§18.03 DEADLY FORCE:"IMPERFECT" SELF-DEFENSE CLAIMS

• Jurisdiction: North Carolina

§18.03. Deadly Force:"Imperfect" Self-Defense Claims

In general, the defense of self-defense is a full defense, resulting in exoneration of the person acting in self-protection. The traditional common law rule is that if any of the elements of the defense are missing, the defense is wholly unavailable to a defendant,⁸⁶ and thus the defendant may be convicted of murder. Various states, however, now recognize a so-called "imperfect" defense of self-defense to murder, which results in conviction for manslaughter.

There are two versions of imperfect self-defense. First, as discussed earlier, a nondeadly aggressor who is the victim of a deadly response must retreat to any known place of complete safety before using deadly force;⁸⁷ if he fails to do so, he is typically subject to murder prosecution, but in some jurisdictions he is considered entitled to an "imperfect" form of self-defense and, therefore, guilty only of manslaughter.

Second, many states now provide by case law⁸⁸ or statute⁸⁹ that one who kills another because he unreasonably believes that the factual circumstances justify the killing is guilty of manslaughter, rather than murder. That is, D is guilty of manslaughter if he kills V because: (1) D unreasonably believes that V is about to use deadly force although, in fact, V intends no harm or intends only nondeadly harm; or (2) V intends to use deadly force, but D fails to realize, as a reasonable person, that deadly force is unnecessary. In short, "[i]mperfect self-defense consists of the same elements [as "perfect" self-defense], except that the defendant need not have had an objectively reasonable belief that he was in . . . imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm . . . , requiring the use of deadly force."⁹⁰

--------

Notes:

^[86] . State v. Morris, 22 So. 3d 1002, 1012 (La. Ct. App. 2009) (applying the all-or-nothing rule).

^[87] . E.g., People v. Amos, 414 N.W.2d 147, 150 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987); State v. McAvoy, 417 S.E.2d 489, 497 (N.C. 1992). See § 18.02[B][2][b], supra.

^[88] . E.g., In re Christian S., 872 P.2d 574, 575 (Cal. 1994); Wilson v. State, 7 A.3d 197, 204 (Md. 2010); Young v. State, 99 So. 3d 159, 165 (Miss. 2012); Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 55 A.3d 1108, 1124-25 (Pa. 2012).

^[89] . E.g., Kan. Stat. Ann. §...