant could not have been prejudiced by the 
trial court’s failure to give his proposed instructions because defendant invited any 
error here by requesting the “accident” instruction that was given to the jury on the 
assault charge. See N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(c) (“A defendant is not prejudiced by the 
granting of relief which he has sought or by error resulting from his own conduct.”). 
But defendant’s success in obtaining an instruction on the accident defense does not 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-15- 
preclude his claim that he was prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to also give 
separate, requested instructions on self-defense and transferred intent.4 This is 
especially clear because defendant clarified at the charge conference that he had 
always been requesting self-defense and transferred-intent instructions, and that he 
had been using the term “accident” somewhat inartfully to refer to those instructions. 
When defendant made this clarification, the trial court agreed that the issue had 
always been about self-defense.  
 
Finally, the State argues that defendant cannot demonstrate prejudice 
resulting from the trial court’s failure to give his proposed instructions because the 
jury’s verdict finding defendant guilty of second-degree murder shows that it did not 
believe that defendant acted in perfect self-defense. However, as explained below, we 
conclude that the second-degree murder verdict sheds no light on the jury’s 
deliberations concerning defendant’s self-defense claim.  
                                            
4 There is a clear distinction between a pure accident defense and a self-defense via 
transferred-intent defense: a pure accident defense negates the elements of assault, whereas 
a self-defense instruction provides a justification for actions that would otherwise satisfy the 
elements of the offense. See N.C.P.I.—Crim. 307.10 (2019) (“When the defendant asserts that 
the victim’s death was the result of an accident he is, in effect, denying the existence of those 
facts which the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict him.” 
(emphasis added)); State v. Riddick, 340 N.C. 338, 341, 457 S.E.2d 728, 730 (1995) (quoting 
N.C.P.I.—Crim. 307.10 (1986)); State v. Holland, 193 N.C. 713, 718, 138 S.E. 8, 10–11 (1927) 
(“The first law of nature is that of self-defense. The law of this state and elsewhere recognizes 
this primary impulse and inherent right. One being without fault, in defense of his person, 
in the exercise of ordinary firmness, has a right to invoke this law and kill his assailant, if he 
has reasonable ground for believing or apprehending that he is about to suffer death or great 
or enormous bodily harm at his hands. . . . but there must be reasonable ground for the belief 
or apprehension—an honest and well-founded belief or apprehension at the time the homicide 
is committed.” (emphasis added) (citations omitted)). 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-16- 
Accordingly, we conclude that defendant was prejudiced by the trial court’s 
failure to give defendant’s proposed instructions on self-defense and transferred 
intent for the assault charge.  
IV. 
Remand Order 
We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred by remanding this case for the 
entry of a judgment convicting defendant of second-degree murder. Instead, we 
remand this case for a new trial on all charges. 
The trial court accepted the jury’s verdicts finding defendant (1) guilty of first-
degree murder under the felony murder rule based upon assault; (2) not guilty of 
attempted first-degree murder; (3) not guilty of attempted robbery with a deadly 
weapon; and (4) guilty of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting 
serious injury. Then, after noticing that the jury failed to mark the verdict sheet 
under the premeditation and deliberation theory of first-degree murder, the trial 
court called the members of the jury back into the courtroom and instructed them to 
continue deliberations on the theory of premeditation and deliberation in the 
following manner: 
Under Count 1 of the verdict form, there were two first-
degree murder charges listed. It appears that you marked 
one for the first-degree murder under the felony murder 
rule but nothing was checked under first-degree murder 
with premeditation and deliberation.  
 
So what I’m going to have y’all do is go back into the jury 
room and make a decision about the first-degree murder 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-17- 
with premeditation and deliberation, because nothing was 
checked as to that count; do you understand? 
 
Later the trial court provided the following instruction:  
Out of an abundance of caution, I want to make sure you 
understand that, of course, there were two theories in the 
first-degree murder. You made a decision under the first 
theory, felony murder rule. The second theory is first-
degree murder with premeditation and deliberation. So 
there’s 
first-degree 
murder, 
second-degree 
murder, 
voluntar[y] manslaughter, or not guilty. That’s the decision 
you have to make on that second one. You have those four 
options; do you understand that? 
 
After hearing this instruction, the jury asked the trial court the following:  
[W]hy [does] it matter[ ] that we address both theories 
since it’s for the same count? Why is there and/or instead 
of an and in the charge sheet? 
 
In response to the jury’s question, the trial court gave the following instruction: 
Ladies and gentlemen, as I instructed you if you read the 
instructions, the defendant is charged with first-degree 
murder. The State presented two theories of first-degree 
murder to you that required different elements to be 
proven. First-degree murder under the felony murder rule 
is one way first-degree murder can be proven, the second 
way is first-degree murder with premeditation and 
deliberation. So both theories of first-degree murder were 
presented to you; therefore, you have to—to look at both 
theories as they’re set out in the charge conference and in 
the charge instructions and on the verdict sheet and make 
a decision about both theories in this case. 
 
Following this instruction, one juror asked whether the jury’s decision on the two 
theories had to be “congruent” or “together in order to say first-degree felony murder.” 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-18- 
The trial court responded that the jury “ha[s] to make a decision about both. They 
have to be consistent.”  
 
After the jury finished its second round of deliberations, it returned verdicts 
finding defendant (1) guilty of first-degree murder under the felony murder rule 
based upon assault; (2) guilty of second-degree murder; (3) not guilty of attempted 
first-degree murder; (4) not guilty of attempted robbery with a deadly weapon; and 
(5) guilty of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. 
We conclude that the trial court’s failure to give any instruction on self-defense 
pertaining to the assault charge prevented the jury from performing its fundamental 
task of considering all of the substantial and essential features of the case, which 
prejudiced defendant.5 Specifically, the trial court instructed the jury that it had to 
redeliberate on first-degree murder under the theory of premeditation and 
deliberation, and the trial court informed the jury that it only had “four options,” 
which were to find defendant guilty of “first-degree murder, second-degree murder, 
voluntar[y] manslaughter, or not guilty.” In so limiting the jury’s options, the trial 
court denied it the ability to fully and properly consider whether defendant was guilty 
of first-degree murder under the felony murder rule. 
                                            
5See State v. Sargeant, 206 N.C. App. 1, 14, 696 S.E.2d 786, 795 (2010) (holding that 
the trial court “intru[ded] into the province of the jury” when it accepted partial verdicts and 
sent the jury back to deliberate with incomplete instructions on aspects of first-degree 
murder). 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-19- 
Further, when asked whether the jury’s verdict on first-degree murder under 
the felony murder rule and its verdict on first-degree murder under the theory of 
premeditation and deliberation needed to be “congruent,” the trial court instructed 
the jury that the two findings needed to be “consistent.” Under that instruction, the 
jury could have improperly found defendant guilty of second-degree murder because 
it thought, for example, that although there was no evidence that defendant intended 
to shoot Jon with premeditation and deliberation—it needed to at least convict him 
of second-degree murder in order to render a verdict that was “consistent” with the 
guilty verdict that the trial court had already accepted. Under such a line of 
reasoning, the jury would not have engaged at all with defendant’s claim of perfect 
self-defense. Moreover, such a decision by the jury would not have been based upon a 
proper consideration of the elements of the crime of second-degree murder. 
The trial court’s decision to have the jury continue deliberations on first-degree 
murder under the theory of premeditation and deliberation after accepting a partial 
verdict on first-degree murder under the felony murder rule could have resulted in 
an improper conclusion by the jury that defendant was guilty of second-degree 
murder. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals to remand this 
case for the entry of a judgment convicting defendant of second-degree murder. 
Instead, we remand for a new trial on all charges.  
 
 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-20- 
Conclusion 
We conclude that the trial court erred by failing to give defendant’s proposed 
instructions on self-defense and transferred intent for the assault charge, that such 
error prejudiced defendant, and that the trial court’s decision to take a partial verdict 
on the first-degree murder charge could have resulted in an improper finding by the 
jury that defendant was guilty of second-degree murder. Accordingly, we affirm in 
part, reverse in part, and remand this case to the trial court for a new trial on all 
charges.  
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED. 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice NEWBY dissenting. 
 
A criminal defendant is entitled to a fair trial, free from prejudicial error. Here 
the trial court gave adequate instructions, enabling defendant to present his defense 
theory to the jury. Defendant argued that he was aiming at Jon and shot Beth by 
accident. He asserted that his shooting Jon was justified as self-defense, and thus his 
shooting Beth was also justified. By its verdict it is clear that the jury considered and 
rejected defendant’s argument. Because the instructions given to the jury allowed the 
jury to fully consider defendant’s defense, his conviction should be upheld. I 
respectfully dissent. 
Following a three-week trial, during which both defendant and the surviving 
victim testified, the jury heard differing accounts of a drug deal gone wrong that 
undisputedly resulted in the death of Jon and the serious injury of Beth. While 
previously having given various accounts, by the time defendant testified he claimed 
that he shot Jon in self-defense and that Beth was “just in his area” when he was 
shooting at Jon. It is undisputed that the first person to pick up a gun was defendant 
and that he was the only one holding a gun when the violent affray began. Likewise, 
Jon’s cell phone undisputedly captured defendant’s threats and demands at the time 
he was holding the gun.  
The jury heard evidence that defendant was the initial aggressor and that his 
actions were intentional, including that he intentionally shot Beth. Defendant 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Newby, J., dissenting 
 
 
-2- 
entered the home to purchase drugs, picked up a gun and held it in close proximity 
to Jon, threatened Jon, and threatened to take Jon’s life to convince Beth to put her 
gun down. A recording on Jon’s cell phone captured the exchange that occurred after 
defendant picked up the gun, including defendant’s voice demanding “the money” 
from Jon, threatening to “shoot [Jon] in the head,” and demanding that Beth “[b]ring 
the gun here[, p]ut it down.” Beth complied and stood in front of Jon. Beth saw 
defendant still pointing his gun at her as she closed her eyes.  
Beth did not see the gun fire the shots, but she heard two to three shots, 
smelled gun powder, and felt the bullet strike her. Beth “felt pain on the left side of 
[her] head” and felt the bullets penetrating her as she went unconscious. When she 
regained consciousness, she saw her “hair floating around” her and on her arms and 
felt a pain on the left side of her head. She then saw defendant running out of the 
home. Following his flight and during the investigation, defendant gave different 
explanations about how the drug deal at Jon’s house had gone wrong and how 
defendant got shot. Defendant’s rendition of the facts varied as to who fired first and 
who got shot first. By the time defendant testified, he claimed he shot Jon in self-
defense and that Beth was “just in his area” when he was shooting at Jon.  
At the charge conference, defendant asked for jury instructions on self-defense 
and transferred intent. He wanted to present to the jury the argument that if he was 
justified in shooting Jon in self-defense, he was also justified in shooting Beth 
accidently. The trial court gave a self-defense instruction and an instruction on 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Newby, J., dissenting 
 
 
-3- 
accident as well as a general transferred-intent instruction, but did not give the 
specific transferred-intent instruction requested. Nonetheless, with the jury 
instructions given, defendant was able to make the jury argument he desired.  
Defendant’s defense theory was that he fired every shot in self-defense to ward 
off Jon’s aggression and that any shots that hit Beth did so by accident or 
unintentionally. Defense counsel clearly recapped defendant’s theory in his closing 
argument as follows: 
[Defendant] was acting in self-defense when he pulled the 
trigger and those bullets came out of the gun firing at [Jon] 
so he would not die, then it’s going to be not guilty the 
whole way down. Similar principles. Not exactly self-
defense but very similar in their nature and application.   
 
 
 
. . . . 
 
[I]f you believe [defendant’s] story that he wasn’t there to 
rob anybody and that he acted in self-defense, really you 
don’t have any choice in this case, you have to cut this kid 
loose.  
 
 
 
. . . . 
 
[F]or accident . . . . if you guys determine that his shooting 
at [Jon] was the lawful exercise of self-defense, then the 
bullets that came out of that gun were done lawfully, and 
that it would be considered an accident as the definition of 
the law, not that it was an actual accident, but otherwise 
lawful conduct is covered under this defense of accident.  
 
It’s important this concept is clear, that if you 
believe that when he pointed that gun—when [defendant] 
pointed that gun at [Jon], that he did so lawful—that he 
did so in self-defense, that the fact that those bullets may 
have hit an innocent bystander, or [Beth], that his belief 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Newby, J., dissenting 
 
 
-4- 
that he was acting in reasonable—that he was acting in 
self-defense would be covered under the accident 
instruction, that lawfully shooting at someone in self-
defense covers unintended victims. That’s the law, and it’s 
important that you understand it. 
 
The jury found defendant guilty of murder under the felony murder rule, with the 
underlying felony being the assault on Beth, and of second-degree murder. The jury 
verdict could have two meanings, both of which show that the jury rejected 
defendant’s defense. The jury could have believed that defendant intended to shoot 
Beth. The jury also could have believed that defendant intended to shoot Jon, and hit 
Beth by accident, but that defendant did not shoot Jon in self-defense. 
It is a well-established principle in this jurisdiction 
that in reviewing jury instructions for error, they must be 
considered and reviewed in their entirety. Where the trial 
court adequately instructs the jury as to the law on every 
material aspect of the case arising from the evidence and 
applies the law fairly to variant factual situations 
presented by the evidence, the charge is sufficient.  
 
Murrow v. Daniels, 321 N.C. 494, 497, 364 S.E.2d 392, 395 (1988) (citing Gregory v. 
Lynch, 271 N.C. 198, 203, 155 S.E.2d 488, 492 (1967); then citing King v. Powell, 252 
N.C. 506, 114 S.E.2d 265 (1960)). Here the jury received instructions that adequately 
instructed as to the law and on every material aspect of the case arising from the 
evidence, including defendant’s defense theory. Any alleged deficiency in the jury 
instructions would be harmless. 
The trial court instructed the jury on the homicide charges lodged against 
defendant for the fatal shooting of Jon: first-degree murder based upon malice, 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Newby, J., dissenting 
 
 
-5- 
premeditation and deliberation, or the felony murder rule; second-degree murder; 
and voluntary manslaughter. As instructed, first-degree murder and second-degree 
murder both involve an intentional and unlawful killing with malice. The trial court 
defined malice to mean “not only hatred, ill will or spite, as it is ordinarily understood, 
but also . . . a condition of mind which prompts a person to intentionally take the life 
of another or to intentionally inflict serious bodily harm that proximately results in 
another person’s death without just cause, excuse, or justification.” As the trial court 
instructed,  
to find the defendant guilty of second-degree murder, the 
State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
defendant unlawfully, intentionally and with malice 
wounded the victim with a deadly weapon proximately 
causing the victim’s death. The State must also prove that 
the defendant did not act in self-defense, or if the defendant 
did act in self-defense, the State must prove that the 
defendant was the aggressor in provoking the fight with 
intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm.  
 
Voluntary manslaughter, the last homicide option given to the jury, is an 
unlawful killing that is still intentional but does not require malice or premeditation 
and deliberation and instead applies when “the defendant acts in the heat of passion 
based upon adequate provocation.” As stated in the jury instruction, a conviction on 
voluntary manslaughter may indicate that the jury found that defendant killed in 
self-defense “but use[d] excessive force under the circumstances or was the aggressor 
without murderous intent in provoking the fight in which the killing took place.” The 
trial court specifically instructed the jury that “if the State proves beyond a 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Newby, J., dissenting 
 
 
-6- 
reasonable doubt that the defendant, though otherwise acting in self-defense, was the 
aggressor, though the defendant had no murderous intent when the defendant 
entered the fight, the defendant would be guilty of voluntary manslaughter.”  
Based on defendant’s testimony that he shot Jon in self-defense, the trial court 
instructed the jury on self-defense as to all homicide charges that involved his intent 
towards Jon as follows: 
The defendant would be excused . . . if, first, the 
defendant believed it was necessary to kill the victim in 
order to save the defendant from death or great bodily 
harm.  
 
And second, the circumstances as they appeared to 
the defendant at the time were sufficient to create such a 
belief in the mind of a person of ordinary fitness.  
 
In 
determining 
the 
reasonableness 
of 
the 
defendant’s belief, you should consider the circumstances 
as you find them to have existed from the evidence . . . . 
 
The trial court specifically instructed that “[t]he defendant would not be guilty of any 
murder or manslaughter if the defendant acted in self-defense and if the defendant 
was not the aggressor in provoking the fight and did not use excessive force under 
the circumstances.” 
The trial court then described in detail the definition of “aggressor” for the jury, 
stating that in order for the jury  
to find the defendant guilty of first-degree murder or 
second-degree murder, the [S]tate must prove beyond a 
reasonable doubt, among other things, that the defendant 
did not act in self-defense or, failing in this, that the 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Newby, J., dissenting 
 
 
-7- 
defendant was the aggressor with the intent to kill or to 
inflict serious bodily harm upon the deceased. 
 
The trial court reiterated that, “[i]f the State fails to prove the defendant did not act 
in self-defense or was the aggressor[,] . . . you may not convict the defendant of either 
first-degree or second-degree murder.” The trial court repeated the jury’s option to 
choose not guilty on all intentional homicide charges if defendant acted in self-defense 
and was not the aggressor. Defendant still could be convicted of voluntary 
manslaughter if he, though otherwise acting in self-defense, was the aggressor.  
The jury, however, found defendant guilty of second-degree murder, indicating 
that defendant unlawfully killed Jon with malice and did not act in self-defense. 
Otherwise, if the jury believed that defendant acted in self-defense, the jury would 
have chosen not guilty of any murder or voluntary manslaughter.  
The jury also found defendant guilty of murder under the felony murder rule. 
To convict a defendant of first-degree murder on the theory of felony murder, the jury 
must find, inter alia, that the defendant killed the victim while committing or 
attempting to commit a felony; here the underlying felony was the independent 
assault on Beth, which the jury found to be assault with a deadly weapon with intent 
to kill inflicting serious injury. To find defendant guilty of this assault, the jury was 
instructed that defendant must have “assaulted the victim by intentionally and 
without justification or excuse shooting [Beth] in the head and arm.” This type of 
assault requires “the specific intent to kill” and includes an attempt to kill the victim 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Newby, J., dissenting 
 
 
-8- 
by an intentional shot. Within the felony murder rule instruction, the trial court 
informed the jury that the required intent “may be inferred by such just and 
reasonable deductions from the circumstances proven as a reasonably prudent person 
would ordinarily draw.” Of the assault options, the jury convicted defendant of 
assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury of Beth even 
though the jury could have chosen an assault that does not require a specific intent 
to kill, such as assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury. Since Beth was 
undisputedly unarmed at the time of the shooting, defendant has no viable self-
defense claim against Beth. This assault conviction becomes the underlying basis for 
murder under the felony murder rule. 
Given defendant’s testimony that he accidently shot Beth when shooting at Jon 
because she was “just in his area,” at defendant’s request, the jury received an 
“accident” defense instruction on the assault charge. This instruction stated that “[a]n 
injury is accidental if it is unintentional, occurs during the course of lawful conduct, 
and does not involve culpable negligence.” The accident instruction required the jury 
to consider whether defendant unintentionally shot Beth. As summarized in defense 
counsel’s jury argument, defendant’s theory that he intended to shoot Jon in self-
defense and that Beth was simply collateral damage is practically speaking the same 
argument regardless of whether that claim is categorized as accidently arising out of 
self-defense or simply an accident.  
As the trial court instructed, the State bore the burden to prove “beyond a 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Newby, J., dissenting 
 
 
-9- 
reasonable doubt that the victim’s injury was not accidental.” If it did not satisfy that 
burden of proof, “it would be [the jury’s] duty to return a verdict of not guilty.” If the 
jury believed that defendant unintentionally shot Beth, it would have found 
defendant not guilty of the intentional assault against Beth, as urged to do by defense 
counsel during closing argument. The jury was not convinced by the “accident” 
defense and instead convicted defendant of assault with the specific intent to kill 
Beth. That verdict indicates that they believed defendant intended to shoot Beth or 
that defendant’s shooting of Jon was unjustified. If the jury believed defendant’s 
theory it would have found him not guilty of all homicide charges and every assault 
charge. The jury, by finding defendant guilty of both a homicide offense against Jon 
and the assault against Beth, simply did not believe defendant’s theory. 
Nonetheless, the majority concludes that the trial court committed prejudicial 
error when it failed to provide the jury with additional self-defense and transferred-
intent instructions for the assault on Beth, and it determines that the jury could have 
reached a different outcome if given those instructions. In the majority’s view, in that 
different outcome, “perfect self-defense can serve as a defense to the underlying felony 
for felony murder, and thereby defeat the felony murder charge” and provide “a 
‘reasonable possibility’ that if the trial court had given defendant’s proposed self-
defense and transferred-intent instructions, the jury would have acquitted him of 
both the assault charge and the felony murder charge for which the assault served as 
the underlying felony.” In other words, the jury could have concluded that defendant 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Newby, J., dissenting 
 
 
-10- 
shot Jon in self-defense and that defendant unintentionally shot Beth while 
defending himself. This argument is essentially the same argument that defendant 
presented to the jury at trial, which the jury rejected. 
Because it appears that defendant was the aggressor, it appears he may not 
have been entitled to the self-defense instruction at all. The evidence indicates that 
defendant undisputedly made threats to kill Jon and, when the violence began, 
defendant was the only one actually holding a gun. Nonetheless, having received the 
self-defense instruction, the jury rejected defendant’s self-defense argument.  
The law limits self-defense protection for aggressors, or those who create the 
deadly situation by their own doing. If a defendant “by his own wrongful act produces 
a condition of things wherein it becomes necessary for his own safety that he should 
take life or do serious bodily harm, . . . the law wisely imputes to him his own wrong, 
and its consequences to the extent that they may and should be considered in 
determining the grade of offense which but for such acts would never have been 
occasioned.” State v. Crisp, 170 N.C. 785, 792, 87 S.E. 511, 515 (1916) (quoting Reed 
v. State, 11 Tex. App. 509, 518 (1882)).  
While defendant’s testimony was the only substantiation of his claim of self-
defense, his testimony at the same time negated that claim. Defendant went into Jon 
and Beth’s home and picked up a gun which caused Jon to ask defendant if defendant 
was robbing him. Defendant never answered Jon’s question and instead threatened 
to kill Jon. Beth pointed a gun at defendant. Defendant disarmed Beth by threat 
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Newby, J., dissenting 
 
 
-11- 
against Jon. It is undisputed that defendant was the only one holding a gun once Beth 
disarmed herself. It is only thereafter that the facts come into dispute. Based on 
defendant’s own testimony and the testimony of the surviving victim, the jury heard 
evidence that defendant was the aggressor and did not act in self-defense. Defendant, 
based on his testimony, nonetheless received the benefit of the self-defense 
instruction, and the jury considered defendant’s intent toward Jon for every crime. 
The jury instructions sufficiently captured defendant’s essential defense theory, 
which allowed defense counsel to make his argument to the jury.1  
The jury considered and discredited the essence of defendant’s self-defense 
theory when it convicted him of second-degree murder instead of voluntary 
manslaughter. The jury simply decided that defendant intended to harm both victims 
and was not justified in doing so. Thus, the shot fired at Jon was not “in the proper 
and prudent exercise of such self-defense” and not “excusable or justifiable.” State v. 
Dalton, 178 N.C. 779, 782, 101 S.E. 548, 549 (1919) (quoting 13 R. C. L. tit. Homicide, 
§ 50, 745–46). Any random shot that unintentionally killed an innocent bystander 
was likewise not “excusable or justifiable.” Id. The jury’s outcome is supported by the 
                                            
1 Even if the shots fired at Jon unintentionally struck Beth, the trial court’s general 
transferred-intent instruction covers shots defendant fired with either criminal intent 
towards Jon or shots justified in self-defense. See State v. Dalton, 178 N.C. 779, 781–82, 101 
S.E. 548, 549 (1919); id. at 782, 101 S.E. at 549 (The defendant “is guilty or innocent exactly 
as though the fatal act had caused the death of the person intended to be killed. The intent 
is transferred to the person whose death has been caused.” (quoting 13 R. C. L. tit. Homicide, 
§ 50, 745–46) (emphasis added)). Thus, by definition, transferred intent encapsulates a 
theory of justification like self-defense as well.  
STATE V. GREENFIELD 
 
Newby, J., dissenting 
 
 
-12- 
evidence presented and, based on the jury’s decisions, additional instructions would 
not have resulted in a different outcome. 
 As demonstrated by the verdict, the jury simply was not convinced by 
defendant’s testimony that he only intended to shoot Jon and that he shot Jon in self-
defense. The jury’s guilty verdict on second-degree murder shows that the jury did 
not find his self-defense claim credible. Similarly, the jury’s finding that defendant 
assaulted Beth with the intent to kill reflects its view that defendant intended to 
shoot Beth or that defendant’s shooting of Jon was unjustified. The jury considered 
and rejected defendant’s defense. His conviction should be upheld. I respectfully 
dissent.