Assignment based on the Michael Hernandez case. Whichever side we argued for in previous homework, now we had to argue for the other side to learn that a law firm the paralegal does not get to pick who should and should not be represented by the law firm.

1. Miller Motte College
Raleigh Campus
PL110: Criminal Procedure
Portfolio Project
North Carolina v. Ted Willis
Part I
1. What is the general rule for self defense?
Self defense is available as an option to escape death or great bodily harm when, from the
defendant‟s perspective, it is real or apparent to him or her that there is no other alternative than
to defend himself or herself from the assailant or assailants.North Carolina v. Deck, 285 N.C.
209, 203 S.E.2d 830 (1974), North Carolina v. Pearson, 288 N.C. 34, 215 S.E.2d 598 (1975).
The defendant‟s belief of his or her necessity to exercise self defense must be reasonable, i.e. “be
synonymous with rational, honest, equitable” belief during the assault, and this reasonableness is
determined by a jury that examines all of the facts and circumstances during the time of the
assailant‟s death.North Carolina v. Deck, North Carolina v. Pearson, Black‟s Law Dictionary
1138 (5d ed.1979).
2. How does the court interpret the distinction between non-deadly and deadly force?
There is an obvious distinction between deadly and non deadly force and they are the inverse of
each other, as the use or application of force that is intended to or most likely to cause death or
great bodily harm is classified as deadly force, whereas there is neither the intention nor the
likelihood that the use of non deadly force will result in death or great bodily harm upon the
assailant.North Carolina v. Deck, North Carolina v. Pearson. Also, in North Carolina there is
reasonable and unreasonable use of deadly and non deadly force, and this reasonableness is
determined by whether or not the amount of force used was excessive compared to any other
1

2. Portfolio Project
North Carolina v. Ted Willis
options available to force the assailant to discontinue the assault or prevent the assailant from
immediately re-engaging in the assault.North Carolina v. Deck, R. Perkins, Criminal Law 993
(2d ed. 1969). Deadly force is not justified against an assailant‟s use of non deadly force unless
there is a great disparity in size, strength, or fierceness between the defendant and the assailant,
or there is more than one assailant attacking the defendant.North Carolina v. Pearson, North
Carolina v. Hill, 141 N.C. 769, 53 S.E. 311 (1906).
3. How does the court distinguish when a person can “Stand their ground” and when he
must retreat?
Prior to determining whether the defendant can stand his ground against the assailant, a
determination must be made as to who provoked the assault, asthe provoker of the incident
cannot lawfully stand their ground against the assailant, but can match attack for attack by
whatever level of force the assailant uses against the defendant.North Carolina v. Pearson, North
Carolina v. Deck.The defendant cannot justifiably stand his ground and kill the assailant when
the defendant is away from his home or place of business, and there is any possible way of
escape available to the defendant; however, ifthe assailant uses deadly force against the
defendant, or the defendant is attacked by more than one assailant, or the assailant‟s size or
fierceness is greater, then the defendant is justified to stand his ground and kill the
assailant.North Carolina v. Pearson, North Carolina v. Gaddy, 166 N.C. 341, 81 S.E. 608
(1914).When the defendant is attacked at his homeor business, or where the defendant has no
means of escaping the assault, the defendant is considered to be “at the wall” and does not need
to retreat.North Carolina v. Pearson.
2
Chris Harden

3. Portfolio Project
North Carolina v. Ted Willis
Part II Based on this information and the information that you read in People of the North
Carolina v. Norris and North Carolina v. Edgar Earl Mize, did Ted Willis have the right to
use deadly force?
The question presented is not whether Ted Willis is guilty of murder, or was perfect or
imperfect self defense available to him, but did Ted Willis have the right to use deadly force. It is
plainly clear that Ted Willis did have the right to use deadly force against Michael Fernandez on
February 1, 2012 around 6 p.m.During the assault on Ted Willis that evening, Michael
Fernandez hit Ted Willis in the nose with his fist and, while on the ground, slammed his head
upon the sidewalk.Ted Willis had no other option than to kill Michael Fernandez because Ted
Willis had no doubt that hewould die from a grave head injury or suffer lifelong complications
from the assault to his head. North Carolina v. Deck. As is stated in North Carolina v. Gaddy,
“death or great bodily harm is possible without the use of any weapons by the assailant or the
assailants, and the defendant therefore may be justified in employing deadly force to repel such
an attack.”
Michael Fernandez‟ reaction to Ted Willis‟ inquiry as to what he was doing in the
neighborhood was what initiated the conflict as Michael Fernandez aggressively responded to
Ted Willis by poking him in the chest.North Carolina v. Pearson, North Carolina v. Hill, North
Carolina v. Gaddy. As is noted in the City of Raleigh Community(http://www.raleighnc.gov/
safety/content/Police/Articles/Crimeprevention.html)Watch Program, it “is a crime prevention
program that enlists the active participation of citizens to reduce crime in their communities. It
involves neighbors getting to know each other and preventing crime by being aware of what is
happening in their neighborhoods. The goal of Community Watch is to give potential criminals
the feeling that everyone in the community is watching their every move…”
3
Chris Harden

4. Portfolio Project
North Carolina v. Ted Willis
As such, Michael Fernandez‟s reaction to Ted Willis‟ inquiry was unfounded, and similar
to what happened to Elsie Norris in the North Carolina v. Elsie Juanita Norris, 279 S.E.2D 570
(1981), where Ms. Norris approached her husband and asked him a simple request for money but
her husband responded by punching her with such ferocity that Ms. Norris fled to her car,
retrieved her gun, and shot and killed her husband before he could reach her and re-initiate the
assault.
Again, it is plainly evident that in this situation Michael Fernandez was the aggressor in
this case because, according to North Carolina v. Jenkins, _N.C. App._ S.E. 2d 101(2010), he
voluntarily entered the fight using “abusive language” calculated and intended to bring on a fight
when he turned to Ted Willis, poked him in the chest, and yelled, “Don‟t you f@#$ing touch
me!”North Carolina v. Hill, North Carolina v. Gaddy.
Even if one were to entertain the absurd probability that Ted Willis provoked the conflict
between himself and Michael Fernandez, four things are obvious:
1. Ted Willis had no intention of taking the life of Michael Fernandez or inflicting serious
bodily harm upon him because when Ted Willis tried to ascertain what Michael
Fernandez was doing in the neighborhood, Ted Willis did not have his weapon drawn nor
did he approach Michael Fernandez in a manner to indicate that murder was on his mind.
North Carolina v. Elsie Juanita Norris.
2. Though Ted Willis was armed, he had no intention of using his weapon against Michael
Fernandez or anyone else, unlike Edgar Mize, in North Carolina v. Mize, 340 S.E. 2d 439
(1986), who visited a friend with his shot gun with the intent of shooting and killing their
4
Chris Harden

5. Portfolio Project
North Carolina v. Ted Willis
neighbor and Edgar‟s ex-friend, Joe McDonald.Ted Willis had a weapon for self defense,
not to specifically locate and eliminate another human being.North Carolina v. Pearson.
3. North Carolina v. Bryant213 N.C. 752, 197 S.E. 530 (1938) stated, “the person assaulted
may not stand his ground and kill his adversary, if there is any way of escape open to
him, although he is permitted to repel force by force and give blow for blow.” Examining
the injuries to Ted Willis it is obvious to see that Michael Fernandez had a way of escape
available to him when Ted Willis was down on the sidewalk, but instead of retreating or
repelling the same force that Ted Willis had given him, Michael Fernandez escalated the
amount of force by using the concrete side walk and his body weight as a deadly
weapon.North Carolina v. Gaddy.As is stated in North Carolina v. Ellerbe, 223 N.C.
770,28 S.E. 2d 519 (1944), “There is not a particle of evidence which should cause a
person, in the exercise of ordinary firmness, to apprehend that it was more dangerous to
retreat than to stand his ground and repel the anticipated attack. The defendant merely
pyramided his fears -- none of which were well founded.”The injuries the younger and
stronger Michael Fernandez inflicted upon Ted Willis is evident that Michael Fernandez
intended to use unreasonable and ferocious felonious force during the time of the attack
and for that reason Ted Willis had no choice but to use deadly force to preserve his own
life. North Carolina v. Pearson, North Carolina v. Deck.
4. There was a person who was not an eye witness but more of an ear witness to the fight.
Julia Lewis claims that “she was in her backyard when she heard two male voices
shouting near the front of her house, then heard one voice, later identified to be Michael,
shouting „Don‟t shoot!‟ and then heard what sounded like firecrackers” (Fact Pattern,
North Carolina v. Ted Willis). The validity of her testimony is questionable as she said
5
Chris Harden

6. Portfolio Project
North Carolina v. Ted Willis
she heard what sounded to be firecrackers though Michael Fernandez was shot only once
and Julia Lewis contends that she heard more than one “crack.” Secondly, the declaration
of “Don‟t shoot!” could have come a split second prior to Ted Willis justifiably firing his
gun to stop Michael Fernandez‟s felonious assault and, as stated in North Carolina v.
Ellerbe, “where a person is without fault and a murderous assault is made upon him, that
is, I mean with intent to kill, he is not required to retreat but he may stand his ground and
if he kills his assailant and it is necessary to do so in order to save his own life or to
protect himself from great bodily harm.”North Carolina v. Deck, Fact Pattern, North
Carolina v. Ted Willis.
In conclusion, Judge Pless stated inNorth Carolina v. Francis, 252 N.C. 57, 112 S.E.2d 756
(1960), that “it is better for a man to be the loser in a fist fight than to cut or shoot somebody.”
However, Justice Ervin stated in North Carolina v. Anderson, 230N.C. 54, 51 S.E. 2d 895
(1949), that “the law does not compel any man to submit in meekness to indignities or violence
to his person merely because such indignities or violence stop short of threatening him with
death or great bodily harm.” In Ted Willis‟ case, the “indignities or violence” he suffered did
not stop short of great bodily harm, as the injuriesinflicted upon his persongave Ted Willis the
right to use deadly force against Michael Fernandez on February 1, 2012.North Carolina v.
Pearson.
6
Chris Harden