Carolina Criminal Defense & DUI Lawyer Updates

State v. Allison  (December 12, 2025) represents the North Carolina Supreme Court’s definitive statement that self-defense jury instructions in castle doctrine cases must track the statutory decision tree rather than collapsing into a traditional common law reasonableness analysis. 

TL;DR: North Carolina’s castle doctrine under N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2 operates through statutory presumptions governing the lawfulness of deadly force at homes, porches, and curtilage, and these presumptions dictate jury analysis. The state Supreme Court has enforced this statutory framework by reversing convictions in State v. Phillips and State v. Allison where jury instructions collapsed the castle doctrine into generic common law self-defense instead of following the statute’s presumption-driven structure, establishing that such instructional failures constitute reversible error.

Bill Powers is a past President of the North Carolina Advocates for Justice and a recipient of the North Carolina State Bar’s John B. McMillan Distinguished Service Award for service to the profession. The defense attorneys at Powers Law Firm represent clients statewide in cases involving serious felonies, including homicide charges, assault with a deadly weapon, and self-defense claims under both common law and North Carolina’s castle doctrine statute. For questions about self-defense jury instructions, statutory presumptions under N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2, or appellate issues in criminal cases, contact Powers Law Firm at 704-342-4357 to schedule a confidential consultation.

Issue	North Carolina Rule
Castle doctrine trigger	Lawful occupancy of home/vehicle + unlawful forcible entry or attempted entry.
Presumption created	Reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm is conclusively presumed by statute.
Jury’s role	Jury does NOT decide if fear was reasonable—statute supplies that element automatically.
State’s burden	Prove beyond reasonable doubt that a rebuttal circumstance under N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2(c) exists.
Protected locations	Home, motor vehicle, workplace, and curtilage (area immediately surrounding home).
Instruction requirement	Must follow statutory presumption structure—cannot collapse into common law reasonableness.
Failure to instruct properly	Reversible error requiring new trial (State v. Phillips, State v. Allison).

Castle Doctrine Jury Instructions in North Carolina | Statutory Presumption Structure and Reversible Error Under N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2

The Court reversed a conviction and ordered a new trial because the jury instructions failed to properly explain the castle doctrine’s presumption and rebuttal structure, including the definition of curtilage as part of the statutorily protected area.

The significance lies not in the outcome alone but in the Court’s explicit insistence that jury instructions follow statutory sequencing. When evidence supports application of N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2 (castle doctrine), jurors must be instructed that a presumption arises by operation of law.

 If the defendant establishes the statutory trigger facts (lawful occupancy of a home or motor vehicle, and an unlawful and forcible entry or attempted entry by another person), then reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm is conclusively presumed. The jury does not decide whether the defendant’s fear was reasonable. The statute supplies that element.

The State’s burden shifts to rebuttal. Once the presumption applies, the State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that one of the rebuttal circumstances in N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2(c) exists. 

Those circumstances are exhaustive. The jury cannot reject the defense based on free-form judgments about proportionality, alternative options, or subjective fear.

Curtilage is also part of the protected location. 

North Carolina law protects a home, motor vehicle, or workplace. Curtilage (the area immediately surrounding and associated with the home) falls within the statutory definition of home. Failure to instruct on curtilage when the evidence supports a finding that the encounter occurred in that area deprives the defendant of the statutory protection and is reversible error.

As such, statutory sequencing is not a technicality. It is the substantive law of self-defense in cases where the castle doctrine in North Carolina applies.

How Location Determines Self-Defense Law in North Carolina | Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, and Common Law Frameworks

North Carolina now has three overlapping self-defense frameworks, each triggered by different factual predicates. Traditional self-defense under common law applies when neither the castle doctrine nor stand-your-ground statute governs. The defendant must prove both that force was necessary to prevent imminent harm and that the force used was not excessive. The State can attack both necessity and proportionality. As an affirmative defense, the defendant bears the burden of proving the defense.

Castle doctrine under N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2 applies when the encounter occurs in or at the threshold of a home (including curtilage), motor vehicle, or workplace, and involves an unlawful and forcible entry. 

The presumption of reasonable fear is statutorily provided. The jury’s role is thereafter limited to determining whether the statutory trigger facts exist and whether the State has proven a rebuttal circumstance. Proportionality analysis is replaced entirely by the statutory presumptio of reasonable fear.

The Stand Your Ground Law in North Carolina (N.C.G.S. § 14-51.3) applies when a defendant is lawfully present in a location and reasonably believes force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. 

There is no duty to retreat before using force. 

While the Stand Your Ground statute generally applies more broadly than the castle doctrine (it is not limited to homes, vehicles, or workplaces), it does not create a presumption of reasonable fear. The defendant must still prove that force was necessary, but need not prove the attempt to retreat or avoid a violent confrontation.

The critical litigation decision facing criminal defense lawyers involves identifying which legal framework governs the case. That determination may depend on where the encounter takes place, whether the location qualifies as a statutorily protected area, and whether the encounter involves forcible entry.

Evidence establishing that the encounter occurred on the defendant’s porch, in the yard immediately adjacent to the home, or at the threshold of the residence may serve for something more that context. It can be legally determinative, as it may trigger the castle doctrine’s presumption.

Curtilage and the Castle Doctrine in North Carolina | Dunn Factors, Self-Defense Location Analysis, and Jury Instruction Requirements

Allison’s emphasis on curtilage reflects a practical reality. A fair number of self-defense encounters occur at a wide range of different locations (including driveways, yards, porches, sidewalks near the home). Whether such locales may qualify as curtilage, thereby determining whether the castle doctrine even applies.

Curtilage is defined by reference to four factors derived from United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987): 

• Proximity of the area to the home
• Whether the area is within an enclosure surrounding the home
• The nature and uses to which the area is put
• Steps taken to protect the area from observation by passersbys

The Dunn factors are not merely mechanical tests. They may guide a totality-of-circumstances analysis focused on whether the area is soconnected to the home that it should receive the same Fourth Amendment and statutory protections.

For self-defense legal issues in North Carolina, curtilage determinations require factual development and specific jury findings. Evidence relevant to curtilage may include things like:

• Photographs or diagrams showing the layout of the property and the location of the encounter
• Testimony about how the defendant used the area (as part of daily domestic activity, as a private outdoor space, as a protected entryway)
• Evidence of fencing, gates, landscaping, or other physical indicators of boundaries
• Distance measurements from the encounter location to the home’s structure.

If the evidence supports a curtilage finding, the trial court must define curtilage for the jury and permit the jury to determine whether the encounter occurred within that protected area. Omission of this instruction, as Allison held, also serves as reversible error.

Rebuttal Circumstances Under N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2(c) | State’s Burden and Proportionality Arguments in Castle Doctrine Cases

N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2(c) limits the State’s ability to defeat the castle doctrine presumption to proof of any one of the following circumstances: 

• The person against whom force was used had the lawful right to be in the home, motor vehicle, or workplace (a co-resident, invited guest, or person with a property interest)
• The person against whom force was used was attempting to remove a child or grandchild in lawful custody
• The person using force was engaged in criminal activity or using the premises to further criminal activity
• The person against whom force was used was a law-enforcement officer entering or attempting to enter in the lawful performance of official duties.

These categories are exhaustive in nature. The State cannot defeat the presumption by arguing that the defendant used excessive force, had time to retreat, could have called police, or subjectively overreacted. Those arguments are therefore foreclosed once the statutory trigger facts are established.

That may creates a powerful litigation strategy for defense counsel. 

Once the castle doctrine applies, the defense’s role is to prevent the State from re-introducing proportionality or duty-to-retreat concepts through jury instructions or closing argument. Any instruction that permits the jury to evaluate reasonableness beyond the statutory rebuttal framework violates Allison.

Stand Your Ground in North Carolina | N.C.G.S. § 14-51.3 

N.C.G.S. § 14-51.3 operates differently from the castle doctrine. It does not create a presumption. It eliminates the duty to retreat that previously existed under common law when a person was attacked in a public place.

Under the NC stand your ground law, the defendant must still prove:

• Lawful presence in the location where force was used
• Reasonable belief that force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm
• That the force used was not excessive under the circumstances

The statute’s substantive effect is to remove retreat as a factor in evaluating whether force was necessary and appropriate. A defendant who otherwise satisfies the elements of self-defense no longer loses the the defense simply because retreat was conceptually possible.

That technical, but important distinction matters relative to the jury instructions. 

Stand Your Ground jury instructions in North Carolina eliminate references to duty to retreat but still require the jury to evaluate necessity and proportionality. Castle doctrine instructions, in contrast, replace the necessity and proportionality analysis with a statutory, rebuttal presumption. 

Pretrial Immunity Hearings Under N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2 and § 14-51.3 | Preponderance Standard, Dismissal Strategy, and Fifth Amendment Testimonial Risks

Both the castle doctrine and stand your ground laws in North Carolina include important immunity provisions. A defendant who establishes the defense is immune from both criminal prosecution and civil liability. N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2(e); § 14-51.3(b).

Immunity may be appropriately asserted in a pretrial motion. Proof of legal immunity requires only a preponderance of the evidence, and if so proven the charges may be dismissed in appropriate circumstances. 

Immunity hearings therefore can become a critical pretrial battleground in violent felony charges. A successful immunity showing may eliminate the case entirely, avoiding trial and the potential risk of conviction.

The defendant bears the burden of proving the statutory trigger facts (lawful occupancy, unlawful entry, or lawful presence and reasonable belief of necessity). If the defendant satisfies that burden, the castle doctrine presumption applies, and the State must prove a rebuttal circumstance or, in stand your ground cases, the defendant must prove the remaining elements (necessity, proportionality). 

The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not), not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Effective immunity litigation therefore often requires affirmative evidence presentation, not cross-examination of State witnesses alone. 

Defense counsel may want to present testimony from the defendant or other witnesses establishing: 

• The factual predicates for immunity
• Physical evidence, photographs, or diagrams showing the encounter location and relevant spatial relationships
• Expert testimony if necessary to establish factors such as curtilage or the nature of the threat faced
• Documentary evidence (lease agreements, property records) establishing lawful occupancy or presence

Immunity hearings also create the potential for certain strategic risks. The defendant may be required to testify and present evidence to satisfy the burden of proof. That testimony and evidence, with the associated waiver of Fifth Amendment Rights, thereafter become available to the State for impeachment purposes in the event immunity is denied and the case proceeds to trial.

Defense counse is therefore called to evaluate whether the likelihood of prevailing at the immunity hearing justifies the disclosure of the defendant’s theory and evidence on a pretrial motion basis, or whether tactically preserving that information for trial outweighs the benefit of potential immunity.