# State v. Cook

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · June 20, 2017 · 254 N.C. App. 150

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9876751

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of North Carolina, Plaintiff, v. Omar COOK, Defendant.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** June 20, 2017
- **Citations:** 254 N.C. App. 150; 802 S.E.2d 575; 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 454; 2017 WL 2644848
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Murphy
- **Judges:** Dillon, Stroud
- **Cited by:** 16 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9876751

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction when he testified that he did not have the intent to kill when he fired through a closed door at an unidentified person breaking into his bedroom

## Opinion text

*579 MURPHY, Judge, concurring
Judge Stroud's dissent reflects a stronger policy that more accurately represents what most citizens would believe our law to be and what I believe self-defense law should be in our state. However, I must *156 concur in the opinion authored by Judge Dillon as it accurately reflects what our current law is in this matter.
Under the holdings of our Supreme Court, it is unlawful for a person to use a warning shot as a means of self-defense no matter how reasonable a warning shot may be instead of shooting to kill one's attacker. While I encourage the Supreme Court to reverse our ruling today and accept the reasoning of the dissent, we are bound by precedent to rule that Defendant was not entitled to an instruction on self-defense.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9876751. Public record. Not legal advice.