State v. . Marshall
208 N.C. 127, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 338, 179 S.E. 427 (1935)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The right to kill in self-defense requires real or apparent necessity to prevent death or great bodily harm, and the force used must be reasonably necessary under the circumstances; excessive force, even if the defendant believed it necessary, will render the defendant guilty of at least manslaughter.
Facts:
- The homicide occurred in the defendant Rex's filling station.
- The deceased, who had been drinking, attempted to engage Rex's wife in a whispered conversation, which she repulsed.
- Rex ordered the deceased to leave the building two or three times, but the deceased refused.
- The deceased cursed Rex, called him names, slammed his hat on the counter, and challenged Rex to shoot him, stating he would die like a man.
- The deceased then reached for a hammer with his other hand.
- Rex fired his pistol at the deceased from a distance of 2.5 to 3.5 feet, with the width of a counter separating them.
- Rex testified he did not shoot to kill, was scared, and did not believe the deceased had raised the hammer in a striking position before he shot, only grabbed it.
- Rex's wife testified that she saw the deceased grab for the hammer at the moment Rex shot.
Procedural Posture:
- When the case was called for trial in the trial court, the solicitor announced that the State would not insist upon a verdict of murder in the first degree, but would ask for a verdict of murder in the second degree or manslaughter.
- The defendant admitted the killing with a deadly weapon.
- A trial was conducted, and the defendant was found guilty (implied by the Court's review of the verdict and charge).
- The defendant appealed the trial court's decision to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant who uses a deadly weapon in self-defense commit manslaughter if the force employed is excessive and not reasonably proportionate to the apparent danger, even if the defendant believed it to be necessary?
Opinions:
Majority - Stacy, C. J.
Yes, a defendant who uses a deadly weapon in self-defense commits manslaughter if the force employed is excessive and not reasonably proportionate to the apparent danger, even if the defendant believed it to be necessary. The Court found that Rex's own testimony indicated he was not in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, nor did he apprehend such danger when he shot the deceased. Rex stated he 'did not shoot to kill' and admitted that the deceased 'did not draw the hammer back to strike,' but only grabbed it. This evidence strongly supported an inference that Rex used excessive force. The right to kill in self-defense requires either actual or apparent necessity to prevent death or great bodily harm, and the force used must always be reasonably necessary under the circumstances. If a defendant employs excessive force or unnecessary violence, they will be guilty of at least manslaughter. The jury is responsible for determining the reasonableness of the defendant's belief or apprehension based on the facts as they appeared at the time of the killing. The Court concluded that any potentially inappropriate illustrations in the trial judge's instructions were harmless or cured by the verdict given Rex's admissions and the evidence on record.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the critical distinction between a subjective belief in the need for self-defense and the objective reasonableness of the force used. It highlights that even when facing a perceived threat, the use of deadly force must be proportionate to the apparent danger, and juries retain the ultimate authority to assess the reasonableness of such actions. The ruling underscores that employing excessive force, even if the initial act of self-defense was justifiable, can mitigate justifiable homicide to manslaughter, emphasizing the strict limits on the right to use deadly force and the importance of a measured response.
