## Facts

- John Forrest’s father, Clyde Forrest, Sr., was hospitalized with severe, terminal medical conditions and was designated “No Code.”
- On December 24, 1985, Forrest visited his father in the hospital, appeared upset, and told staff that his father was dying and that he would “take care of him.”
- After staff left the room, Forrest spoke emotionally to his father; his father began coughing and making gurgling noises.
- Forrest pulled a .22-caliber single-action revolver from his pocket and fired four shots into his father’s head, cocking the hammer before each shot.
- Forrest left the room crying, dropped the gun, did not attempt to flee, and immediately admitted to security and law enforcement that he shot his father.
- Forrest stated he had promised not to let his father suffer and that he had put him “out of his misery.”
- The State stipulated no statutory aggravating factors; the matter proceeded as non-capital.

## Issues

1. Whether the jury could be instructed that it may infer an unlawful killing and malice from the intentional use of a deadly weapon, notwithstanding the defendant’s asserted compassionate motive.
2. Whether the malice instructions were erroneous for not defining “just cause, excuse, or justification,” and whether the evidence required a reduction to voluntary manslaughter under heat of passion.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to submit first-degree murder to the jury on premeditation and deliberation.
4. Whether the trial court’s inquiry into the jury’s numerical division and supplemental charge were coercive.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the first-degree murder conviction and life sentence.
- The deadly-weapon instruction was a permissible inference, not a mandatory presumption, and was properly given.
- The court found no instructional error regarding malice or heat of passion; the facts did not support a heat-of-passion mitigation.
- Substantial circumstantial evidence supported premeditation and deliberation, including lack of provocation, defendant’s statements and conduct, bringing and using a single-action weapon requiring repeated cocking, and firing multiple shots into a helpless victim.
- The judge’s numerical-division inquiry and supplemental instructions were not coercive because jurors were told to deliberate without surrendering honestly held convictions merely to reach a verdict.

## Legal Principles

- An intentional killing with a deadly weapon permits a jury to infer unlawfulness and malice, so long as the instruction is framed as a permissive inference rather than a conclusive presumption.
- A compassionate or “mercy killing” motive does not create a legal justification or excuse and does not negate malice as a matter of law.
- Heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter applies only when the defendant kills without malice and without premeditation and deliberation, under passion suddenly aroused that makes the mind temporarily incapable of reflection.
- Premeditation and deliberation may be proven by circumstantial evidence; relevant circumstances include lack of provocation, the victim’s helplessness, the defendant’s statements and conduct before and after the killing, the nature and number of wounds, and brutality.
- A supplemental deadlock charge is permissible if it encourages continued deliberation while cautioning jurors not to abandon conscientious views solely to achieve unanimity.

## Conclusion

The court held that an intentional hospital “mercy killing” supported first-degree murder where the evidence permitted findings of malice, premeditation, and deliberation, and it approved a permissive deadly-weapon inference and noncoercive jury-deadlock procedures.


State v. Forrest, 321 N.C. 186, 362 S.E.2d 252 (N.C. 1987)