State v. Phillips, 281A23, ___ N.C. ___ (Aug. 23, 2024)

In this Cumberland County case, the Supreme Court modified and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision vacating defendant’s conviction for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury due to an erroneous instruction on excessive force and the castle doctrine. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ finding of error but vacated the finding of prejudice and granting of a new trial, instead remanding to the Court of Appeals for a proper consideration of whether defendant was prejudiced by the error. 

In April of 2021, the victim approached defendant’s front door, leading to a confrontation between the two over defendant’s complaints to their landlord about the victim. After the confrontation escalated, defendant fired several shots at the victim, hitting her in the left side and causing injuries that left her disabled. At trial, defendant asserted self-defense and defense of habitation under the castle doctrine. The trial court expressed concern over giving a castle doctrine instruction, and ultimately altered the instruction with the following: “However, the defendant does not have the right to use excessive force.” Slip Op. at 5. Defense counsel objected that this limitation was from common law, not statutory law, but the trial court went forward with the altered instruction. When the matter reached the Court of Appeals, defendant argued that the trial court’s instruction was error, and the panel’s majority agreed. The dissenting judge did not see error in the instruction, and reasoned that the castle doctrine law aligned with common law defenses, leading to the State’s appeal based on the dissent. 

Taking up the State’s appeal, the Supreme Court first gave an overview of the castle doctrine’s evolution from a common law defense to the modern G.S. 14-51.2. The Court then spent a significant amount of the opinion exploring the text of G.S. 14-51.2 and the presumptions it contains, including the presumption that a lawful occupant who uses deadly force “is ‘presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm’ and has no duty to retreat from the intruder.” Id. at 15. The Court emphasized this presumption was rebuttable, but that “the castle doctrine’s statutory presumption of reasonable fear may only be rebutted by the circumstances contained in section 14-51.2(c).” Id. at 16. This precluded any common law concept of excessive force as provided in the trial court’s instruction. Having established the instruction was error, the Court then moved to whether defendant was prejudiced, determining that the Court of Appeals “failed to conduct an appropriate inquiry” into the prejudice determination. Id. at 21. As a result, the Court remanded to the Court of Appeals for a proper analysis. 

Justice Earls, joined by Justice Riggs, concurred in the conclusion that the castle doctrine instruction was error, but dissented from the majority’s decision to remand to the Court of Appeals, reasoning that the Court had the ability to decide whether defendant was prejudiced based on the briefing.