State v. Bennett

2 Citing cases

  1. State v. Quick

    768 S.E.2d 201 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014)

    However, even though the trial court erred in failing to instruct on imperfect self-defense, we must still determine whether that omission constituted plain error. See State v. Loftin,322 N.C. 375, 381–82, 368 S.E.2d 613, 617 (1988) (holding that although the trial court erred in failing to instruct on accident, the omission did not constitute plain error); State v. Morgan,315 N.C. 626, 646–47, 340 S.E.2d 84, 96–97 (1986) (trial court's error in not instructing the jury as to the defendant's right to stand his ground was not plain error); State v. Bennett,67 N.C.App. 407, 411, 313 S.E.2d 277, 280 (1984) (reviewing the defendant's alleged instructional error based on the trial court's failure to instruct on imperfect self-defense for plain error). In other words, although we found that there was evidence that necessitated the instruction, i.e., that there was some evidence from which “the jury reasonably could find that the defendant in fact believed that it was necessary to kill his adversary to protect himself from death or great bodily harm[,]” Bush,307 N.C. at 160, 297 S.E.2d at 569, we must examine the strength of the evidence supporting the jury's verdict of second degree murder to determine whether the jury “probably,” Lawrence,365 N.C. at 519, 723 S.E.2d at 335, would have reached a different verdict had it been instructed on imperfect self-defense.

  2. State v. Hearn

    365 S.E.2d 206 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 4 times

    See State v. Wagoner, 249 N.C. 637, 107 S.E.2d 83 (1959). In reaching our conclusion here, we recognize our decision in State v. Bennett, 67 N.C. App. 407, 313 S.E.2d 277 (1984), in which we held that a trial court's refusal to instruct the jury that there was no duty to retreat was not in error because there was evidence that defendant was the initial aggressor. We distinguish that case on the facts.