In this Brunswick County case, defendant appealed denial of her motion to dismiss the murder charge against her, arguing that it represented double jeopardy. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion. The facts of this case are substantially similar to State v. Tripp, 2022-NCCOA-795, as the defendant in this case is the mother of the child that was abused, and the defendant in Tripp was her boyfriend at the time.

Following the same analysis as the opinion in Tripp, the court applied the same-elements test from Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), and the exception for requisite elements of the crime found in Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442 (1912), to establish the prosecution for murder was not double jeopardy under the felony murder theory. The court also noted “prosecution for first-degree murder theories such as premeditation and deliberation or torture satisfies the Blockburger test and does not violate [d]efendant’s constitutional right to be protected against double jeopardy.” Slip Op. at 10. The court dismissed defendant’s argument that due process protections prevented her prosecution so long after the events, noting the State could not bring charges for murder until the victim’s death.

The defendant appealed from his conviction for the first-degree murder of his grandfather based on the felony murder rule using the attempted murder of his mother with a deadly weapon as the predicate felony. The trial court instructed the jury that it could find the defendant guilty of first-degree murder if it found that he killed his grandfather as part of a continuous transaction during which he also attempted to murder his mother using either his hands or arms or a garden hoe as a deadly weapon. The defendant appealed, arguing that his hands and arms were not properly considered a deadly weapon for purposes of the felony murder rule and that the trial court’s erroneous instruction that the jury could find that he attempted to murder his mother using a garden hoe was prejudicial error.

The defendant was at the home of his mother and grandfather on November 5, 2013. He owed money to both and they had recently told him that they would lend him no more.  As his mother went outside the defendant followed behind her, saying he was leaving to go to work. His mother walked into a storage shed behind the house, where she remained for five or 10 minutes. She did not hear the defendant get into his car or hear the vehicle leave. While she was in the shed, she thought she heard raised voices. She came out to check on her father. As she walked toward the house, she felt someone put an arm around her neck. Her attacker put a hand over her nose and mouth and she lost consciousness. The next thing she remembered was someone opening her eyelid as she lay on the ground. She saw defendant’s face and thought he was there to help her.

The defendant worked from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., returning home the following morning. When he got home he saw that his mother had been attacked and called for emergency assistance. The defendant’s grandfather was dead when the paramedics arrived. He was face down near the back door, covered in blood, with a large pool of blood around his head. A garden hoe covered in blood was next to his body. The grandfather’s wallet was near his body and did not contain the money usually kept there.

The defendant denied his involvement in the assault and murder. He gave different explanations for the presence of scratches on his arm. DNA evidence from the scene did not connect him to the crime. The defendant’s mother (who experienced a traumatic brain injury) initially told investigators that the defendant left the home before she was attacked and said the person who attacked her was shorter than the defendant and was wearing a ski mask. She testified differently at trial, stating that it was the defendant who had choked her and that there had been no ski mask.

The trial court instructed the jury on multiple theories of first-degree murder, including the felony-murder rule using the attempted murder of the defendant’s mother as the predicate felony. As to the deadly weapon requirement, the court told the jury that the “State contends and the defendant denies that the defendant used his hands and/or arms, and or a garden hoe as a deadly weapon.” The jury convicted the defendant of first-degree murder based on this theory, and the defendant appealed.

The supreme court relied upon a “virtually uninterrupted line of appellate decisions from this Court and the Court of Appeals interpreting the reference to a ‘deadly weapon’ in N.C.G.S. § 14-17(a) to encompass the use of a defendant’s hands, arms, feet, or other appendages” and the “fact that the General Assembly has not taken any action tending to suggest that N.C.G.S. § 14-17(a) should be interpreted in a manner that differs from the interpretation deemed appropriate in this line of decisions” to establish that the General Assembly intended for the term “deadly weapon” to include a defendant’s hands, arms, feet or other appendages. The court rejected the defendant’s invitation to overrule or limit to child victims its holding in State v. Pierce, 346 N.C. 471 (1997) that the offense of felony child abuse could serve as the predicate felony for felony-murder when the defendant used his hands as a deadly weapon in the course of committing the abuse. The court also rejected the defendant’s invitation to rely on State v. Hinton, 361 N.C. 207 (2007) for the proposition that the term “deadly weapon” has different meanings in different contexts and should have a felony-murder specific definition. The Hinton court held that the reference to “any firearms or other dangerous weapon, implement or means” as used in N.C.G.S. § 14-87(a) (defining robbery with a dangerous weapon) did not encompass the use of a defendant’s hands because the statute was intended to provide a “more severe punishment when the robbery is committed with the ‘use or threatened use of firearms or other dangerous weapons’” than when the defendant committed common law robbery, which did not involve the use of such implements. The court reasoned that the logic in Hinton had no application to its interpretation of the felony-murder statute as nothing in the language or legislative history of G.S. 14-17 suggested that its reference to “deadly weapon” should be defined in a way that differed from the traditional definition, which included a person’s appendages.

Finally, the court rejected the notion that its interpretation meant that every killing perpetrated with the use of a defendant’s hands, arm, legs, or other appendages could constitute felony murder, thus undermining the General Assembly’s attempt to limit the scope of the rule when it revised the statute in 1977. The court noted that the extent to which hands, arms, legs, and other appendages can be deemed deadly weapons depends upon the nature and circumstances of their use, including the extent to which there is a size and strength disparity between the perpetrator and his or her victim. Moreover, something more than a killing with hands, arms, legs, or other bodily appendages must be shown (a felony) to satisfy the rule.

The court then considered whether the trial court’s instructions to the jury that it could find that the defendant attempted to murder his mother using a garden hoe was prejudicial error, concluding that it was as there was a reasonable possibility that the jury would not have convicted the defendant of first-degree murder without the erroneous instruction. The court explained that to conclude otherwise, “[w]e would be required to hold that the State’s evidence that defendant killed his grandfather as part of a continuous transaction in which he also attempted to murder his mother using his hands and arms as a deadly weapon was so sufficiently strong that no reasonable possibility exists under which the jury would have done anything other than convict defendant of first-degree murder on the basis of that legal theory.” The sharply disputed evidence over whether the defendant was the perpetrator, including the lack of physical evidence, the defendant’s trial testimony, and the conflicting nature of the statements made by the defendant’s mother, prevented the court from concluding that the error was harmless. Even more central to the court’s analysis was the dispute over the extent to which the defendant’s hands and arms were a deadly weapon. The court noted that although the size and strength differential between defendant and his mother was sufficient to permit a determination that defendant’s hands and arms constituted a deadly weapon, the differences were not so stark as to preclude a reasonable jury from concluding that defendant’s hands and arms were not a deadly weapon. If the jury had reasonably concluded that the defendant’s hands and arms were not used as a deadly weapon, it could not have convicted the defendant of the first-degree murder of his grandfather on the basis of the felony-murder rule, contrary to the suggestion in the jury instruction. As a result, the Court held that the trial court’s instruction concerning the use of the garden hoe as a deadly weapon during defendant’s alleged attempt to murder his mother was prejudicial error necessitating a new trial for the murder of his grandfather.

Justice Newby, joined by Justice Morgan, concurred in part and dissented in part. He agreed with the majority that the defendant’s hands and arms were deadly weapons, but disagreed that the instruction regarding the garden hoe resulted in prejudicial error.

Justice Earls concurred in the result only in part and dissented in part. She agreed with the majority that the instruction regarding the garden hoe was error warranting a new trial. She dissented from the majority’s conclusion that a jury could properly consider a person’s hands, arms, feet, or other body parts to be deadly weapons for purposes of the felony murder statute, reasoning that the legislative history and spirit of the statute demonstrate that the deadly weapon requirement refers to an external instrument.

In this Brunswick County case, defendant appealed denial of his motion to dismiss the murder charge against him, arguing that it represented double jeopardy. The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to review defendant’s interlocutory appeal, and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion.

In 1997, the fifteen-month-old child of defendant’s girlfriend was taken to the emergency room with severe injuries. A pediatrician who treated the child determined he had Battered Child Syndrome and life-altering brain injuries that would prevent the child from ever living or functioning on his own. One year later, defendant entered an Alford plea to four counts of felony child abuse; defendant completed his sentence in 2008. The child lived in long-term care facility until 2018 when he passed away, allegedly from complications related to his injuries. The State brought charges for first-degree murder against defendant after the 2018 death of the child.

Taking up the double jeopardy argument, the court explained that under the same-elements test from Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), offenses for the same conduct are considered the same unless “each offense contains an element not contained in the other.” Slip Op. at 5, quoting United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 (1993). The court noted that the charges against defendant for felony child abuse and first-degree murder would normally fail the Blockburger test. However, the court applied the exception found in Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442 (1912), where “a defendant subsequently may be prosecuted for a separate offense if a requisite element for that offense was not an element of the offense charged during the defendant’s prior prosecution.” Slip Op. at 8, citing Diaz. Because the necessary element of the child’s death did not occur until 2018, defendant could not have been prosecuted for the murder in 1998. The court rejected defendant’s arguments to expand the scope of North Carolina’s double jeopardy protection beyond applicable precedent and to apply substantive due process to overturn the denial of his motion.

Rejecting the defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim with respect to his first-degree felony murder conviction, the court also rejected the proposition that a felony murder conviction cannot be predicated on a felony of shooting into occupied property where that felony also was the cause of the victim’s death. Reviewing the relevant case law, the court concluded:

[I]t is clear that neither the Supreme Court nor this Court has ever expressly recognized an exception to the felony murder rule for the offense of discharging a weapon into occupied property. At most, North Carolina courts have recognized a very limited “merger doctrine” that precludes use of the felony murder rule in situations where the defendant has committed one assault crime against one victim and the State seeks to use that assault as the predicate felony for a felony murder conviction.

(1) The evidence was sufficient to submit felony murder to the jury on the basis of felony larceny with a deadly weapon being the underlying felony. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the State failed to show that a beer bottle found at the crime scene was used as a “deadly weapon” within the meaning of the homicide statute, G.S. 14-17. The State’s evidence showed, among other things that the murder victim’s injuries could have been caused by the bottle. Thus, the State presented sufficient evidence that the broken beer bottle constituted a deadly weapon. The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that the State failed to prove that the defendant used the broken bottle during the commission of the felonious larceny, noting that the evidence showed that after incapacitating the victim with the broken bottle the defendant stole the victim’s vehicle. Finally, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the State failed to prove that the killing was committed in the perpetration of the larceny, finding sufficient evidence of a continuous transaction. (2) Where the defendant was convicted of felony murder with the underlying felony being felony larceny, the trial court erred by failing to arrest judgment on the underlying felony.

In this first-degree murder case, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that there was an insufficient relationship between the felony supporting felony-murder (discharging a firearm into occupied property) and the death. The law requires only that the death occur “in the perpetration or attempted perpetration” of a predicate felony; there need not be a causal “causal relationship”’ between the felony and the homicide. All that is required is that the events occur during a single transaction. Here, the defendant stopped shooting into the house after forcing his way through the front door; he then continued shooting inside. The defendant argued that once he was inside the victim attempted to take his gun and that this constituted a break in the chain of events that led to her death. Even if this version of the facts were true, the victim did not break the chain of events by defending herself inside her home after the defendant continued his assault indoors.

The evidence was sufficient to support a first-degree felony-murder conviction when the underlying felony was armed robbery and where the defendant used the stolen item—a .357 Glock handgun—to commit the murder and the two crimes occurred during a continuous transaction.

On March 13, 2016, the defendant was out at a bar in Greensboro with his nephews and several other people to celebrate a friend’s birthday. As they were leaving the bar around 2:00 a.m., another group of men approached and one of them asked a woman in the defendant’s group if she would perform sexual acts for money. The defendant’s group rebuked the other man, and the defendant’s group left the parking lot in two vehicles. When they were stopped at a red light, a vehicle occupied by the second group of men pulled up next to the vehicle in which the defendant was riding. One of the men in the second group smashed a bottle against the defendant’s vehicle, and the second group pursued the defendant’s group at high speed as they drove away. The vehicles all pulled into a nearby parking lot, where two off-duty police officers were parked in a patrol vehicle. As the occupants exited their vehicles, a large fight broke out involving different clusters of people, and one person (“Jones”) was killed. Additional officers responded to the scene and attempted to break up the multiple altercations. None of the officers saw a weapon being used, but Jones and several other individuals had suffered deep lacerations, and their statements to the officers on scene indicated the defendant was the one who cut them with a knife. As the fights were being broken up, an officer saw the defendant walking back towards a vehicle, ignoring commands to stop, and making a furtive movement to throw something into the car. Officers checked the car and found a bloody knife on the driver’s seat. The defendant was searched and also found to have “bath salts” in his pocket. The medical examiner concluded that stab wounds consistent with the knife found in the car caused Jones’ death. Additional evidence indicating that the defendant was the person who mortally wounded Jones included blood found on the defendant’s shoes and clothing, the defendant’s close proximity to the wounded individuals, the defendant’s DNA on the knife, and the defendant’s statements to a private investigator that others were stomping and hitting him so he pulled a knife out of his pocket and “came out swinging.”

The defendant was charged with first-degree murder, possession of 4-chloromethcathinone, and attaining habitual felon status. At the conclusion of a jury trial on the substantive charges, the jury was instructed on first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and the controlled substance offense. The jury convicted the defendant of voluntary manslaughter and drug possession. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court should have granted his motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence based on self-defense (or that he received ineffective assistance of counsel if that argument was deemed not adequately preserved), and that the trial court erred in its jury instruction regarding voluntary manslaughter.

Because the jury only convicted the defendant of manslaughter, rather than first- or second-degree murder, and because the state did not advance the theories that the defendant had either killed in the heat of passion or was the initial aggressor, the appellate court concluded that the only issue it needed to determine was whether the state’s evidence was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss a charge of voluntary manslaughter premised on a killing that would be second-degree murder (committed with malice) but for the fact that the defendant had an imperfect claim of self-defense (based on his use of excessive force). To survive such a motion, the state’s evidence would have to show that the defendant: (1) intentionally wounded Jones; (2) proximately causing his death; (3) under a reasonable belief that use of force was necessary to avoid death or great bodily harm; but (4) the force used was greater than necessary to prevent such harm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the state, there was sufficient evidence in this case from which a reasonable juror could find each of those four factors, and the motion to dismiss was properly denied.

The defendant also argued on appeal that the parties had agreed to use pattern jury instruction 206.10, but the trial court’s actual instructions to the jury did not directly follow the pattern instruction language. If true, a challenge to that instruction would be preserved for appellate review even though the defense did not object. But based on its review of the record, the appellate court held that there was not an agreement to use a specific instruction, so its review of the jury instructions was limited to plain error. After reviewing the instructions as a whole, the appellate court found that the trial court had adequately instructed the jury as to each element and lesser-included offense. “Because the jury was informed of the essential elements it would have to find beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict defendant of voluntary manslaughter, the trial court did not err in its jury instructions.”

The defendant lived in a trailer home with her boyfriend. In January 2015, the boyfriend’s three-year-old nephew came to stay with the couple for several days. The defendant would care for the child while the boyfriend and other nearby family members were at work. On a particular day, the defendant took four tablets of Xanax, in excess of the recommend three tablets a day. The boyfriend left for work, and the defendant checked on the child. The defendant turned on a space heater in the living room and went to the bathroom to smoke a cigarette. When she returned to the living room, she noticed that there were sparks coming from either the heater or the electric outlet and that the sparks were already causing the couch to smoke.

In a failed attempt to stop the burning, the defendant smothered the fire with a blanket. The defendant testified that she did not immediately get the child out of the trailer because she thought she could put out the fire. The mobile home did not have any running water, and the defendant tried unsuccessfully to use the fire extinguisher. After yelling for help, a neighbor arrived and escorted the defendant out of the trailer home. As the events progressed, the defendant was asked several times if there was anyone else inside the home, and each time, the defendant responded that there wasn’t.

When the fire department arrived, the defendant again answered that there was no one in the home, which a firefighter in turn relayed to dispatch. By the time a family member arrived and insisted that the child was still in the home, the firefighter informed him that there was no longer any way to safely enter the home. Once the crews gained access to the home, they found the deceased child on the bedroom floor.

During the initial trial proceedings, the trial judge inadvertently mentioned that the defense attorneys were from the public defender’s office. The court then denied a motion to strike the entire jury venire. The court also denied the defendant’s motions to dismiss the charges for insufficient evidence. The defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and orally provided notice of appeal.

(1) The defendant’s first argument on appeal was that the trial court erred in denying her motion to strike the jury venire, because it denied her right to a fair trial before an impartial jury. The Court of Appeals held that the single passing reference made under these facts did not warrant a new trial because the jury could not reasonably infer the trial court’s introduction of the parties to be an opinion on a factual issue in the case, the defendant’s guilt, nor the weight of the evidence or a witness’s credibility.

(2) The defendant next argued that her involuntary manslaughter conviction must be vacated because the State did not meet its burden of proving that the defendant’s criminally negligent actions proximately caused the child’s death. Noting (i) the defendant’s admission that she could have removed the child from the burning home when she exited, (ii) the defendant’s omissions to her neighbors and the firefighters regarding the child’s presence in the burning home, and (iii) the deceased child’s airway being coated with soot, the Court of Appeals held that there was substantial evidence in the record that the defendant’s culpably negligent acts and omissions proximately caused the child’s unintentional death and that the evidence was sufficient to send the case to the jury.

(3) The defendant’s final argument was that the short-form indictment charging her with involuntary manslaughter was fatally defective for lack of sufficient notice of involuntary manslaughter’s essential elements. In rejecting this assertion, the Court of Appeals noted that the constitutionality of the statutory short-form indictment at issue has previously been upheld by both the Court of Appeals and the state Supreme Court.

The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter. In the context of a shooting, the charge of involuntary manslaughter requires evidence of the absence of intent to discharge the weapon. This fact distinguishes involuntary manslaughter from its voluntary counterpart, which requires proof of intent. The defendant’s argument fails because there was no evidence at trial suggesting that the defendant did not intend to shoot his wife. Rather, the defendant’s defense relied on his argument that he was in a state of automatism--a complete defense to all criminal charges--which the jury rejected. Here, there was no evidence suggesting that the shooting was an accident.

The trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss a charge of involuntary manslaughter. The primary issue raised in the defendant’s appeal was whether there was sufficient evidence that the defendant committed a culpably negligent act which proximately resulted in the victim’s death. The evidence showed that the defendant became angry at the victim during the defendant’s party and “kicked or stomped” his face, leaving the victim semiconscious; the defendant was irritated that he had to take the victim to meet the victim’s parents at a church; instead of taking the victim to the church, the defendant drove him to an isolated parking area and again beat him; the defendant abandoned the victim outside knowing that the temperature was in the 20s and that the victim had been beaten, was intoxicated, and was not wearing a shirt; the defendant realized his actions put the victim in jeopardy; and even after being directly informed by his father that the victim was missing and that officers were concerned about him, the defendant lied about where he had last seen the victim, hindering efforts to find and obtain medical assistance for the victim. On these facts, the court had “no difficulty” concluding that there was sufficient evidence that the defendant’s actions were culpably negligent and that he might have foreseen that some injury would result from his act or omission, or that consequences of a generally injurious nature might have been expected.

G.S. 20-141.4(c) does not bar simultaneous prosecutions for involuntary manslaughter and death by vehicle; it only bars punishment for both offenses when they arise out of the same death.

The trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss a first-degree murder charge based on the theory of lying in wait. The defendant asserted that no ambush occurred because the defendant announced his presence. The evidence showed that the victim was in his residence with friends when the defendant arrived after dark. The victim went outside to speak with the defendant. There was no evidence that the defendant threatened or directed harm at the victim. The victim returned to his trailer, unharmed, after speaking with the defendant. The defendant waited for the victim to go back inside and then fired his weapon into the trailer, killing the victim. The victim had no warning that the defendant intended any harm. When the defendant spoke with the victim, the defendant told the victim to send another person outside, indicating that he only had an issue with the other person. Therefore, the court concluded, the victim was taken by complete surprise and had no opportunity to defend himself.

In this New Hanover County case, defendant appealed after being found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder and three counts of attempted first-degree murder, arguing (1) the indictment for attempted first-degree murder failed to include an essential element of the offense, (2) error in denying his motion to dismiss one of the attempted murder charges, and (3) error in admitting evidence of past acts of violence and abuse against two former romantic partners. The Court of Appeals found no error.

In August of 2014, after defendant assaulted his girlfriend, a protective order was granted against him. On December 22, 2014, defendant tried to reconcile with his girlfriend, but she refused; the girlfriend went to the house of a friend and stayed with her for protection. Early the next morning, defendant tried to obtain a gun from an acquaintance, and when that failed, he purchased a gas can and filled it with gas. Using the gas can, defendant set fires at the front entrance and back door of the home where his girlfriend was staying. Five people were inside when defendant set the fires, and two were killed by the effects of the flames. Defendant was indicted for first-degree arson, two counts of first-degree murder, and three counts of attempted first-degree murder, and was convicted on all counts (the trial court arrested judgment on the arson charge).

Examining issue (1), the Court of Appeals explained that “with malice aforethought” was represented in the indictment by “the specific facts from which malice is shown, by ‘unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously . . . setting the residence occupied by the victim(s) on fire.’” Slip Op. at 10. Because the ultimate facts constituting each element of attempted first-degree murder were present in the indictment, the lack of “with malice” language did not render the indictment flawed.

Considering defendant’s argument (2), that he did not have specific intent to kill one of the victims because she was a family member visiting from Raleigh, the court found that the doctrine of transferred intent supported his conviction. Under the doctrine, “[t]he actor’s conduct toward the victim is ‘interpreted with reference to his intent and conduct towards his adversary[,]’ and criminal liability for the third party’s death is determined ‘as [if] the fatal act had caused the death of [the intended victim].’” Id. at 12, quoting State v. Locklear, 331 N.C. 239 (1992). Here defendant was attempting to kill his girlfriend, and the intent transferred to the other victims inside the home at the time he set the fires.

Considering (3) the admission of several prior acts of violence by defendant towards his girlfriend and another romantic partner, the court first determined the evidence was relevant under Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, and conducted an analysis under Rule 404(b), finding the evidence tended to show intent, motive, malice, premeditation, and deliberation. The court then looked for abuse of discretion by the trial court under the Rule 403 standard, finding that the admission of the relevant evidence did not represent error.

The trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss a second-degree murder charge where there was insufficient evidence of malice and the evidence showed that the death resulted from a mishap with a gun. The court remanded for entry of judgment for involuntary manslaughter.

In a second-degree murder case stemming from a vehicle accident, there was sufficient evidence of malice. The defendant knowingly drove without a license, having been cited twice for that offense in the three weeks prior to the accident. When the original driver wanted to pull over for the police, the defendant took control of the vehicle by climbing over the back seat and without stopping the vehicle. He was attempting to evade the police because of a large volume of shoplifted items in his vehicle and while traveling well in excess of the speed limit. He crossed a yellow line to pass vehicles, twice passed vehicles using a turn lane, drove through a mowed corn field and a ditch, and again crossed the center line to collide with another vehicle while traveling 66 mph and without having applied his brakes. To avoid arrest, the defendant repeatedly struck an injured passenger as he tried to get out of the vehicle and escape.

There was sufficient evidence of malice to support a second-degree murder conviction. Based on expert testimony the jury could reasonably conclude that the child victim did not die from preexisting medical conditions or from a fall. The jury could find that while the victim was in the defendant’s sole custody, he suffered non-accidental injuries to the head with acute brain injury due to blunt force trauma of the head. The evidence would permit a finding that the victim suffered a minimum of four impacts to the head, most likely due to his head being slammed into some type of soft object. Combined with evidence that the defendant bit the victim, was upset about the victim’s mother’s relationship with the victim’s father, and that the defendant resented the victim, the jury could find that the defendant intentionally attacked the month-old child, resulting in his death.

There was sufficient evidence of malice in a case arising from a vehicle accident involving impairment. The defendant admitted that he drank 4 beers prior to driving. The State’s expert calculated his blood alcohol level to be 0.08 at the time of the collision and other witnesses testified that the defendant was impaired. Evidence showed that he ingested cocaine and that the effects of cocaine are correlated with high-risk driving. The defendant admitted that he was speeding, and experts calculated his speed to be approximately 15 mph over the posted speed limit. The State also introduced evidence that the defendant had 4 prior driving while impaired convictions.

The trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss charges of second-degree murder, felony serious injury by vehicle, and impaired driving. The evidence showed that the defendant was under the influence of an impairing substance at the time of the accident. A chemical analysis of blood taken from the defendant after the accident showed a BAC of 0.14 and the State’s expert estimated that his BAC was 0.19 at the time of the accident. The defendant admitted having consumed 5 or 6 beers that day. Four witnesses testified that they detected a strong odor of alcohol emanating from the defendant immediately after the accident. The defendant had bloodshot eyes and was combative with emergency personnel immediately after the accident. Finally, the defendant’s speed exceeded 100 miles per hour and he failed to use his brakes or make any attempt to avoid the collision.

There was sufficient evidence of malice in a first-degree murder case. The intentional use of a deadly weapon which proximately results in death gives rise to the presumption of malice. Here, the victim was stabbed in the torso with a golf club shaft, which entered the body from the back near the base of her neck downward and forward toward the center of her chest to a depth of eight inches, where it perforated her aorta just above her heart; she was stabbed with a knife to a depth of three inches; her face sustained blunt force trauma consistent with being struck with a clothes iron; and there was evidence she was strangled. The perforation by the golf club shaft was fatal.

There was sufficient evidence of malice to support a second-degree murder conviction in a case where the defendant ran over a four-year-old child. When she hit the victim, the defendant was angry and not exhibiting self-control; the defendant’s vehicle created “acceleration marks” and was operating properly; the defendant had an “evil look”; and the yard was dark, several small children were present, and the defendant did not know where the children were when she started her car.

In this Randolph County case, defendant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder, arguing error in denying his motion to dismiss due to no direct evidence he shot the victim. The Court of Appeals found no error.

Defendant was indicted for first-degree murder for the killing of another dump truck driver from the dump site where defendant worked. The jury ultimately convicted defendant of second-degree murder. On appeal, defendant argued that no direct evidence supported the conviction, and the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction. The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting extensive circumstantial evidence that defendant knew and worked with the victim, was seen with the victim shortly before the killing, and defendant was found next to the truck containing the victim with a gun. The court explained “[t]he State was not required to produce an eyewitness to the shooting or physical evidence linking Defendant to the gun as Defendant implies, considering the other substantial evidence.” Slip Op. at 5.

In this Brunswick County case, defendant appealed denial of her motion to dismiss the murder charge against her, arguing that it represented double jeopardy. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion. The facts of this case are substantially similar to State v. Tripp, 2022-NCCOA-795, as the defendant in this case is the mother of the child that was abused, and the defendant in Tripp was her boyfriend at the time.

Following the same analysis as the opinion in Tripp, the court applied the same-elements test from Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), and the exception for requisite elements of the crime found in Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442 (1912), to establish the prosecution for murder was not double jeopardy under the felony murder theory. The court also noted “prosecution for first-degree murder theories such as premeditation and deliberation or torture satisfies the Blockburger test and does not violate [d]efendant’s constitutional right to be protected against double jeopardy.” Slip Op. at 10. The court dismissed defendant’s argument that due process protections prevented her prosecution so long after the events, noting the State could not bring charges for murder until the victim’s death.

No double jeopardy violation occurred when the defendant was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious bodily injury based on the same events. Each offense includes an element not included in the other.

For purposes of double jeopardy, a second-degree murder conviction based on unlawful distribution of and ingestion of a controlled substance was not the same offense as sale or delivery of a controlled substance to a juvenile or possession with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance.

In this Carteret County case, defendant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, arguing (1) insufficient evidence, (2) error in admitting numerous gruesome photos of the body, and (3) error in allowing several statements by the prosecutor during closing argument. The Court of Appeals found no prejudicial error. 

At trial, defendant admitted through counsel that he shot the victim, the mother of his son, on August 14, 2018. Evidence showed that earlier that day, the two were seen fighting in the front yard of their residence, and later the victim was seen walking down the road. Defendant eventually picked up the victim and brought her back to their home. Sometime after the victim and defendant were back home, defendant shot and killed the victim, wrapped her in a tarp, then buried her body at a burn pit in his grandfather’s back yard. Defendant also called the victim’s mother, who lived with them, to tell her juice had been spilled on her sheets and he had to launder them. After burying the victim, defendant told others that the victim had left him, and put up flyers trying to find her. Eventually defendant was charged with the murder; while in custody, he had conversations with another inmate about how he “snapped” and shot the victim after she described performing sex acts with other men, and where he hid the body. 

Taking up (1), the Court of Appeals explained that the State argued first-degree murder under two theories, premeditation and deliberation, and lying in wait. The court looked for sufficient evidence to support premeditation and deliberation first, noting that defendant’s actions before and after the murder were relevant. Although defendant and the victim fought before the killing, the court did not find evidence to support the idea that defendant was acting under “violent passion,” and defendant seemed to deliberately choose a small-caliber handgun that was not his usual weapon for the murder. Slip Op. at 10-11. Additionally, the court concluded that “Defendant’s actions following the murder demonstrate a planned strategy to pretend Defendant had nothing to do with the murder and to avoid detection as the perpetrator.” Id. at 12. The court dispensed with defendant’s argument that it should not consider acts after the killing as evidence of premeditation, explaining the case cited by defendant, State v. Steele, 190 N.C. 506 (1925), “holds flight, and flight alone, is not evidence of premeditation and deliberation.” Slip Op. at 14. Because the court found sufficient evidence to support first-degree murder under premeditation and deliberation, it did not examine the lying in wait theory. 

Turning to (2), the court explained that under Rule of Evidence 403, photos of a body and its location when found are competent evidence, but when repetitive, gruesome and gory photos are presented to the jury simply to arouse the passion of the jury, they may have a prejudicial effect, such as in State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279 (1988). Here, the court did not find prejudice from the photographs, as “[t]he photographs presented at trial depicted the culmination of the investigation to locate [the victim’s] body and provided evidence of premeditation and deliberation.” Slip Op. at 20. 

The court found error in (3), but not prejudicial error, when examining the prosecutor’s closing argument. First, the prosecutor mentioned the punishment for second-degree murder; the trial court sustained defendant’s objection but did not give a curative instruction. The court found no prejudice as previous instructions directed the jury to disregard questions to sustained objections, and not to acquit or convict based on the severity of punishment. Second, the prosecutor mentioned that defendant did not have to testify; the trial court initially sustained the objection but then overruled it to allow the prosecutor to make an argument about defendant not calling witnesses. The court found that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to “the evidence of Defendant’s motive for planning to kill [the victim], his confession, his use of the .22 caliber handgun, and his acts subsequent to the killing.” Id. at 25. Third, while the prosecutor misstated the applicable precedent regarding provocation, the court explained that a proper instruction by the trial court to the jury on “the required state of mind for premeditation and deliberation” cured the misstatement. Id. at 27. Finally, the court concluded that the prosecutor’s statements referencing defendant’s admission that he killed the victim were “directed at what was and was not at issue for the jurors to decide rather than an improper statement regarding Defendant’s failure to plead guilty.” Id. at 28. 

In this Randolph County case,  the Court of Appeals upheld defendant’s conviction for solicitation to commit first-degree murder, finding no prejudicial error by the trial court.

In 2018, defendant, a high school student, confessed to his girlfriend that he had homicidal thoughts towards several of his fellow students, and attempted to recruit his girlfriend to help him act on them. His girlfriend showed the messages they exchanged to her mother and the school resource officer, leading to further investigation that found defendant had a cache of guns and knives, as well as a detailed list of persons he wished to kill and methods he would use. When the matter came to trial, the state offered testimony from 11 of the 13 persons on the kill list, and during closing arguments made reference to the “current events” that were presumably mass shootings at high schools. Defendant was subsequently convicted in 2020.

Reviewing the appeal, the court first considered (a) defendant’s motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, reviewing whether defendant solicited his girlfriend for the crime. The court found sufficient evidence of solicitation, explaining that solicitation is an “attempt to conspire,” and the offense does not require fully communicating the details of the plan. Instead, once defendant proposed the killings he had planned to his girlfriend, and attempted to recruit her to assist, the offense was complete, despite the fact that he did not fully share his detailed plans. Slip Op. at 12-13.

The court next considered (b), dismissing defendant’s argument that the indictment fatally varied from the jury instruction; the court found that this was actually an attempt to present an instructional error “within the Trojan horse of a fatal variance.” Id. at 15. Considering (c), the court disagreed with defendant’s allegation that Rules of Evidence 401 and 402 barred admission of defendant’s drawings and notes of the Joker and weapons, and testimony from 11 of the potential victims. The drawings were relevant to show defendant’s state of mind and evaluate the nature of the potential crime, and the testimony was relevant to show the potential victims were real people and that defendant had the specific intent to commit the crime. Id. at 17-18. The court also considered (d) whether Rule of Evidence 403 barred admission of this evidence as prejudicial, finding no abuse of discretion as “the evidence served a probative function arguably above and beyond inflaming [the jury’s passions].” Id. at 20.

Considering the final issue (e), whether the trial court should have intervened ex mero moto during the state’s closing argument, the court found error but not prejudicial error. The court found error in the state’s closing argument when the prosecutor “appealed to the jury’s sympathies by describing the nature of the Joker and insinuating that [d]efendant was planning a mass shooting.” Id. at 25. The court presumed that these statements were intended to suggest that defendant’s conviction would assist in preventing another mass shooting, but noted that they did not rise to the level of prejudicial error due to the other factual details in the argument, and the “multiple items of physical evidence and segments of testimony evidencing [d]efendant’s intent.” Id. at 28.

In this Guilford County case, defendant appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a felon, arguing the trial court erred by (1) denying his motions to dismiss, (2) giving an improper jury instruction on deliberation, and (3) failing to give defendant’s requested “stand your ground” instruction. The Court of Appeals found no error.

In 2017, defendant was at a house drinking alcohol with two other men when an argument broke out between defendant and the eventual victim. The victim yelled in defendant’s face and spit on him, threatening to kill defendant the next time he saw him. Notably, the victim’s threat was to kill defendant at a later time, and the victim stated he would not do so in the house where they were drinking. After the victim yelled in defendant’s face, defendant drew a pistol and shot the victim six times; defendant fled the scene and did not turn himself in until 18 days later.

Reviewing the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motions to dismiss, the court noted that “evidence of a verbal altercation does not serve to negate a charge of first-degree murder when ‘there was other evidence sufficient to support the jury’s finding of both deliberation and premeditation.’” Slip Op. at 8, quoting State v. Watson, 338 N.C. 168, 178 (1994). The court found such evidence in the instant case, with defendant’s prior history of quarrels with the victim, the number of gunshots, defendant’s fleeing the scene and remaining on the run for 18 days, and with defendant’s statements to his girlfriend regarding his intention to deny the charges.

The court then turned to the disputed jury instructions, first explaining that defendant’s request for an additional explanation on deliberation beyond that contained in Pattern Jury Instruction 206.1 was based on a dissenting opinion in State v. Patterson, 288 N.C. 553 (1975) which carried no force of law, and the instruction given contained adequate explanation of the meaning of “deliberation” for first-degree murder. Slip Op. at 11. The court next considered the “stand your ground” instruction, comparing the trial court’s instruction on self-defense to the version offered by defendant. Looking to State v. Benner, 380 N.C. 621 (2022), the court found that “the use of deadly force cannot be excessive and must still be proportional even when the defendant has no duty to retreat and is entitled to stand his ground.” Slip Op. at 14. The court also noted that the “stand your ground” statute requires proportionality in defendant’s situation, explaining “[d]efendant could use deadly force against the victim under [N.C.G.S. §] 14-51.3(a) only if it was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, i.e., if it was proportional.” Id. at 16-17. Finally, the court determined that even if the trial court erred in failing to give the instruction, it was not prejudicial, as overwhelming evidence in the record showed that defendant was not under threat of imminent harm, noting “[l]ethal force is not a proportional response to being spit on.” Id. at 17.

In this Burke County case, the defendant appealed after he was found guilty by a jury of first-degree murder. The case arose out of an altercation between the defendant and his apartment neighbor, Hubert Hunter, Jr. After Hunter was found dead in his own apartment, a maintenance worker found a plastic bag containing bloodstained clothing and a kitchen knife in a dumpster behind the apartment building. DNA on the knife matched the victim and DNA on the clothing matched the defendant. A medical examination of the victim showed that he had three stabbing and slashing wounds to his neck, one of which was deep enough to fracture his spine, as well as hemorrhaging of blood vessels indicating that the ultimate cause of death was strangulation. Law enforcement interviewed the defendant multiple times. He first denied fighting with Hunter, but later said that he had gone to Hunter’s apartment to collect $3 Hunter owed him, which led to a fight in which the victim “pulled a knife.” The defendant admitted to choking the victim as they wrestled in an attempt to make him pass out and stop fighting, but said that he was struggling in self-defense after the victim grabbed the knife and that any stabbing was incidental. The defendant also claimed that he himself passed out during the struggle. The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and appealed. 

(1) The defendant first argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss based on insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not err in dismissing the motion. The evidence showed the defendant threatened the victim, beat him severely, did not seek medical assistance after the fight, and attempted to cover up the killing by disposing of his bloodied clothes and the knife. The Court rejected the defendant’s contention that his own black out undermined the State’s theory of premeditation and deliberation and instead showed he acted in a state of passion; other evidence sufficed to submit the issue to the jury, and it was for them to weigh the evidence presented.

(2) The defendant next argued that the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on the defense of automatism in light of the defendant’s statement that he blacked out during the altercation with the victim. The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that the only evidence of the defendant blacking out came from his own self-serving statements, which, moreover, were contradicted by his other statements and general ability to recall the details of the fight. Because the defendant’s statements about blacking out were insufficient to satisfy a reasonable jury that he lacked consciousness, the trial court did not plainly err by failing to give the instruction.

(3) Next, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by failing to intervene ex mero motu in the State’s questioning of prospective jurors. The State’s questions included hypothetical questions like “If you were in fear for your life and had a weapon, would you defend yourself or would you run away?” The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to intervene because the State’s questions did not stake jurors out by asking them to consider specific circumstances and forecast their ultimate verdict.

(4) Finally, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by not intervening ex mero motu during closing arguments when the State claimed that the defendant, not the victim, handled the knife, thereby misleading the jury on the central issue of self-defense. The Court of Appeals disagreed, concluding that trial court did not err when the State’s arguments drew reasonable inferences from the evidence and did not rely on evidence outside the trial record.

Having rejected each of the defendant’s arguments, the Court concluded that the defendant’s trial was free from error.

In this murder case, there was sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation. The evidence showed that the victim suffered from a heart condition and other ailments. In the months before his death, the defendant and the victim--who were married--were arguing about financial issues. The defendant began a romantic relationship with her therapist and planned to ask the victim for divorce. A search of the home computer discovered Internet searches including “upon death of the veteran,” “can tasers kill people,” “can tasers kill people with a heart condition,” “what is the best handgun for under $200,” “death in absentia USA,” and “declare someone dead if missing 3 years.” On the date of death, the defendant visited her nephew, expressed concern about her safety due to break-ins in her neighborhood, and received from her nephew a gun and a knife. Shortly after that, she returned home and asked the victim to go on a drive with her. The defendant took the gun and knife in the car and used the weapons to kill the victim, shooting him and stabbing him approximately 12 times. Later in the day, the defendant messaged her therapist “it’s almost done” and “it got ugly.” After the incident, the defendant got rid of her bloodstained clothing, threw away the victim’s medications and identification, and said that he had either gone to Florida or was at a rehabilitation center.

In this first-degree murder case there was sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation. Among other things, the evidence showed a lack of provocation by the victim, that just prior to the shooting the defendant told others that he was going to shoot a man over a trivial matter, that the defendant shot the victim 3 times and that the victim may have been turning away from or trying to escape at the time.

In this first-degree murder case, the evidence was sufficient to show premeditation and deliberation. After some words in a night club parking lot the defendant shot the victim, who was unarmed, had not reached for a weapon, had not engaged the defendant in a fight, and did nothing to provoke the defendant’s violent response. After the victim fell from the defendant’s first shot, the defendant shot the victim 6 more times. Instead of then trying to help the victim, the defendant left the scene and attempted to hide evidence.

The State presented sufficient evidence that the defendant acted with premeditation and deliberation where, among other things, the defendant did not want a second child and asked his wife to get an abortion, he was involved in a long-term extramarital affair with a another woman who testified that the defendant was counting down the seconds until his first child would go to college so that he could leave his wife, the defendant had made plans to move out of his martial home but reacted angrily when his wife suggested that if the couple divorced she might move out of the state and take the children with her, and shortly before he shot his wife, he placed her cell phone out of her reach.

The defendant’s shooting of the victim’s mother (the defendant’s wife) while the victim was in utero was a proximate cause of the victim’s death after being born alive. The gunshot wound necessitated the child’s early delivery, the early delivery was a cause of a complicating condition, and that complicating condition resulted in her death.

There was sufficient evidence that the defendant’s actions were the proximate cause of death. The defendant argued that two unforeseeable events proximately caused the victims’ deaths: a third-party’s turn onto the road and the victims’ failure to yield the right-of-way. The court found that the first event foreseeable. As to the second, it noted that the defendant's speeding and driving while impaired were concurrent proximate causes.

In this Guilford County case, defendant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder, arguing error in failure to provide a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter. The Court of Appeals found no error. 

Based on texts and cellphone evidence admitted at trial, defendant arranged to meet with the victim, a gay man, for a sexual encounter on June 9, 2017. The next morning, the Greensboro Fire Department found the victim’s car burned to the frame, with the skeletal remains of the victim inside the trunk. An autopsy determined the victim died of homicidal violence of undetermined means, and that he was most likely dead before being burned. A search of the apartment where defendant sometimes lived with his girlfriend found a missing 4’ x 4’ patch of carpet and blood stains matching the victim’s DNA. At trial defendant requested that the jury be instructed on the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter, but the trial court denied this request, and noted defendant’s objection to the ruling to preserve appellate review.

The Court of Appeals found no evidence in the record to support the argument that defendant acted “in the heat of passion” justifying a voluntary manslaughter instruction. Defendant offered a theory that involved the victim’s HIV-positive status and the possibility of defendant becoming enraged when he discovered this after sexual activity. However, the court explained this theory was “pure speculation” and the record contained no evidence that defendant’s passion was “sufficiently provoked.” Slip Op. at 11. Because no evidence supported the required element of heat of passion to justify a voluntary manslaughter instruction, the court found no error.  

The court also found the evidence admitted supported a finding of implicit malice for second degree murder, referencing State v. Rick, 126 N.C. App. 612 (1997), for the idea that “implicit malice can be inferred by the nature of the crime and the circumstances of [the victim’s] death.” Slip Op. at 13. 

In this case arising from a fatal automobile collision involving convictions for second-degree murder, DWI, felony death by motor vehicle, and failure to maintain lane control, the trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the DWI and felony death by motor vehicle charges due to insufficient evidence of impairment.  There was, however, substantial evidence of malice with respect to second-degree murder and the trial court did not err in submitting that charge to the jury, nor did it err in submitting to the jury the failure to maintain lane control charge. 

Likening the case to its previous decision in State v. Eldred, 259 N.C. App. 345 (2018), the court found that there was insufficient evidence the defendant was impaired at the time of the collision where the officer who formed the opinion on impairment, an opinion based on observations occurring five hours after the collision, did so “entirely through passive observation” of the defendant, without requesting him to perform any field tests.  Moreover, the court noted, the officer did not ask the defendant if or when he and ingested any impairing substances.  The trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the DWI charge, and, because DWI was a necessary element of the felony death by motor vehicle charge, also erred in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss that charge.

Substantial evidence supported the failure to maintain lane control charge under G.S. 20-146(d)(1), a statute providing the disjunctive mandates that a motorist must (1) drive his or her vehicle “as nearly as  practicable entirely within a single lane” and (2) refrain from changing lanes unless he or she “has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.”  The defendant had argued that the fact that a tow truck partially obstructed his lane of travel meant that it was not “practicable” for him to drive entirely within that lane.  The court rejected that argument, finding that a reasonable juror could infer that the defendant could have avoided departing from his lane had he been traveling at a reasonable speed for conditions.  The court also explained that there was substantial evidence that the defendant failed to ascertain that his lane change movement could be made with safety as the tow truck also obstructed the defendant’s view of the perils which lay in his chosen lane change path.

The jury was instructed that the defendant would need to be found guilty of either DWI or failure to maintain lane control to be guilty of second degree murder, and having upheld his conviction on the lane control offense the court’s only remaining task was to determine whether there was substantial evidence that the defendant acted with malice.  Recounting the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, the court noted that the defendant was driving while knowing that his license was revoked for DWI and non-DWI offenses, was driving at an irresponsible speed for the icy conditions, made an unconventional maneuver to attempt to pass the tow truck partially obstructing his lane, became involved in a severe collision, left the scene without ascertaining whether anyone was harmed, and washed his car in an apparent attempt to destroy evidence and avoid apprehension.  The court also noted that the defendant’s extensive record of motor vehicle offenses and car accidents was published to the jury, allowing the jury to infer that he was aware of the risk to human life caused by his behavior on the road but nevertheless once again engaged in dangerous driving with indifference to its consequences.  This substantial evidence supported the element of malice by reckless disregard for human life.

Finally, the court determined that any error related to the admission of certain evidence was harmless because that evidence was relevant only to the issue of impairment, and further determined that the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s request for a jury instruction on the defense of accident, assuming the denial was error, was harmless because the jury’s verdicts suggested that it had rejected the notion that the defendant’s fatal unconventional traffic maneuver was unintentional.