## Facts

- Judy Ann Norman endured years of severe physical and psychological abuse by her husband, J.T. Norman, during their marriage.
- The abuse included repeated beatings, humiliation, and threats that led Norman to fear she would be killed if she tried to leave or seek help.
- After a day of particularly severe assault, J.T. forced Norman to remain on the floor beside the bed while he slept, limiting her freedom of movement.
- Norman later went to her mother’s nearby home, obtained a pistol from her mother’s purse, returned home, and shot J.T. three times in the back of the head while he was asleep in bed.
- The defense offered expert testimony that Norman exhibited battered spouse syndrome and perceived no safe avenue of escape and an eventual threat of death.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of battered spouse syndrome entitled the defendant to jury instructions on perfect or imperfect self-defense when she killed her sleeping abuser.
2. Whether the evidence supported a finding that the defendant reasonably believed she faced imminent death or great bodily harm at the time of the killing.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment.
- The Court held the evidence did not support a self-defense instruction because the defendant was not confronted with an imminent threat when she shot the victim as he slept.
- The Court concluded battered spouse syndrome evidence could not eliminate the imminence requirement for self-defense.
- The voluntary manslaughter conviction and sentence were reinstated.

## Legal Principles

- Perfect self-defense requires evidence that the defendant reasonably believed killing was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.
- Imperfect self-defense, though it may involve an unreasonable belief or other defects, still requires evidence of a belief in the necessity of deadly force to avoid imminent death or serious bodily injury before a self-defense instruction is warranted.
- “Imminent” danger means an immediate threat, not a future harm, and is the type of threat that cannot be avoided by withdrawal, calling for help, or legal protection.
- Expert testimony on battered spouse syndrome may inform the reasonableness of a defendant’s perceptions, but it does not convert a non-immediate danger into an imminent one for self-defense purposes.
- Self-defense doctrine does not justify a killing characterized as preventive or retaliatory when the victim is not posing an immediate threat at the moment of the homicide.

## Conclusion

Because the victim was asleep and not actively threatening the defendant when she used deadly force, the evidence did not permit a finding of imminent danger, so the defendant was not entitled to perfect or imperfect self-defense instructions, and the voluntary manslaughter conviction was reinstated.


State v. Norman, 324 N.C. 253, 378 S.E.2d 8 (N.C. 1989)