Caseflicks

Court of Appeals of North Carolina • 1988

State v. Norman

366 S.E.2d 586 | 89 N.C. App. 384 | 1988 N.C. App. LEXIS 262

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that evidence of battered spouse syndrome and a long, escalating pattern of abuse can require a perfect-self-defense instruction even when the abuser was asleep at the moment of the killing.

Background

Judy Norman shot and killed her husband, J.T. Norman, while he was asleep. The State's evidence showed that she admitted obtaining a pistol from her mother's house, returning home, loading it, and shooting him twice in the head. Officers observed burns and bruises on her body that evening.

The defense presented extensive evidence that, during their twenty-five-year marriage, Norman had subjected defendant to constant physical, sexual, verbal, and psychological abuse. He forced her into prostitution, beat her with fists and objects, deprived her of food, humiliated her by making her act like a dog and eat pet food, and repeatedly threatened to kill or mutilate her. In the thirty-six hours before the shooting, he had beaten her repeatedly, burned her with a cigarette, threatened to kill her, and interfered with medical personnel after she overdosed on pills. Defendant testified that prior attempts to leave or seek legal help had failed because Norman found her, beat her, and threatened to kill her.

Two forensic psychologists testified that defendant suffered from battered spouse syndrome, including learned helplessness and a belief that escape from Norman's control was impossible. They concluded that defendant believed killing Norman was necessary to protect herself and her family.

At trial, the court instructed the jury on first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter, but refused to instruct on self-defense. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the evidence required an instruction on perfect self-defense and ordered a new trial.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the evidence required an instruction on perfect self-defense even though Norman was asleep when defendant shot him.

Holding

Yes. Viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, the evidence could support every element of perfect self-defense, so the trial court's refusal to give that instruction was error requiring a new trial.

Reasoning

Perfect self-defense requires evidence that the defendant actually believed deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm; that this belief was objectively reasonable under the circumstances as they appeared to the defendant; that the defendant was not the aggressor; and that the defendant did not use excessive force. The first inquiry is subjective, asking what this defendant perceived, while the second employs the objective perspective of a person of ordinary firmness in the same circumstances.

The evidence could support a finding that defendant actually believed she had to kill Norman to survive. The record described years of forced prostitution, brutal beatings, degradation, and repeated death threats, as well as violence and threats continuing on the day of the killing. Defendant testified that Norman would kill her if he had the chance, and that he had located and beaten her whenever she had previously tried to leave. Both experts similarly concluded that she believed deadly force was necessary.

A jury could also find that this belief was objectively reasonable in the circumstances. The court treated battered spouse syndrome as relevant evidence bearing on the reasonableness inquiry, particularly its evidence of learned helplessness, defendant's inability to escape abuse, and her vulnerability to Norman. Her recent effort to end her life, her fear of seeking a warrant because Norman threatened retaliation, and the failure of prior efforts to leave or obtain protection all supplied context for evaluating her fear.

Norman's being asleep did not, as a matter of law, make defendant the aggressor or defeat self-defense. In a battered-spouse case, provocation must be assessed in light of the total relationship rather than as an isolated confrontation. A battered person may be least able to resist during an actual violent attack; therefore, the law need not require her to wait until the abuser is again striking or threatening her at the precise instant she acts.

A jury could find that Norman's sleep was only a temporary break in a continuous reign of terror. He had been unusually angry, had beaten defendant throughout the day, and had threatened to kill and maim her. Defendant took the baby to her mother's home because she feared the baby's crying would wake Norman and restart the violence. On these facts, a jury could conclude that defendant took her first perceived opportunity to protect herself rather than aggressively and willingly initiating an unprovoked fight.

Finally, the expert testimony and the surrounding evidence could support a finding that defendant did not use more force than reasonably appeared necessary to protect herself from death or great bodily harm. Battered spouse syndrome did not itself establish self-defense; it was evidence for the jury to consider with all other evidence in deciding whether the State had proved the unlawfulness of the killing beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue #2

Whether defendant was entitled to an instruction on imperfect self-defense.

Holding

No. Defendant was not entitled to an imperfect-self-defense instruction.

Reasoning

Imperfect self-defense reduces a homicide to voluntary manslaughter when the defendant reasonably believed killing was necessary, but lost perfect self-defense by being the aggressor or using excessive force, provided the defendant acted without murderous intent. Murderous intent means an intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm.

Defendant's evidence was that she intentionally killed Norman because she believed it necessary to save herself. If she lacked an intent to kill, she could not satisfy the foundational self-defense requirement that she believed it necessary to kill him. Thus, under the governing rule, the evidence did not support imperfect self-defense. The court nevertheless concluded that the evidence supported perfect self-defense and that the jury should receive that instruction.