## Facts

- A wrongful-death action was brought by the administrator of Lewis Reid Young’s estate against William S. Warren after Warren fatally shot Young.
- Young, who had been dating Warren’s adult daughter (who lived with her two children), went to her home early on May 12, 1986, broke the front door glass with wood, entered, argued, and grabbed her arm.
- A neighbor called Warren and reported trouble at the daughter’s home; Warren took a loaded 20-gauge shotgun and went to the house.
- Warren heard screaming, saw Young at/near the doorway, told him to leave, and backed away as Young came outside.
- On the porch, with Warren close behind Young, Warren prodded Young with the shotgun to move on; the gun discharged, striking Young in the back at close range and killing him.
- Warren later pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter in a separate criminal case.
- In the civil trial, the court submitted to the jury whether Warren acted in lawful defense of his daughter and grandchildren, and admitted evidence of Young’s firearm possession and blood-alcohol level, even though Warren did not know those facts at the time.
- The jury found for Warren; the estate appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by submitting a defense-of-family justification to the jury when it was not pled as an affirmative defense and lacked evidentiary support at the time of the shooting.
2. Whether the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the decedent’s firearm possession and blood-alcohol level when the defendant was unaware of those facts at the time and they could not have affected his conduct or state of mind.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the defense verdict and ordered a new trial.
- The court held it was error to submit defense of family because it is an affirmative defense that must be specifically pled, was not tried by express or implied consent, and was unsupported by evidence of imminent danger at the moment of the shot.
- The court held it was error to admit evidence of the decedent’s firearm possession and intoxication because those facts were unknown to Warren at the time and were irrelevant to the reasonableness or justification of Warren’s conduct.
- The combined errors were deemed prejudicial, requiring a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Justification defenses such as defense of family operate as affirmative defenses in civil tort actions and generally must be pleaded to be submitted to the jury.
- An unpleaded issue may be treated as if raised only if tried by the parties’ express or implied consent.
- A justification instruction should not be given absent evidence that the defendant reasonably believed a family member faced imminent danger at the time force was used.
- Evidence offered to justify or assess the reasonableness of a defendant’s conduct is generally irrelevant if the defendant lacked knowledge of the fact at the time of the event.
- Evidence portraying a decedent as dangerous or intoxicated may be excluded when it cannot bear on the defendant’s contemporaneous perceptions and risks unfair prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the jury was allowed to consider an unpleaded, unsupported defense-of-family theory and to hear irrelevant, prejudicial evidence about the decedent that the defendant did not know at the time of the shooting.


Young v. Warren, 95 N.C. App. 585, 383 S.E.2d 381 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989)