{ "id": 9128962, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES MARVIN NAPIER, SR.", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Napier", "decision_date": "2002-03-19", "docket_number": "No. COA01-236", "first_page": "462", "last_page": "466", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "149 N.C. App. 462" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "883 F.2d 326", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 10528440 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/883/0326-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 U.S.C. \u00a7 922", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(g)(1)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "147 L. Ed. 2d 988", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "530 U.S. 1264", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9437827, 9437668, 9437606, 9437802, 9437646, 9437777, 9437938, 9437715, 9437908, 9437751, 9437624, 9437882, 9437852, 9437693 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/530/1264-10", "/us/530/1264-04", "/us/530/1264-01", "/us/530/1264-09", "/us/530/1264-03", "/us/530/1264-08", "/us/530/1264-14", "/us/530/1264-06", "/us/530/1264-13", "/us/530/1264-07", "/us/530/1264-02", "/us/530/1264-12", "/us/530/1264-11", "/us/530/1264-05" ] }, { "cite": "205 F.3d 1292", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 11464325 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1297" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/205/1292-01" ] }, { "cite": "553 S.E.2d 206", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "354 N.C. 72", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 138497, 138344, 138443, 138353, 138290 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/354/0072-03", "/nc/354/0072-04", "/nc/354/0072-05", "/nc/354/0072-01", "/nc/354/0072-02" ] }, { "cite": "550 S.E.2d 38", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "45" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "144 N.C. App. 223", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11433652 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "234-35" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/144/0223-01" ] }, { "cite": "405 S.E.2d 214", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "103 N.C. App. 264", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520378 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/103/0264-01" ] }, { "cite": "337 S.E.2d 172", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "173" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "78 N.C. App. 514", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522449 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "516" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/78/0514-01" ] }, { "cite": "221 S.E.2d 898", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "901" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "28 N.C. App. 509", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550672 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "513" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/28/0509-01" ] }, { "cite": "464 S.E.2d 78", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "83" }, { "page": "83", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "120 N.C. App. 720", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11917804 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "726" }, { "page": "726" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/120/0720-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 541, "char_count": 9366, "ocr_confidence": 0.768, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.1860665999819794e-07, "percentile": 0.773234655765645 }, "sha256": "c6381fb5b70ba7f3b90d527ef91a9da9b4f9a6153da98031b7cfb9947f188325", "simhash": "1:4792fce4fc9b7adf", "word_count": 1568 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:06:37.161258+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges CAMPBELL and SMITH concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES MARVIN NAPIER, SR." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "EAGLES, Chief Judge.\nJames Marvin Napier, Sr., (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals from the trial court\u2019s judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal, defendant\u2019s sole assignment of error is that the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction stating that j\u00fcstification is a defense for possession of a firearm by a felon. After careful review of the record, briefs, and arguments of counsel, we find no error.\nThe evidence tends to show the following. Defendant, a convicted felon, was involved in an on-going feud with his neighbor, Robert Ford, and his neighbor\u2019s son, Brandon (\u201cBrad\u201d) Ford. On or about 30 June 1999, Brad Ford began shooting a shotgun in the air over defend-. ant\u2019s property. During the next few days, Brad Ford continued to shoot over defendant\u2019s property. At approximately 8:00 p.m. on 3 July 1999, defendant, with a holstered 9 millimeter handgun attached to his hip, walked across the street to Robert Ford\u2019s premises. Neither Robert Ford nor Brad Ford was armed at the time.\nOnce defendant arrived on Robert Ford\u2019s premises, defendant \u201cwalked up to [Robert Ford and Brad Ford]\u201d and admittedly stated \u201c[i]f I\u2019m bothering y\u2019all with this gun or I\u2019m scaring you or defending [sic] y\u2019all with this, I\u2019ll take it back to the house.\u201d Defendant and Robert Ford then discussed the neighbor\u2019s situation. Brad Ford left the two men in the yard and entered the residence. After several hours, the conversation between defendant and Robert Ford escalated into a physical altercation. Upon seeing the altercation, Brad Ford came out of the residence and joined the fight. Eventually, someone called 9-1-1 and law enforcement officers arrived on the scene. After the officers restored order and left the scene, defendant fired a gun from his property and hit Brad Ford in the arm.\nDefendant was tried before a jury during the 13 December 1999 Criminal Session of Richmond County Superior Court on charges of (1) discharging a firearm into occupied property, (2) assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, (3) conspiracy to discharge a firearm into occupied property, (4) conspiracy to commit an assault with a deadly weapon, (5) possession of a firearm by a felon on 4 July 1999, and (6) possession of a firearm by a felon on 3 July 1999. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury deadlocked on the first two charges, and the trial court declared a mistrial as to those counts. Additionally, the jury found defendant not guilty on the conspiracy and the 4 July 1999 possession charges, and the jury found defendant guilty of the 3 July 1999 possession of a firearm by a felon charge. The trial court entered judgment and sentenced defendant to a term of imprisonment of 25 to 30 months. Defendant appeals.\nOn appeal, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for a jury instruction on justification as a defense to the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon. We disagree.\nIn North Carolina, requests for special jury instructions are allowable pursuant to G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 1-181 and 1A-1, Rule 51(b). It is well settled that the trial court must give the instructions requested, at least in substance, if they are proper and supported by the evidence. See Roberts v. Young, 120 N.C. App. 720, 726, 464 S.E.2d 78, 83 (1995). \u201cThe proffered instruction must . . . contain a correct legal request and be pertinent to the evidence and the issues of the case.\u201d State v. Scales, 28 N.C. App. 509, 513, 221 S.E.2d 898, 901 (1976). \u201cHowever, the trial court may exercise discretion to refuse instructions based on erroneous statements of the law.\u201d Roberts, 120 N.C. App. at 726, 464 S.E.2d at 83 (citation omitted).\nHere, defendant was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of G.S. \u00a7 14-415.1. Pursuant to \u00a7 14-415.1(a), it is unlawful \u201cfor any person who has been convicted of a felony to purchase, own, possess, or have in his custody, care, or control any handgun or other firearm with a barrel length of less than 18 inches or an overall length of less than 26 inches ....\u201d An exception to this offense exists for a felon who possesses a firearm \u201cwithin his own home or on his lawful place of business.\u201d G.S. \u00a7 14-415.1(a). In creating this exception, the legislature clearly expressed its intent to limit its applicability to the confines and privacy of the convicted felon\u2019s own premises, over which he has dominion and control to the exclusion of the public. See State v. McNeill, 78 N.C. App. 514, 516, 337 S.E.2d 172, 173 (1985). Here, defendant was not within his own premises. Thus, defendant\u2019s case does not fit within this exception.\nAt trial, defendant requested an instruction on justification, and the court denied the request. We note that the courts of this State have not recognized justification as a defense to a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon. However, North Carolina has recognized the defense of necessity in limited circumstances. See State v. Thomas, 103 N.C. App. 264, 405 S.E.2d 214 (1991). \u201cNecessity excuses otherwise criminal behavior which was reasonably necessary to protect life, limb, or health, and where no other acceptable choice was available.\u201d State v. Haywood, 144 N.C. App. 223, 234-35, 550 S.E.2d 38, 45, disc. review denied, 354 N.C. 72, 553 S.E.2d 206 (2001). Nevertheless, we are unable to find any case law in our State supporting the proposition that necessity is available as a defense to a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon. In fact, defendant concedes that \u201c[n]o reported opinions from this state specifically address the application of the necessity defense to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.\u201d\nAccordingly, defendant asks this Court to expand the necessity defense and \u201cadopt the test for justification as set out by the Eleventh Circuit\u201d in U.S. v. Deleveaux, 205 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1264, 147 L. Ed. 2d 988 (2000). Under the test set out in Deleveaux, a defendant must show four elements to establish justification as a defense to a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon:\n(1) that the defendant was under unlawful and present, imminent, and impending threat of death or serious bodily injury;\n(2) that the defendant did not negligently or recklessly place himself in a situation where he would be forced to engage in criminal conduct;\n(3) that the defendant had no reasonable legal alternative to violating the law; and\n(4) that there was a direct causal relationship between the criminal action and the avoidance of the threatened harm.\nDeleveaux, 205 F.3d at 1297. Significantly, we note that the Deleveaux court limited the application of the justification defense to 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 922(g)(1) cases (federal statute for possession of a firearm by a felon) in \u201conly extraordinary circumstances.\u201d Id.\nAssuming, without deciding, for purposes of this appeal that the Deleveaux rationale applies in North Carolina, the evidence here does not support a conclusion that defendant was under a present or imminent threat of death or injury. Regardless of the evidence of Brad Ford\u2019s drug and alcohol use, Brad Ford\u2019s threats, and Brad Ford\u2019s recent shooting over defendant\u2019s property, the evidence shows that defendant, while armed, voluntarily walked across the street and onto Robert Ford\u2019s premises; defendant asked Robert Ford and Brad Ford if they wanted him to take the gun home; and defendant, while armed, stayed on Robert Ford\u2019s premises for several hours talking to Robert Ford before the fight ensued.\nWithout ruling on the general availability of the justification defense in possession of a firearm by a felon cases in North Carolina, we conclude that under the facts of this case defendant was not entitled to a justification instruction. See U.S. v. Grittendon, 883 F.2d 326 (4th Cir. 1989). Since the evidence here does not support the justification instruction, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant\u2019s request.\nIn sum, we conclude that defendant received a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges CAMPBELL and SMITH concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "EAGLES, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Hal F. Askins, for the State.", "Noell R Tin for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES MARVIN NAPIER, SR.\nNo. COA01-236\n(Filed 19 March 2002)\nFirearms and Other Weapons\u2014 possession of a firearm by a felon \u2014 justification not a defense\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant\u2019s request for a jury instruction stating that justification is a defense for possession of a firearm by a felon under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-415.1, because: (1) defendant\u2019s case does not fit within the statute\u2019s exception limiting its applicability to the confines and privacy of the convicted felon\u2019s own premises since defendant was not within his own premises; and (2) North Carolina courts have not recognized justification as a defense to a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon, and the instruction is not justified in this case since the evidence does not support a conclusion that defendant was under a present or imminent threat of death or injury.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 4 January 2000 by Judge Michael E. Beale in Richmond County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 January 2002.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Hal F. Askins, for the State.\nNoell R Tin for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0462-01", "first_page_order": 496, "last_page_order": 500 }