Apartment Knife Strike After Threatening Entry
At about 8:10 p.m., Dana, 5'6", is in her own one-bedroom apartment when her ex-boyfriend Marcus, 6'4", arrives with his brother. Dana had texted Marcus earlier: 'Bring whoever, just get your stuff.' Marcus pounds on the door and yells, 'I'm going to beat you.' Dana opens the door; Marcus steps into the living room and keeps advancing. Dana retreats to the kitchen, grabs a steak knife, and says, 'Get out or I'll cut you.' Marcus, unarmed, says, 'You won't do it,' and moves toward her. Dana stabs him once in the chest. Marcus dies. Dana tells police she was terrified and thought he would kill her. The apartment is rented solely by Dana. Marcus had lived there four months earlier but moved out. No prior domestic violence calls. Police find no weapons on Marcus. The State charges Dana with first-degree murder and argues she was the aggressor because she opened the door and armed herself.
1. Apply North Carolina's perfect self-defense test. Which facts support and which undermine Dana's claim, and does any duty to retreat apply?
Read the worked answer
Perfect self-defense in North Carolina requires: (1) the defendant was not at fault; (2) she reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm; and (3) the force was not excessive. A person in her own home generally has no duty to retreat before using otherwise justified force.
Facts supporting Dana: she was in her rented apartment; Marcus was much larger; he pounded on the door and threatened to beat her; he advanced after she retreated; she told him to get out; she used a single stab after retreating to the kitchen. These facts support a reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily harm.
Facts undermining Dana: she opened the door after texting 'Bring whoever,' which may make her at fault or the provoker; she armed herself and threatened to cut Marcus; Marcus was unarmed; size and words alone do not always justify deadly force. If the jury finds Dana provoked the confrontation or was the aggressor, perfect self-defense is unavailable. The no-retreat rule does not rescue a defendant who was at fault. The jury must decide fault, reasonableness, and proportionality.
2. Does N.C.G.S. 14-51.2 create a presumption of reasonable fear? Explain what the jury must decide.
Read the worked answer
N.C.G.S. 14-51.2 gives a lawful occupant of a dwelling a rebuttable presumption that she reasonably feared imminent death or serious bodily harm, and that she used reasonable force, when a person unlawfully and forcibly enters the dwelling. The presumption does not apply if the person entering had a right to be there or if the occupant provoked the entry.
Here the presumption is doubtful. Dana opened the door voluntarily; Marcus stepped in. There was no breaking or forcible entry in the statutory sense. Marcus had moved out, so he was not a lawful resident, but the entry was not forcible. Even if the entry became unlawful after Dana told him to leave, the statute requires an unlawful and forcible entry. If the jury finds no forcible entry, the defense-of-habitation presumption should not be given. If it is given, the State may rebut it, and it is unavailable if Dana provoked the confrontation. The jury must decide the entry's character and Dana's fault before applying the presumption.
3. If the jury rejects perfect self-defense but finds Dana reasonably believed deadly force was necessary, yet used excessive force, what offense and why?
Read the worked answer
The appropriate verdict would be voluntary manslaughter under imperfect self-defense. In North Carolina, if the defendant actually and reasonably believed deadly force was necessary but used excessive force, the malice required for murder is negated. The killing is unlawful because the force was excessive, but it is not murder.
If the jury finds Dana did not reasonably believe deadly force was necessary, then the killing could be second-degree murder based on malice. First-degree murder would require premeditation and deliberation, which the sudden confrontation, threats, and single stab do not strongly support. The court should instruct on perfect self-defense, imperfect self-defense, voluntary manslaughter, and second-degree murder if the evidence supports each.