{ "id": 4150413, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOSHUA CARLEN MOORE", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Moore", "decision_date": "2010-01-29", "docket_number": "No. 60A09", "first_page": "793", "last_page": "798", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "363 N.C. 793" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "671 S.E.2d 545", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12642557 ], "year": 2009, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/671/0545-01" ] }, { "cite": "671 S.E.2d 545", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12642557 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "550" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/671/0545-01" ] }, { "cite": "447 S.E.2d 720", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "724" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "337 N.C. 615", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2551800 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "623" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/337/0615-01" ] }, { "cite": "450 S.E.2d 471", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "476" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "338 N.C. 457", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2521426 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "466" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/338/0457-01" ] }, { "cite": "481 S.E.2d 641", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "646" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 N.C. 585", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 54138 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "595" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/345/0585-01" ] }, { "cite": "279 S.E.2d 570", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "572-73" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "303 N.C. 526", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574148 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "530" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/303/0526-01" ] }, { "cite": "565 S.E.2d 133", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Norris, 303 N.C. 526, 530, 279 S.E.2d 570, 572-73 (1981)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 79", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511301 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Norris, 303 N.C. 526, 530, 279 S.E.2d 570, 572-73 (1981)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0079-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 S.E.2d 452", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "245 N.C. 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607855 ], "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/245/0205-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 S.E. 409", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "year": 1919, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "177 N.C. 599", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655091 ], "year": 1919, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/177/0599-01" ] }, { "cite": "196 S.E.2d 750", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "754", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Finch, 177 N.C. 599, 99 S.E. 409 (1919)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 504", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559274 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "509", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Finch, 177 N.C. 599, 99 S.E. 409 (1919)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0504-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 S.E.2d 563", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "568" }, { "page": "569" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 152", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561161 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "158" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0152-01" ] }, { "cite": "138 S.E. 8", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "year": 1927, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "10" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 N.C. 713", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2217899 ], "year": 1927, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "718" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/193/0713-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 660, "char_count": 12326, "ocr_confidence": 0.757, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.5040186359303154e-07, "percentile": 0.666184785290571 }, "sha256": "b3ab83527007f93a21a3254fb319f097d4e8084ee0fc46f0352c994307646808", "simhash": "1:6fd3b83b380e9e6f", "word_count": 2081 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:19:39.869638+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOSHUA CARLEN MOORE" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRADY, Justice.\nThe sole issue before this Court is whether the trial court erred in denying defendant\u2019s requested instructions on self-defense and defense of a family member, instead instructing jurors that they were not to consider these defenses in their deliberations. We hold that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, was sufficient to require the trial court to instruct the jury on the law of self-defense and defense of \u00e1 family member. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand to that court for further remand to the trial court for a new trial.\nBACKGROUND\n' The State\u2019s evidence and defendant\u2019s evidence, in this case varied in important respects. However, it was undisputed that on 8 July 2006, defendant Joshua Carien Moore was sixty-four years old and working with his wife, Carol Moore, and his grandson at their produce stand in Rocky Mount. The couple\u2019s cash box was bolted to a folding table that was located behind the truck that contained much of the produce for sale. Sometime that morning, Emanuel Harris approached the couple\u2019s produce stand, walked over to the meat container, and began comparing different pieces of meat, stating he was attempting to find a piece suitable for his mother. Soon after that, a struggle erupted between Mrs. Moore and Harris when Harris attempted to steal the cash box and its contents. Charise Wilkins testified on behalf of the State that she was at the table at the time of the \u201ctussle\u201d and observed Harris attempt to take the cash box. She testified that she \u201cwant[ed] to say\u201d that Harris still had his hands on the cash box when defendant jumped from the back of the truck and shot Harris once in the chest, killing him. State\u2019s witness Jasper Lindsey testified that he was present during the altercation, that Harris made \u201ca gesture to swing to make [Mrs. Moore\u2019s] arms get out of the way,\u201d and that Harris\u2019s hands were on the cash box when he was shot. Harris was unarmed at the time of the altercation.\nDefendant presented evidence, through testimony of his wife and himself, that he had been a farmer for years, that he and his wife had been married for fifty years, and that they had operated the produce stand in the same location for twenty-five years. Defendant presented numerous character witnesses, all testifying to defendant\u2019s excellent reputation for truthfulness and peacefulness. Defendant\u2019s character witnesses basically described him as a good, salt-of-the-earth type individual.\nDefendant\u2019s and Mrs. Moore\u2019s testimony about the altercation differed from the testimony of the State\u2019s witnesses. Mrs. Moore testified that Harris made her nervous from the time he started asking questions at the stand, that he tried to look in the cash box every time she opened it, and that Harris was wearing a long black t-shirt and baggy pants. Moreover, she testified that during the altercation she was \u201cfrightened\u201d and \u201cpraying\u201d that she would not \u201cget hurt\u201d; that Harris became more aggressive as the attempted robbery progressed, even to the point that he picked the table up off the ground; and that she was worried she might have a heart attack because she has heart palpitations. According to Mrs. Moore, when Harris reached for the cash box and began the struggle, she shouted for her husband, who rushed to her aid and shouted for Harris to \u201cback off.\u201d Harris did back away, but then came back toward Mrs. Moore with his left hand in his pocket. Defendant then shot him. Immediately following the shooting, defendant placed his Taurus .38 special caliber revolver in the back of the truck and went to a nearby business to call for medical assistance for Harris.\nDefendant\u2019s testimony related the same facts as Mrs. Moore\u2019s testimony. Defendant stated that after \u201cbacking off,\u201d Harris put his left hand in his pocket and began to come slowly toward Mrs. Moore once again, while pulling his hand back out of his pocket. Before Harris\u2019s hand reached the top of his pocket, defendant shot him. Defendant stated that he \u201cwasn\u2019t going to wait to see no gun.\u201d He also testified that he feared for his safety, his grandson\u2019s safety, and his wife\u2019s safety.\nDefendant properly requested in writing that the trial court instruct the jury on self-defense and defense of a family member. The trial court denied those requested instructions and instead instructed the jury that the law of self-defense did not apply to the case. During closing arguments, the trial court admonished defense counsel in front of the jury for mentioning self-defense in his argument and immediately instructed jurors that they were not to consider any argument or evidence of self-defense or defense of a family member in their deliberations. The trial court then instructed the jury on first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter. Following deliberations, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of voluntary manslaughter. The Court of Appeals, in a divided opinion, found no error, with the dissenting judge voting for a new trial. State v. Moore, - N.C. App. -, -, 671 S.E.2d 545, 550 (2009). Defendant appealed as of right to this Court.\nANALYSIS\nThis Court long ago explained that \u201c[t]he first law of nature is that of self-defense.\u201d State v. Holland, 193 N.C. 713, 718, 138 S.E. 8, 10 (1927). The concept of self-defense emerged in the law as a recognition of a \u201cprimary impulse\u201d that is an \u201cinherent right\u201d of all human beings. Id. Thus, an accused is not guilty of a crime when he shows the existence of perfect self-defense. State v. Bush, 307 N.C. 152, 158, 297 S.E.2d 563, 568 (1982).\n[B]efore the defendant is entitled to an instruction on self-defense, two questions must be answered in the affirmative: (1) Is there evidence that the defendant in fact formed a belief that it was necessary to kill his adversary in order to protect himself from death or great bodily harm, and (2) if so, was that belief reasonable? If both queries are answered in the affirmative, then an instruction on self-defense must be given. If, however, the evidence requires a negative response to either question, a self-defense instruction should not be given.\nId. at 160-61, 297 S.E.2d at 569. In determining whether an instruction on perfect self-defense must be given, the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant. State v. Watkins, 283 N.C. 504, 509, 196 S.E.2d 750, 754 (1973) (citing State v. Finch, 177 N.C. 599, 99 S.E. 409 (1919)). Thus, if the defendant\u2019s evidence, taken as true, is sufficient to support an instruction for self-defense, it must be given even though the State\u2019s evidence is contradictory. Id. (citing, inter alia, State v. Hipp, 245 N.C. 205, 95 S.E.2d 452 (1956)).\nIf defendant\u2019s evidence is sufficient as to the questions set out in Bush, the jury should be instructed to determine the existence of perfect self-defense.\nThe law of perfect self-defense excuses a killing altogether if, at the time of the killing, these four elements existed:\n(1) it appeared to defendant and he believed it to be necessary to kill the deceased in order to save himself from death or great bodily harm; and\n(2) defendant\u2019s belief was reasonable in that the circumstances as they appeared to him at the time were sufficient to create such a belief in the mind of a person of ordinary firmness; and\n(3) defendant was not the aggressor in bringing on the affray, i.e., he did not aggressively and willingly enter into the fight without legal excuse or provocation; and\n(4) defendant did not use excessive force, i.e., did not use more force than was necessary or reasonably appeared to him to be necessary under the circumstances to protect himself from death or great bodily harm.\nState v. Blue, 356 N.C. 79, 88 n.1, 565 S.E.2d 133, 139 n.1 (2002) (quoting State v. Norris, 303 N.C. 526, 530, 279 S.E.2d 570, 572-73 (1981)). The jury may return a verdict of guilty only if it finds that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense. See State v. Laws, 345 N.C. 585, 595, 481 S.E.2d 641, 646 (1997).\nThe law related to defense of another or a family member is substantially similar. See State v. Perry, 338 N.C. 457, 466, 450 S.E.2d 471, 476 (1994).\nIn general one may kill in defense of another if one believes it to be necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to the other \u201cand has a reasonable ground for such belief, the reasonableness of this belief or apprehension to be judged by the jury in light of the facts and circumstances as they appeared to the defender at the time of the killing.\u201d\nId. (quoting State v. Terry, 337 N.C. 615, 623, 447 S.E.2d 720, 724 (1994)).\nViewed in the light most favorable to defendant, without considering any of the State\u2019s evidence to the contrary, the evidence shows that defendant was present at his produce stand, a place where he had a lawful right to be; that Harris was a sixteen-year-old male who was approximately six feet tall and weighed one-hundred-eighty pounds; that Harris engaged in a physical altercation with Mrs. Moore as he attempted to rob her of her cash box; that Harris grew more aggressive as the \u201ctussle\u201d continued and struck at Mrs. Moore; that Harris so violently pulled at the cash box that, as Mrs. Moore was pushing down, he was still able to lift the table off the ground; that Mrs. Moore fearfully cried out for her husband; that she was \u201cscared to death\u201d; that defendant ordered Harris to \u201cback off\u2019; that Harris did so, but placed his hand in his left pocket, and as he again approached the Moores, began to pull his hand from his pocket; and that defendant shot Harris one time because he feared for the safety of his wife, his grandson, and himself.\nIt is significant that this evidence is not derived solely from defendant\u2019s own testimony, but is corroborated by other testimony and evidence received at trial. Thus, defendant\u2019s evidence is sufficient to show that he believed that it was necessary to use force to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or a family member. Additionally, we cannot say that the facts, when taken in the light most favorable to defendant, evince an unreasonable belief to that effect. Following a protracted and violent struggle for the cash box that attracted the attention of multiple witnessed, defendant could have reasonably believed that Harris was armed and was indeed going to pull a weapon out of his left pocket. Simply put, the evidence was sufficient to require the trial court to instruct the jury on self-defense and defense of a family member.\nCONCLUSION\nBecause defendant was entitled to jury instructions on self-defense and defense of a family member, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to that court with instructions to vacate defendant\u2019s conviction for voluntary manslaughter and to further remand this case to the trial court for a new trial.\nREVERSED AND REMANDED; NEW TRIAL.", "type": "majority", "author": "BRADY, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Jane Ammons Gilchrist, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "Thomas & Farris, PA, by Albert S. Thomas, Jr.; and Newton, & Lee, by Eldon S. Newton, III, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOSHUA CARLEN MOORE\nNo. 60A09\n(Filed 29 January 2010)\nCriminal Law\u2014 self-defense \u2014 defense of family \u2014 instruction denied \u2014 error\nThe trial court erred by not instructing on self-defense and defense of a family member in a voluntary manslaughter prosecution where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, showed that the 64-year-old defendant was operating a produce stand with his wife and his grandson; the victim approached the stand and attempted to wrestle the cash box from defendant\u2019s wife, who feared for her safety; defendant ordered the victim to \u201cback off\u2019 and he did so; the victim then put his hand in his pocket and approached the family, pulling his hand from his pocket; and defendant shot the victim one time.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 194 N.C. App. \u2014\u2022, 671 S.E.2d 545 (2009), finding no error in a judgment entered 17 October 2007 by Judge Frank R. Brown in Superior Court, Edgecombe County, following a jury verdict finding defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Heard in the Supreme Court 17 November 2009.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Jane Ammons Gilchrist, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nThomas & Farris, PA, by Albert S. Thomas, Jr.; and Newton, & Lee, by Eldon S. Newton, III, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0793-01", "first_page_order": 831, "last_page_order": 836 }