The North Carolina Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Terrence Jahiem Bailey for possession of a firearm by a felon. The court ruled on November 4, 2026, that the trial court acted correctly in denying Bailey's request for a jury instruction on the defense of justification. This ruling affects Bailey, who was previously convicted of multiple felonies, and highlights the legal boundaries surrounding firearm possession for individuals with felony records.

The case originated from an incident on November 8, 2023, when Bailey allegedly threatened his sister during a confrontation at their family home. Following the altercation, law enforcement discovered a handgun belonging to Bailey, leading to his indictment for possessing a firearm as a felon. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to existing laws regarding firearm possession and the standards for justifying such actions in court.

Background

The case, State v. Bailey, was filed under docket number 25-978. Terrence Jahiem Bailey was indicted for possession of a firearm by a felon after a series of events that unfolded on November 8, 2023. Bailey had a prior criminal history, including felony convictions for breaking and entering, larceny after breaking and entering, and larceny of a firearm. Following these convictions, he was placed on supervised probation.

On the day of the incident, Bailey's sister, Courtney, returned to their shared residence to collect personal belongings. During her visit, an argument erupted between her and their mother, Markesha Daniels. Witnesses, including Courtney's friends, testified that Bailey emerged from the house, threatened Courtney, and fired shots as she and her companions were leaving. Law enforcement later found a handgun in a bag that Bailey had hidden in the woods.

The Ruling

The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Allegra Collins, ruled that the trial court did not err in denying Bailey's request for an instruction on the defense of justification. The court stated, "Defendant failed to offer evidence supporting each element of the justification defense." The court clarified that a justification instruction is warranted only when the evidence supports all necessary elements, which Bailey did not demonstrate.

In its decision, the court noted that Bailey did not present sufficient evidence of an imminent threat to himself or others at the time he possessed the firearm. The court highlighted that Bailey could have chosen alternative actions, such as contacting law enforcement or remaining inside the residence, rather than resorting to possessing a firearm. The court concluded that the evidence did not support the claim that Bailey's actions were justified.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for individuals with felony convictions regarding firearm possession. The court's decision reinforces the strict legal standards that must be met to claim justification in such cases. The ruling serves as a reminder that individuals with felony records face stringent restrictions on firearm possession, and any claims of justification must be firmly supported by evidence.

The court's rejection of Bailey's constitutional challenge to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-415.1 is also noteworthy. The court dismissed these arguments, stating that Bailey had not preserved them for appellate review. This aspect of the ruling emphasizes the importance of following proper legal procedures when raising constitutional issues in court.

What's Next

Bailey's conviction can be appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court, but it is uncertain whether he will pursue this option. There are no related cases pending that directly connect to this ruling. The outcome of this case may influence future legal arguments surrounding firearm possession by felons and the standards for justification in similar cases.