State v. Norman
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1989.
Author: Jim

Facts: Defendant was the victim of years of abuse by her husband.  D and medical experts testified that defendant was certain that her husband will kill her.  D shot and killed the husband while he was asleep.

Procedure: Trial ct. refused to instruct the jury on self defense. Ct. of appeals reversed and ordered a new trial.

Issue: Was the Court of Appeals correct in ruling that the jury should have been instructed on self defense under the given facts?

Holding: No

Rationale:  According to the court, in order for there to be self defense, the defendant must face imminent danger of death of great bodily harm.Imminent is defined as: “immediate danger, such as must be instantly met, such as cannot be guarded against by calling for the assistance of others or the protection of the law.”  In the current case, the husband was asleep.  D went to her mother’s house and got the gun and when the gun jammed, she fixed it and then shot the husband three time in the head.  She could have used other avenues to seek help, but she chose to kill.  D’s belief that her husband will kill her is too indefinite and cannot be considered imminent.  Therefore, the trial ct. was correct in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense.