State of North Carolina v. Brendon Goodell
Feb 14, 2025OUTCOME: FIRST DEGREE MURDER CHARGE: Case dismissed
Excerpt from the State's notice of Voluntary Dismissal of the charge of First Degree Murder. The State's evidence would show that Co-Defendant’s called 911 on March 28, 2024, reporting that the allege ... d victim, attempted to break into Defendants' house, threw a glass bottle at Co-Defendant’s ’s wife, and that decedent "came at us aggressively" before both Defendants shot the decedent in self-defense. Decedent suffered from 23 gunshot wounds to the chest and left torso and was pronounced deceased on scene. On scene, investigators located (10) 9 mm discharged cartridge casings and (7) .380 discharged cartridge casings near the decedent’s body. Co-Defendant’s ’s wife and four children (Ages 1- 7) were present inside the home. She advised that the decedent on that night was "all hyped up" and angry about people stealing his things. She told him to leave, and he became more upset and threw a glass bottle at her. The bottle broke and cut her daughter's foot. At that point, Co-Defendant’s ’s argued with the decedent and Co-Defendant’s pushed the decedent outside of the residence. Additionally, she stated she previously called police to have the decedent removed from the home in December 2023. Both Co-Defendant’s and Goodell were voluntarily transported to the CMPD Law Enforcement Center to provide statements to detectives. Both stated that they shot the decedent in self-defense and defense of others. In dismissing the cases, the State concluded that Co-Defendant’s , his wife and Goodell, all acknowledged that the decedent was an invited guest that lived in the home or garage for some time leading up to the incident. However, all three individuals advised that the decedent was instructed to leave the residence on multiple occasions after he initially ran inside to allegedly assault Co-Defendant’s 's wife and would raise the "Castle Doctrine" defense. The State lacks a reasonable chance of success at trial in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendants (1) were not lawful occupants or (2) that The decedent had a right to be on the property. Although The decedent lived at the property at times, North Carolina law dictates that his right to be on the property terminated once he was thrown out of the house and Defendants asked The decedent to leave. Defendants, through counsel, communicated to the State their intention to assert the affirmative defense of self-defense and, specifically, to invoke the Castle Doctrine. Defendants provided the State with a lease agreement entered into by Defendants with the homeowner of subject property, proof that Defendants paid property taxes on the property, records of payment for utilities, along with other records associated with the Defendants paying for services on the property. Defendants assert that these records demonstrate that Defendants were "lawful occupants" of the home at the time of the shooting. Additionally, CMPD records demonstrate that CMPD personnel responded to subject property on at least five occasions prior to the shooting and Defendants and Co-Defendant’s wife represented themselves as the lawful occupants of the property. Additionally, the State lacks admissible evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendants were not lawful occupants of the home. As such, the Defendants would be entitled to the legal presumption that they reasonably feared imminent death or serious bodily harm in light of The decedent 's unlawful entry. The State lacks a reasonable chance of success at trial in disproving that the Defendants did not act in self-defense. As such, justice requires these charges be dismissed.
