State v. Napier

Decision Date19 March 2002
Docket NumberNo. COA01-236.,COA01-236.
Citation560 S.E.2d 867,149 NC App. 462
CourtNorth Carolina Court of Appeals
PartiesSTATE of North Carolina v. James Marvin NAPIER, Sr.

Attorney General Roy Cooper by Special Deputy Attorney General Hal F. Askins, for the State.

Noell P. Tin, Charlotte, for defendant-appellant.

EAGLES, Chief Judge.

James Marvin Napier, Sr., ("defendant") appeals from the trial court's judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal, defendant's sole assignment of error is that the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction stating that justification is a defense for possession of a firearm by a felon. After careful review of the record, briefs, and arguments of counsel, we find no error.

The evidence tends to show the following. Defendant, a convicted felon, was involved in an on-going feud with his neighbor, Robert Ford, and his neighbor's son, Brandon ("Brad") Ford. On or about 30 June 1999, Brad Ford began shooting a shotgun in the air over defendant's property. During the next few days, Brad Ford continued to shoot over defendant's property. At approximately 8:00 p.m. on 3 July 1999, defendant, with a holstered 9 millimeter handgun attached to his hip, walked across the street to Robert Ford's premises. Neither Robert Ford nor Brad Ford was armed at the time.

Once defendant arrived on Robert Ford's premises, defendant "walked up to [Robert Ford and Brad Ford]" and admittedly stated "[i]f I'm bothering y'all with this gun or I'm scaring you or defending [sic] y'all with this, I'll take it back to the house." Defendant and Robert Ford then discussed the neighbor's situation. Brad Ford left the two men in the yard and entered the residence. After several hours, the conversation between defendant and Robert Ford escalated into a physical altercation. Upon seeing the altercation, Brad Ford came out of the residence and joined the fight. Eventually, someone called 9-1-1 and law enforcement officers arrived on the scene. After the officers restored order and left the scene, defendant fired a gun from his property and hit Brad Ford in the arm.

Defendant was tried before a jury during the 13 December 1999 Criminal Session of Richmond County Superior Court on charges of (1) discharging a firearm into occupied property, (2) assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, (3) conspiracy to discharge a firearm into occupied property, (4) conspiracy to commit an assault with a deadly weapon, (5) possession of a firearm by a felon on 4 July 1999, and (6) possession of a firearm by a felon on 3 July 1999. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury deadlocked on the first two charges, and the trial court declared a mistrial as to those counts. Additionally, the jury found defendant not guilty on the conspiracy and the 4 July 1999 possession charges, and the jury found defendant guilty of the 3 July 1999 possession of a firearm by a felon charge. The trial court entered judgment and sentenced defendant to a term of imprisonment of 25 to 30 months. Defendant appeals.

On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for a jury instruction on justification as a defense to the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon. We disagree.

In North Carolina, requests for special jury instructions are allowable pursuant to G.S. §§ 1-181 and 1A-1, Rule 51(b). It is well settled that the trial court must give the instructions requested, at least in substance, if they are proper and supported by the evidence. See Roberts v. Young, 120 N.C.App. 720, 726, 464 S.E.2d 78, 83 (1995)

. "The proffered instruction must ... contain a correct legal request and be pertinent to the evidence and the issues of the case." State v. Scales, 28 N.C.App. 509, 513, 221 S.E.2d 898, 901 (1976). "However, the trial court may exercise discretion to refuse instructions based on erroneous statements of the law." Roberts, 120 N.C.App. at 726,

464 S.E.2d at 83 (citation omitted).

Here, defendant was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of G.S. § 14-415.1. Pursuant to § 14-415.1(a), it is unlawful "for any person who has been convicted of a felony to purchase, own, possess, or have in his custody, care, or control any handgun or other firearm with a barrel length of less than 18 inches or an overall length of less than 26 inches...." An exception to this offense exists for a felon who possesses a firearm "within his own home or on his lawful place of business." G.S. § 14-415.1(a). In creating this exception, the legislature clearly expressed its intent to limit its applicability to the confines and privacy of the convicted felon's own premises, over which he has dominion and control to the exclusion of the public. See State v. McNeill, 78 N.C.App. 514, 516, 337 S.E.2d 172, 173 (1985)

. Here, defendant was not within his own premises. Thus, defendant's case does not fit within this exception.

At trial, defendant requested an instruction on justification, and the court denied the request. We note that the courts of this State have not recognized justification as a defense to a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon. However, North Carolina has recognized the defense of necessity in limited circumstances. See State v. Thomas, 103 N.C.App. 264, 405 S.E.2d 214 (1991)

. "Necessity excuses otherwise criminal behavior which was reasonably necessary to protect life, limb, or health, and where no other acceptable choice was available." State v. Haywood, 144 N.C.App. 223, 234-35, 550 S.E.2d 38, 45,

disc. review denied, 354 N.C. 72, 553 S.E.2d 206 (2001). Nevertheless, we are unable to find any case law in our State supporting the proposition that necessity is available as a defense to a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon. In fact, defendant concedes that "[n]o...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • State v. Taft
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 19 Febrero 2013
    ...of a firearm by a felon) in “only extraordinary circumstances.” ‘ “ Id. at 796,606 S.E.2d at 389 (quoting State v. Napier, 149 N.C.App. 462, 465, 560 S.E.2d 867, 869 (2002) (quoting Deleveaux, 205 F.3d at 1297)). Addressing whether the trial court erred in failing to give the jury instructi......
  • State v. McNeil
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 21 Abril 2009
    ...this State have not recognized justification as a defense to a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon." State v. Napier, 149 N.C.App. 462, 464, 560 S.E.2d 867, 869 (2002). However, Defendant asks us to adopt the test set out by the Circuit in U.S. v. Deleveaux, 205 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir......
  • State v. Swindell
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 3 Agosto 2021
    ...held the justification defense is inapplicable to a defendant who voluntarily armed himself several hours prior to a threat. Id. at 464, 560 S.E.2d at 868-69. Napier, the defendant was a convicted felon who had an ongoing dispute with a neighbor. Id. at 462, 560 S.E.2d at 868. The defendant......
  • State v. Swindell
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 3 Agosto 2021
    ...for special jury instructions are allowable pursuant to [N.C. Gen. Stat.] §§ 1-181 and 1A-1, Rule 51(b)." State v. Napier , 149 N.C. App. 462, 463, 560 S.E.2d 867, 868 (2002). A trial court must give all requested jury instructions if the requested instructions "are proper and supported by ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT