In this Iredell County case, defendant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, arguing error in (1) denying his motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation, (2) omitting stand-your-ground from the instruction on self-defense, and (3) excluding evidence of the victim’s previous felony convictions. The Court of Appeals majority found error in (1) and (3), vacating defendant’s conviction and remanding for a new trial. 

In September of 2020, the victim and several other men were dove hunting in a field next to defendant’s land. The victim had permission from the landowner to hunt in the field, and had hunted here for several years, but as a convicted felon he could not legally possess a firearm. Defendant kept a horse rescue farm next to the field, and in 2017 a man hunting with the victim had shot one of defendant’s horses. After that incident, defendant asked the victim to be more cautious while hunting, and to avoid hunting near the fence line. On the morning of the incident, defendant heard shooting and went to confront the victim; defendant was carrying a pistol in his back pocket. After an argument, the victim shoved defendant to the ground. After that, testimony differed as to whether the victim charged defendant and defendant shot him in self-defense, or defendant shot the victim immediately. At trial, the State moved to exclude discussion of the victim’s prior felony convictions, and the trial court granted the motion. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing lack of evidence showing premeditation or deliberation for the murder, but the motion was denied. Defendant also objected to the proposed jury instruction on self-defense, arguing it did not include an instruction on stand-your-ground law, but the trial court declined to change the instruction. 

Taking up (1), the Court of Appeals first outlined the eight factors “which assist in the determination of whether premeditation and deliberation were present.” Slip Op. at 12. Here, defendant argued he “did not have a history of arguments, ill will, or serious animosity” towards the victim, and instead “was in fear for his life” as he thought the victim was reaching for a gun. Id. at 14. The court’s majority agreed with defendant that there was no evidence of arguments or ill will, and after reviewing the eight factors, concluded this case did not show premeditation and deliberation. The majority highlighted the age difference, as defendant was 72 years old and the victim was 46, and the conduct of defendant after the shooting, as he went home, unloaded his firearm, and called law enforcement to report the shooting. 

Moving to (2), the court disagreed that a stand-your-ground instruction was justified, as defendant was not in a place where he had a lawful right to be, the field adjacent to his property. Defendant argued that “absent evidence that he was a trespasser, he had a lawful right to be in the field and there is no reason to assume he was there unlawfully.” Id. at 21. However, the court looked to G.S. 14-51.3 and caselaw interpreting it, determining that since defendant was on privately owned property, and he did not admit evidence that he had permission to be there, he had not established a lawful right to be there for stand-your-ground purposes. The court also noted that, even assuming the instruction was error, defendant could not demonstrate prejudice as the self-defense instruction required the jury to consider the “the proportionality between the degree of force and the surrounding circumstances” before convicting him of first-degree murder. Id. at 23. 

Reaching (3), the court noted that the trial court excluded evidence of the victim’s convictions under Rule of Evidence 404(b) because defendant did not know the nature of the victim’s prior convictions. The majority opinion explained this was error, as the evidence was not being admitted to show the victim’s propensity for violence, but instead to show defendant’s state of mind and fear of being harmed. Applying State v. Jacobs, 363 N.C. 815 (2010), the majority held that “the evidence presented serves a nonpropensity purpose and such evidence should generally be admissible.” Id. at 27. After establishing the evidence was admissible, the majority determined that the error was prejudicial, as “[t]he excluded evidence would most certainly have provided the jury with insight into Defendant’s state of mind, which [was] essential to his claim of self-defense, and whether Defendant’s fear and degree of force was reasonable.” Id. at 28. The exclusion also required redaction of the 911 call and removed the context from testimony about the victim hunting illegally, which would have been relevant to the jury’s deliberation. 

Judge Stading concurred in (2), but dissented from the majority’s opinion in (1) and (3), and would have held that sufficient evidence supported premeditation and deliberation and that it was not error to exclude the victim’s felony status. Id. at 32.