Source: https://blog.lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/state-v-fletcher-150-s-e-2d-54-nc-supreme-court-1966/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:26:08+00:00

Document:
Attorney General Bruton, Deputy Attorney General Moody and Staff Attorney Vanore for the State.
Cecil C. Jackson, Jr., for defendant appellant.
The judge instructed the jury they could return a verdict of guilty of felonious assault as charged, or a verdict of guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, or a verdict of not guilty. The evidence required that such instruction be given. G.S. 15-169; G.S. 15-170; S. v. Hicks, 241 N.C. 156, 84 S.E. 2d 545.
It is unnecessary to review the evidence. When considered in the light most favorable to the State, it was sufficient to support a verdict of guilty of felonious assault as charged. When considered in the light most favorable to defendant, it was sufficient to require appropriate instructions as to defendant’s right of self-defense in respect of repelling a felonious assault and in respect of repelling a nonfelonious assault.
The quoted instructions imply the burden of proof was on defendant to satisfy the jury he acted in self-defense. They would be appropriate in a homicide case when the killing with a deadly weapon is admitted or established, thereby raising the presumptions that the killing was unlawful and was done with malice. They have no application in criminal prosecutions for felonious assault or assault with a deadly weapon. In prosecutions for felonious assault and for assault with a deadly weapon, it is not incumbent on a defendant to satisfy the jury he acted in self-defense. On the contrary, the burden of proof rests on the State throughout the trial to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant unlawfully assaulted the alleged victim. S. v. Warren, 242 N.C. 581, 89 S.E. 2d 109, and cases cited; S. v. Sandlin, 251 N.C. 81, 110 S.E. 2d 481; S. v. Cloer, 266 N.C. 672, 146 S.E. 2d 815.
Moreover, the court’s instructions imply defendant could not lawfully use force in self-defense unless he was threatened with death or great bodily harm. We find no instruction with reference to the right of defendant to defend himself against a nonfelonious assault. Failure to instruct the jury with reference to defendant’s right of self-defense in respect of repelling a nonfelonious assault is prejudicial error. S. v. Anderson, 230 N.C. 54, 51 S.E. 2d 895; also, see S. v. Warren, supra.
Indicated errors in the charge entitle defendant to a new trial. Discussion of defendant’s other assignments of error is unnecessary. They relate to matters that may not arise at the next trial.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.