The defense of habitation “is based on the theory that if a person is bound to become a fugitive from her own home, there would be no refuge for her anywhere in the world.”
State v. Stevenson, (1986).
Under Section 14-51.2, North Carolina law provides critical definitions and protections related to self-defense in a person's "home." The statute defines "home" as including a "building or conveyance of any kind," extending to its curtilage—the area immediately surrounding the home, such as a yard or driveway, traditionally associated with domestic use. However, this seemingly straightforward definition has led to legal disputes, particularly regarding its application in specific cases.
Definition of Curtilage
Noun: 1. The immediate land and buildings surrounding a home.
Origin: 1250-1300 Middle English courtelage
The term curtilage refers to the immediate land and buildings, such as a shed or barn, that surround a home. Curtilage is the land between the home and the fence, should a fence exist, and is considered private property. Curtilage is meant to define the boundaries of a property so that a homeowner can enjoy a reasonable level of privacy. It is the area where the homier and more intimate activities take place, before the land meets public property. To explore this concept, consider the following curtilage definition. (legaldictionary.net, 2024)
Case Study - State v. Kuhns
The State v. Kuhns case demonstrates how North Carolina’s Defense of Habitation law can impact legal proceedings involving using force in one’s home. It underscores the significance of proper jury instructions and the boundaries of N.C.G.S. 14-51.2
Overview of the Facts
On the evening of October 2, 2014, tensions escalated between neighbors Donald Kuhns and Johnny Dockery after an evening of socializing. Dockery, intoxicated and argumentative, made aggressive threats toward Kuhns. Despite police intervention, Dockery returned multiple times to Kuhns’ property, culminating in a fatal confrontation. Fearing for his safety, Kuhns shot Dockery, believing the force was necessary to protect himself.
Circumstances Surrounding the Use of Force
At approximately 10:00 p.m., the argument escalated into a final confrontation in the defendant’s yard, ending when the defendant fatally shot Johnny Dockery. Conflicting evidence regarding how the events unfolded was presented at trial.
Angela McFee, the defendant’s next-door neighbor, testified that shortly before the shooting, she was sitting on her porch and overheard the defendant taunting Dockery as he walked home through a nearby field. According to McFee, the defendant shouted, “[T]hat’s right, take your f---ing a-- home,” followed by a racial slur. Dockery then walked into the defendant’s yard, and the two men began “cursing and fussing.” McFee stated that Dockery asked the defendant if he had his gun out, to which the defendant replied affirmatively.
In contrast, the defendant claimed that he was inside his home trying to sleep when he heard Dockery yelling, “[C]ome on out here, you son of a bitch, I’m going to kill you.” The defendant retrieved his .32-caliber pistol and stepped onto his porch, which was approximately six and a half feet above the yard. Dockery was in the yard, “cussing and hollering” at the defendant. The defendant told Dockery to go home, but when Dockery saw the gun, he reportedly said, “[Y]ou’re going to need more than that P shooter, motherf---er, I’ve been shot before.” The defendant described Dockery pacing back and forth before suddenly charging at him. The defendant took a step back and fired one shot, striking Dockery just above his left eyebrow and killing him.
Trial Court’s Denial of the Request and Consequences
At the charge conference, the trial court included self-defense among its proposed jury instructions. Defense counsel, however, requested that all references to the defendant as the aggressor be excluded. Additionally, defense counsel asked the court to deliver N.C.P.I.--Crim. 308.80, (University of North Carolina, 2021) the pattern jury instruction addressing the defense of habitation. After hearing arguments from both sides, the trial court denied both defense requests. The court determined that "factual issues must be resolved by the jury with respect to the aggressor issue" and concluded that N.C.P.I.--Crim. 308.80 (University of North Carolina, 2021) was inapplicable because "no evidence that [Dockery] was trying to break in."
On May 13, 2016, the jury returned a verdict convicting the defendant of the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter. The trial court sentenced the defendant to a term of 73 to 100 months in the custody of the North Carolina Division of Adult Correction.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA 17-519
Filed: 3 July 2018 Alexander County, No. 14 CRS 51446
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONALD JOSEPH KUHNS
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 13 May 2016 by Judge Julia Lynn Gullett in Alexander County Superior Court and heard in the Court of Appeals on 29 November 2017.
Appellate Court’s Analysis
The appellate court found that the trial court erred in denying the instruction. The plain language of N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2(b) provides a rebuttable presumption that the use of defensive force is lawful if the defendant reasonably believes that an unlawful and forcible entry into the home (including the curtilage) is occurring or has occurred. The appellate court rejected the State's argument that the instruction was unnecessary because the victim, Dockery, never approached the porch or tried to enter the home directly. The evidence showed that Dockery was within the curtilage—acknowledged as part of the home—and repeatedly threatened the defendant.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, the evidence supported his entitlement to the "Defense of Habitation" instruction. The court further noted that such an instruction grants stronger legal protections than a standard self-defense instruction, as it includes the presumption that the defendant’s use of force was reasonable.
Prejudicial Impact and Conclusion
The appellate court held that the trial court's refusal to provide the requested instruction prejudiced the defendant. Under N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2, individuals using lawful defensive force are immune from both criminal and civil liability. By failing to instruct the jury on the "Defense of Habitation," the trial court deprived the defendant of this critical legal protection, potentially affecting the trial outcome.
As a result, the appellate court's analysis highlights the importance of understanding and properly applying the statutory protections of curtilage in cases involving self-defense in North Carolina.
Lessons from the Case
The State v. Kuhns case underscores key lessons about the application of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-51.2. Lawful occupants must understand when the law applies and how to act responsibly in self-defense situations.
When Does the Law Apply?
What Constitutes "Unlawful and Forcible Entry"
The law applies when an individual is unlawfully and forcibly entering or has already entered a home or its curtilage. In this context:
- "Unlawful" means the individual has no legal right to be on the property.
- "Forcible" does not necessarily require physical damage, like a broken door or shattered window. As seen in Kuhns, repeated threatening behavior and refusal to leave after multiple warnings can satisfy the condition of forcible entry.
- The inclusion of the curtilage—the area immediately surrounding a home—broadens the law's application beyond the physical structure of the home.
Importance of Evidence in Proving These Conditions
Evidence plays a crucial role in establishing that an intruder’s actions meet the criteria for unlawful and forcible entry. In the Kuhns case:
- Eyewitness testimony, 911 calls, and Dockery's aggressive behavior provided the foundation for Kuhns' defense.
- Without clear evidence, the statutory presumption of reasonable fear under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-51.2 may not apply. Documenting threats, physical actions, and repeated confrontations can be vital in such cases.
The Importance of Knowing Your Rights
How Misunderstanding or Misapplication of the Law Can Lead to Legal Challenges
Failing to understand the nuances of North Carolina’s Defense of Habitation law can result in significant legal challenges. In Kuhns:
- The trial court's narrow interpretation of the law excluded the curtilage and led to the denial of a crucial jury instruction.
- This misapplication left the jury without guidance to evaluate whether Kuhns’ actions were legally justified, resulting in his conviction for voluntary manslaughter.
By knowing your rights and understanding the conditions under which the law applies, you can make informed decisions in high-pressure situations. Missteps, such as assuming protections that do not apply or failing to gather evidence, can lead to unnecessary legal battles. The Kuhns case underscores that having a clear understanding of the law and its requirements is not just a legal safeguard—it’s a personal responsibility for anyone seeking to defend their home and loved ones.
Works Cited
legaldictionary.net. (2024, December 1). curtilage. Retrieved from Legal dictionary: https://legaldictionary.net/curtilage/
North Carolina Court of Appeals. (2018). North Carolina Court of Appeals. Retrieved from appellate.nccourts.org: https://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=36196
University of North Carolina. (2021). School of Government. Retrieved from Defense of Habitation: https://sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog.unc.edu/files/pji-master-2021/criminal/r308-80-defense-of-habitation-2021.pdf