Court Opinion

ID: 9849699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:44:34.02849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:24.841073
License: Public Domain

Brock, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part: I feel compelled to record my dissent from the majority holding that defendant was entitled to have the case also submitted to the jury upon the theories of self-defense and defense of another; however, I do agree with the majority opinion that the defendant is entitled to a new trial for error in the charge.
One may kill in defense of himself, or his family, when not actually necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm, if he believes it to be necessary and has reasonable grounds for the belief. State v. Fowler, 250 N.C. 595, 108 S.E. 2d 892. However there must be evidence from which the jury may find that the defendant believed at the time that it was necessary to kill his adversary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or his mother, before he may seek refuge in the principle of self-defense and have the jury pass upon the reasonableness of such belief. State v. Rawley, 237 N.C. 233, 74 S.E. 2d 620.
In the case we are considering, the defendant’s avowed purpose in getting the rifle out to the garage, and in loading it, was to fire it into the air as he had seen his brother do with a pistol about a year before. On direct examination he testified: “I was going to fire it into the air to scare him ... if he started to hurt her or started for her . . . my brother did it and it brought the neighbors down and he went inside and stopped bothering her.” And he stated that was what he intended to do this time.
And, on cross-examination, in response to the Solicitor’s question *290as to whether he intended tó 'use the gun on his father, the defendant stated: “No, sir. I wasn’t going to use it on him at all ' ; . I wasn’t going to use it on my father.” The defendant further testified that when his mother saw him and told him to put the gun down and run, that he didn’t put it down because “I was going out the back door to throw it down the hill.” It was while backing out the back door that the rifle discharged, the defendant stating that he may have come in contact with the door when backing out, but that he did not pull the trigger. Also' the defendant testified that he was his father’s favorite son, and that his father had never abused him in punishment or anything. And there was no showing of any threat of violence to defendant on this occasion.
It seems fairly obvious from all of the testimony that defendant’s mother was not afraid of what the deceased might do. to her. She had his threats relayed to her by the children over the telephone and, according to her testimony, the deceased had also told her over the telephone that he was going to beat her when she got home. Nevertheless, she went home as usual. Also, according to her testimony, when she arrived home and the deceased threatened her, she made no effort to run away -from him even up to the point that she says she first saw defendant with the rifle in his hand.
I agree with the majority opinion that a plea of not guilty entitles a defendant to present evidence that he acted in self-defense or defense of another, and that the shooting was an accident; and that defendant is not required to elect to pursue only one of such defenses. However, there must be evidence to support a defense before he is entitled to have the jury instructed upon the defense. In this case the entire evidence for the defendant points to an accidental shooting, and such evidence entitled the defendant to have the jury properly instructed upon an accidental homicide. But, although the evidence may support a conclusion that defendant loaded, secreted, and later picked up the rifle in an unwise effort to assist his mother, in my view there is no evidence in the present record to justify submitting the case to the jury upon the theory of self-defense, or defense of another. I agree with the trial judge upon this phase of the case. The courts should not interpose defenses for a defendant whose entire evidence and testimony rejects those defenses.