State of North Carolina v. William Jameson Reece Atkins (COA25-707) is a murder case in which the North Carolina Court of Appeals was presented with four issues on appeal but focused its attention on only one. Here the Court considers whether Mr. Atkins was prejudiced by a Wake County trial court instructing the jury on the aggressor exception to self-defense.
Mr. Atkins and the decedent had served together in the United States Army. Mr. Atkins was living in Cary, North Carolina and the decedent had travelled to see him for a weekend visit. The two planned to do some target shooting during the decedent’s visit. After the decedent arrived at Mr. Atkins’s apartment, the two began to drink heavily. Before going to bed Mr. Atkins took his dog outside to a nearby creek to use the bathroom. The decedent accompanied him. Being very intoxicated, the decedent fell into the creek. While trying to help him get out, Mr. Atkins slipped and fell. Both men were wet from this ordeal but Mr. Atkins was able to get the decedent out of the creek.
They returned to the apartment where Mr. Atkins went to the bathroom and began getting ready to go to bed. When he came out of the bathroom, Mr. Atkins saw the decedent talking to himself and armed with an AR-15 rifle. The decedent thought there was a man outside and Mr. Atkins tried to calm him down. The decedent became more frustrated, pointed the gun at Mr. Atkins, and threatened to shoot him. Mr. Atkins managed to get the gun away from the decedent. The decedent then threw a candle at Mr. Atkins which cause a cut on Mr. Atkins’s arm. Mr. Atkins eventually called 911 for assistance. While Mr. Atkins was speaking with the 911 operator, the decedent charged him. In response, Mr. Atkins shot at the decedent five times.
In July of 2023, Mr. Atkins was indicted by a Wake County grand jury for first-degree murder. He was tried by a jury in January of 2025 and chose to testify on his on behalf. During the charge conference, the trial court stated that it would not instruct the jury of Mr. Atkins being an aggressor under North Carolina Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 206.10. The trial court also stated during the conference that it would instruct the jury on Mr. Atkins not being an aggressor under North Carolina Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 308.10, which concerns self-defense and retreat. However, in its instructions to the jury, the trial court included the following three references to the aggressor doctrine:
If [Defendant] was not the aggressor and [Defendant] was in
[Defendant’s] own home … [Defendant] could stand
[Defendant’s] ground and repel force with force regardless
of the character of the assault being made upon [Defendant]…
Therefore, in order for you to find [Defendant] guilty of
first-degree murder or second-degree murder, the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, among other things,
that [Defendant] did not act in self-defense, or failing in this,
that [Defendant] was the aggressor with the intent to kill or
inflict serious bodily harm upon the deceased.
If the State fails to prove that [Defendant] … was the aggressor
with the intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm, you may
not convict [Defendant] of either first-degree or second-degree
murder.
The jury was ultimately instructed on first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and self-defense. Mr. Atkins was found guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced to 216 to 272 months in prison. He gave oral notice of appeal.
On appeal, Mr. Atkins argued that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on the first aggressor exception to self-defense after deciding against the instruction during the charge conference and announcing this decisions to the parties. This issue was deemed by the appellate Court to be properly preserved for appellate review based on State v. Lee, 370 N.C. 671, 676, 811 S.E.2d 563, 567 (2018) which found that when “a trial court agrees to give a requested pattern instruction, an erroneous deviation from that instruction is preserved for appellate review without further request or objection.” Mr. Atkins did not object to the instructions given during the trial but the North Carolina Court of Appeals deemed the issue to have been preserved because the trial court promised to omit the aggressor doctrine language but kept part of it in its instruction to the jury.
When including the aggressor doctrine in the instruction to the jury, the question that must be consider is when taken in the light most favorable to the State, does the record contain evidence from which the jury could infer that the defendant was acting as an “aggressor” at the time that the alleged act of self-defense occurred. In State v. Tann, 57 N.C. 527, 291 S.E.2d 824 (1982), the North Carolina Supreme Court held that a jury instruction error regarding the aggressor doctrine is prejudicial.
When the evidence here is considered in the light most favorable to the State, the appellate Court found that it does not demonstrate that Mr. Atkins was the initial aggressor. The decedent had control of the rifle for a period of time during which he pointed it at Mr. Atkins and threatened him. Mr. Atkins was able to get the rifle away from the decedent and call 911. Even while making the 911 call, the decedent charged at Mr. Atkins. Mr. Atkins was in fear for his life and then shot at the decedent. The appellate Court noted the that North Carolina Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 206.10 contains a note which states:”…It is reversible error to instruct the jury on the aggressor doctrine if the record lacks evidence from which the jury could infer that the defendant was an aggressor at the time the defendant allegedly acted in self-defense.” The trial court here did make reference to the aggressor doctrine in its instruction to the jury notwithstanding the lack of evidence contained in the record that Mr. Atkins was acting as the aggressor.
The instructions provided an opportunity for the jury to find that Mr. Atkins was the initial aggressor, which would prejudice his self-defense claim. The phrasing of the jury instructions could have lead to the jury finding Mr. Atkins not guilty of first-degree or second-degree murder but choosing guilty because it determined that Mr. Atkins was the aggressor. Because Mr. Atkins was prejudiced by the instructions to the jury, the North Carolina Court of Appeals decided that he was entitled to a new trial. By finding there was a basis for a new trial, the Court of Appeals found it unnecessary to address any other issues that Mr. Atkins raised on appeal.
Recent Comments