The common law right to use defensive force in North Carolina rests on three fundamental principles: necessity, proportionality, and fault. Ordinarily, when a person uses defensive force, the force must be reasonably necessary to prevent harm; the force must be proportional to the threatened harm; and the person using defensive force must not be at fault in the conflict. See John Rubin, The Law of Self-Defense § 2.1(b), at 14–15 (UNC School of Government, 1996). North Carolina’s new statutes on defensive force continue to rely on these principles. As under the common law, the statutes do not always refer to these principles in describing the circumstances in which a person may use defensive force. But, as this post is intended to show, the basic principles of necessity, proportionality, and fault remain central to the statutory rights.
John Rubin
Another Self-Defense Decision on a Troublesome Doctrine
In State v. Harvey, ___ N.C. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (June 14, 2019), a five to one majority of the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the unpublished decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 817 S.E.2d 500 (2018), holding that the trial judge properly refused to instruct the jury on perfect and imperfect self-defense in a homicide case. In so ruling, the majority in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals relied on the “belief” doctrine created by our courts over the last 25 years. The opinions, four in all, show that our courts are continuing to wrestle with the implications of that doctrine.
The Statutory Law of Self-Defense in North Carolina
Several years ago (some might say that’s an understatement) I wrote The Law of Self-Defense in North Carolina, in which I looked at over 200 years’ worth of North Carolina court opinions on self-defense and related defenses, such as defense of others and defense of habitation. The book’s approach reflected that North Carolina was a common law state when it came to self-defense. The right to act in self-defense depended primarily on the authority of court decisions. The General Assembly’s adoption in 2011 of three defensive force statutes—G.S. 14-51.2, G.S. 14-51.3, and G.S. 14-51.4—changed that. An understanding of the law of self-defense in North Carolina now must begin with the statutory law of self-defense.
Acceptance of Alford Guilty Pleas
In North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), the United States Supreme Court concluded that it is constitutionally permissible for a defendant who does not admit guilt to enter a plea of guilty. Such a plea, now known as an Alford plea, is constitutional as long as the defendant “voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly” enters the plea and there is a “strong factual basis” for the plea. The Court left to each state how to handle such pleas—whether to prohibit them, to allow each judge to decide whether to accept them, or to require their acceptance. Which category is North Carolina in?
Do Expunctions Matter?
Intuitively, the answer seems obvious—a clean record should reduce reentry barriers for employment and other opportunities. Yet, data on the impact of expunctions is elusive because, by their nature, expunged records are unavailable to analyze. No longer. A recent study by J.J. Prescott and Sonja B. Starr, law professors and co-directors of the Empirical Legal Studies Center at the University of Michigan, presents the results of a statewide study pursuant to a data-sharing agreement with the State of Michigan.
Letting the Jury Know about “Collateral” Consequences of a Conviction
Under North Carolina law a criminal defendant has the right to inform the jury of the punishment for the crime being tried. In State v. McMorris, 290 N.C. 286 (1976), the North Carolina Supreme Court traced this right back to the mid-19th century. Back then, the legislature took umbrage at a judge’s refusal to allow a lawyer to argue both the law and facts to the jury and enacted what is now G.S. 7A-97. That statute states that “the whole case as well of law as of fact may be argued to the jury.” The Supreme Court in McMorris held that this provision gave the defendant the right to inform the jury of the statutory punishment in the case. The Court observed: “In a real sense the sanction prescribed for criminal behavior is part of the law of the case.” 290 N.C. at 287.
Evidence about the “Victim” in Self-Defense Cases
In self-defense cases, the defendant typically claims that the “victim” was actually the assailant and that the defendant needed to use force to defend himself, family, home, or other interests. Because of this role reversal, the rules of evidence allow the defendant to offer evidence to show that the victim was the assailant or at least that the defendant reasonably believed that the victim intended to do harm. In State v. Bass, ___ N.C. ___, 819 S.E.2d 322 (2018), the North Carolina Supreme Court clarified one form of evidence that a defendant may not offer about the victim in a self-defense case. This post reviews the evidence found impermissible in Bass as well as several types of evidence that remain permissible.
My London Experience
As part of this semester’s study abroad program, I asked the 25 Carolina students to identify and write up a memorable London experience. Having given them the nearly impossible task of picking just one experience to memorialize, it’s only fair that I do the same in my last blog post from London.
Part 2: Double Jeopardy and Beyond
For our last official criminal justice class, we heard from five more teams of students about their research projects. (At the students’ request, we also scheduled an extra evening session to watch the third best movie ever made about the law and lawyers—answer at the end of this post.) Once again, the students worked on a wide range of topics and, once again, I learned from the students. Here are some quick takeaways along with a brief discussion of one of the topics—double jeopardy, or more accurately, the absence of double jeopardy protections in the UK.
Part 1: Policing, DNA, Mental Health, and Rehabilitation
What do the topics in the title of this blog post have in common? They were the focus of the students’ criminal justice presentations this week. Nine teams of students, two on each team, have been researching and preparing their presentations throughout the semester. Here are some of my takeaways from the first set of presentations.