Murder Conviction Over Sawed-Off Shotgun Overturned Due to Botched Self-Defense Instructions


New Trial Granted in Sawed-Off Shotgun Murder Case

A man found guilty of killing his landlord’s son with a sawed-off shotgun will get a new trial due to the judge’s failure to instruct the jury on the possibility of self-defense, North Carolina’s Court of Appeals ruled.

A Fatal Confrontation

In 2017, Ronald Wayne Vaughn Jr. shot and killed Gary Somerset on the porch of a Lincoln County trailer Vaughn was renting. The incident stemmed from a heated argument between Vaughn, Somerset, and Somerset’s mother.

Vaughn, holding a Winchester .410 caliber shotgun with a sawed-off barrel, claimed that Somerset charged at him while yelling, “Let’s end this.” This led to his conviction for first-degree murder and possession of a weapon of mass death and destruction.

Self-Defense: A Legal Dilemma

North Carolina’s “stand-your-ground” law allows individuals to use force to protect themselves from imminent danger, but this right may be forfeited if the person was committing a felony at the time.

A Supreme Court ruling after Vaughn’s 2021 trial narrowed this exception, stating that the injury must be directly linked to the possession of the weapon.

Jury Instructions: A Critical Omission

Judge Allegra Collins, writing for the majority in Tuesday’s ruling, determined that the trial judge should have instructed the jury on the stand-your-ground provision. She reasoned that the evidence presented could have supported a conclusion that Vaughn’s use of deadly force was justified.

Furthermore, the prosecutor’s erroneous instruction that the stand-your-ground provision did not apply was found to be a further error.

A Path to Resentencing

The appeals panel upheld Vaughn’s conviction for possessing a weapon of mass death and destruction, which carries a prison term of up to 2 1/2 years. However, they ordered Vaughn to be resentenced, taking into account pretrial confinement credits.

Ensuring Justice through Thorough Instructions

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of providing clear jury instructions in criminal trials. A defendant’s right to present a comprehensive defense, including potential self-defense arguments, must be meticulously upheld to ensure a fair and just outcome.

Data sourced from: