Harris v. Hodges
291 S.E.2d 346, 1982 N.C. App. LEXIS 2641, 57 N.C. App. 360 (1982)
Rule of Law:
In a civil wrongful death action, the issue of self-defense must be submitted to the jury if there is evidence from which it may reasonably be inferred that the defendant employed deadly force out of a reasonable apprehension of death or great bodily harm.
Facts:
- On November 22, 1976, the defendant was hunting deer in Martin County and sitting in his parked pickup truck.
- The plaintiff's decedent, Kenneth Ray Harris, drove his pickup truck and stopped it directly in front of the defendant's truck.
- Harris exited his truck, hit the defendant through the open truck window, grabbed him by the throat, beat him on the side of the head, and forcibly removed him from his truck.
- Harris, a strong and large-built individual, then threw the defendant to the ground and hovered over him.
- The defendant, knowing Harris had a dangerous and violent record, feared Harris would stomp him or inflict other serious harm.
- To stop Harris, the defendant shot him with a .22 caliber derringer, aiming at his leg and not intending to kill him.
- Kenneth Ray Harris subsequently died from the gunshot wound inflicted by the defendant.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff (representing Kenneth Ray Harris's estate) filed a civil action for wrongful death against the defendant in a trial court (Superior Court of Martin County, implied).
- During the trial, the court submitted Issue Number 2, regarding whether the defendant acted justifiably in self-defense, to the jury.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in submitting the self-defense issue to the jury because the evidence presented was insufficient to support it.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Was the evidence presented by the defendant sufficient to warrant the submission of the issue of self-defense to the jury in a civil action for wrongful death?
Opinions:
Majority - Hedrick, Judge
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to allow the submission of the self-defense issue to the jury. The court cited the standard that evidence is sufficient for jury submission if it permits, but does not compel, a favorable verdict, meaning the jury may choose to believe it and draw necessary inferences or disbelieve it. The court noted that tort rules for self-defense are identical to criminal law standards, which allow for the use of deadly force only when it reasonably appears necessary to protect against death or great bodily harm. The reasonableness of the defendant's apprehension of such harm must be determined by the jury based on all facts and circumstances as they appeared to the defendant at the time. The defendant's testimony—detailing Harris's aggressive attack, being thrown to the ground, Harris hovering over him, and the defendant's fear of death or serious injury due to Harris's violent history—provided sufficient evidence for the jury to consider whether he reasonably apprehended death or great bodily harm. Therefore, the trial court correctly submitted the self-defense issue to the jury.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the North Carolina standard for submitting a legal issue to a jury, emphasizing that only evidence that 'permits, but does not compel' a finding is required. It critically establishes the near-identical application of self-defense principles in civil wrongful death actions as in criminal cases, a point of significant clarity for students. The ruling underscores the jury's role as the primary arbiter of the reasonableness of an individual's apprehension of harm, which can be crucial in self-defense claims involving deadly force. This decision sets a relatively low threshold for defendants to present a self-defense theory to a jury, highlighting the importance of even testimonial evidence in establishing a 'reasonable apprehension' for the trier of fact.
