State v. Norman

89 N.C. App. 384, 366 S.E.2d 586 (1988)

Quick Summary

Quick Summary Icon

Judy Ann Laws Norman (defendant) killed her husband after enduring years of abuse, leading to charges against her. The central issue in her appeal was whether she should have been allowed to present a self-defense argument based on ‘battered spouse syndrome,’ despite her husband being asleep at the time of his death.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that due to the continuous abuse, it was reasonable for Norman to believe she needed to act in self-defense and thus, she should have been allowed a self-defense instruction. The court ordered a new trial for Norman.

Facts of the Case

Facts of the case Icon

Judy Ann Laws Norman (defendant) was subjected to two decades of severe physical and psychological abuse by her husband, John Thomas ‘J.T.’ Norman (decedent). He frequently assaulted her, forced her into prostitution, and threatened her life.

On June 12, 1985, after a particularly abusive day, Norman shot and killed her husband while he was asleep. Norman’s defense included evidence of the ‘battered spouse syndrome,’ indicating she believed she had no alternative but to kill her husband to prevent further harm to herself and her family.

Expert witnesses testified that Norman’s belief in the necessity of her actions was a result of the prolonged abuse she endured. The defense sought to argue self-defense, although her husband was not actively threatening her life at the time of the killing.

Procedural Posture and History

History Icon
  1. Judy Ann Laws Norman was tried for the murder of her husband.
  2. The trial court declined to issue a self-defense instruction to the jury on the basis that the husband was not threatening Norman’s life at the time of the killing.
  3. Norman appealed the decision to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

I.R.A.C. Format


Issue Icon

Whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on self-defense in a case where the defendant killed her abusive husband while he was asleep.

Rule of Law

Rule Icon

In North Carolina, a defendant is entitled to an instruction on perfect self-defense if there is evidence that they believed it necessary to kill to prevent death or great bodily harm, that belief was reasonable, they were not the aggressor, and did not use excessive force. The reasonableness of such a belief can be influenced by the existence of ‘battered spouse syndrome.’

Reasoning and Analysis

Reasoning Icon

The appellate court found that Norman’s actions could be seen as a form of self-defense due to the continuous abuse and threats she faced from her husband. The court considered the concept of ‘battered spouse syndrome’ in its analysis, recognizing that such victims may perceive threats to their safety even when the abuser is not actively attacking at that moment.

It held that the subjective and objective standards of self-defense should be applied with consideration to this syndrome.

The court concluded that a jury could reasonably find that Norman believed she needed to act to prevent further harm and that this belief could be considered reasonable given her history of abuse. Consequently, they ruled that she was entitled to a self-defense instruction.


Conclusion Icon

The North Carolina Court of Appeals determined that the trial court erred by not giving a self-defense instruction and granted Judy Ann Laws Norman a new trial.

Key Takeaways

Takeaway Icon
  1. A defendant’s belief in the necessity of self-defense can be influenced by prolonged experiences of abuse, known as ‘battered spouse syndrome.’
  2. Self-defense claims may be valid even when an immediate threat is not present, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse.
  3. Courts must consider both subjective beliefs and objective reasonableness when evaluating claims of self-defense in the context of battered spouse syndrome.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What constitutes a reasonable belief in the necessity for self-defense under the law?

A reasonable belief in the necessity for self-defense exists when an individual, based on all the circumstances, genuinely and reasonably believes that there is an imminent threat of unlawful force against them, necessitating a defensive response. This assessment includes both a subjective component (the person’s actual belief) and an objective component (whether a reasonable person in the same circumstances would share that belief).

  • For example: A store owner who has previously been robbed at gunpoint may reasonably believe, upon seeing a person entering their shop with a hand hidden in their pocket and acting suspiciously, that they are facing an imminent threat, justifying self-defense.

How does the concept of 'battered spouse syndrome' affect self-defense claims?

‘Battered spouse syndrome’ can significantly affect self-defense claims by providing context for a defendant’s belief in the necessity to act in self-defense. It recognizes the psychological impact of chronic domestic abuse, which can contribute to a victim’s perception of an imminent threat even absent an immediate danger. The law considers this syndrome to accommodate the unique psychological state of abuse victims when assessing the reasonableness of their actions.

  • For example: A woman who has endured years of violent abuse by her partner may perceive a raised voice or certain gesture — that wouldn’t ordinarily signify an immediate threat — as a signal of impending violence, warranting pre-emptive self-defense.

In what scenarios can use of lethal force be justified as self-defense?

Lethal force may be justified as self-defense when an individual reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to themselves or others. The justification typically requires an immediate and serious threat where no other options for escape or de-escalation are available.

  • For example: If an individual is attacked in their home by an armed intruder and there is no means of safe retreat, employing lethal force in defense of themselves or their family members may be legally justified.


Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Criminal Law