context: Proof that the victim did not cross the threshold would not be fatal to MeCuiston's defense.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.parenthetical: assailant must actually enter dwelling for self-defense to apply, but "defense of habitation" requires only that there be an attempted forceful entrance
citation_a.sentence: See Miller, 148 S.E.2d at 281-82 (defendant entitled to “defense of habitation” instruction although victim, who had ripped screen out of screen door, made no actual entry into house); State v. Holder, 237 Iowa 72, 20 N.W.2d 909, 913 (1945) (question whether defendant was acting in defense of habitation was for jury, although facts did not indicate victim had gotten past the front door); cf. State v. Roberson, 90 N.C.App. 219, 368 S.E.2d 3, 6-7 (1988) (assailant must actually enter dwelling for self-defense to apply, but “defense of habitation” requires only that there be an attempted forceful entrance), pet. for rev. denied (N.C. June 6, 1988). Under these circumstances, we conclude that the trial court’s error in instructing the jury on self-defense was not harmless and requires a new trial.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 20 N.W.2d 909, 913
citation_b.parenthetical: question whether defendant was acting in defense of habitation was for jury, although facts did not indicate victim had gotten past the front door
citation_b.sentence: See Miller, 148 S.E.2d at 281-82 (defendant entitled to “defense of habitation” instruction although victim, who had ripped screen out of screen door, made no actual entry into house); State v. Holder, 237 Iowa 72, 20 N.W.2d 909, 913 (1945) (question whether defendant was acting in defense of habitation was for jury, although facts did not indicate victim had gotten past the front door); cf. State v. Roberson, 90 N.C.App. 219, 368 S.E.2d 3, 6-7 (1988) (assailant must actually enter dwelling for self-defense to apply, but “defense of habitation” requires only that there be an attempted forceful entrance), pet. for rev. denied (N.C. June 6, 1988). Under these circumstances, we conclude that the trial court’s error in instructing the jury on self-defense was not harmless and requires a new trial.