Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Table of Contents
Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
About
This compendium includes significant criminal cases by the U.S. Supreme Court & N.C. appellate courts, Nov. 2008 – Present. Selected 4th Circuit cases also are included.
Jessica Smith prepared case summaries Nov. 2008-June 4, 2019; later summaries are prepared by other School staff.
Instructions
Navigate using the table of contents to the left or by using the search box below. Use quotations for an exact phrase search. A search for multiple terms without quotations functions as an “or” search. Not sure where to start? The 5 minute video tutorial offers a guided tour of main features – Launch Tutorial (opens in new tab).
In this McDowell County case, defendant appealed his conviction for discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle in operation and possessing a firearm as a felon, arguing error in (1) not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle; (2) not defining “in operation” during the jury instructions; and (3) denying defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding no error.
In June of 2022, defendant’s ex-girlfriend and two accomplices drove a vehicle onto his property to take a puppy from his home. Testimony from the parties differed, but a firearm was discharged into the rear passenger side window of the vehicle as the ex-girlfriend and her accomplices attempted to drive away with the puppy. The engine of the vehicle was running, but it was stopped when the shot was fired through the window. Defendant did not object to the jury instructions during the trial.
Reviewing (1) for plain error, the Court of Appeals noted that “in operation” is undefined in G.S. 14-34.1, but looking to the plain meaning of the words and consideration from a previous unpublished case, the court arrived at the following: “A vehicle is ‘in operation’ if it is ‘in the state of being functional,’ i.e., if it can be driven under its own power. For a vehicle to be driven, there must be a person in the driver’s seat, and its engine must be running.” Slip Op. at 6. Because all the evidence indicated someone was in the driver’s seat of the vehicle and the engine was running, the trial court did not err by not instructing on the lesser included offense. Likewise, this dispensed with (2), as the trial court did not need to provide instruction on the meaning of “in operation” due to the phrase carrying its common meaning. Resolving (3), the court noted that testimony in the record would allow a reasonable juror to conclude defendant fired a shot into the vehicle, representing substantial evidence to survive a motion to dismiss.
In this discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle while in operation case, the trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence. Evidence at trial tended to show that the defendant fired a pistol at the victim’s truck and struck a toolbox fastened into the truck’s bed. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that G.S. 14-34.1(b) requires at a minimum that the bullet strike the exterior wall of the vehicle. Analogizing to State v. Miles, 223 N.C. App. 160 (2012), where it had determined that there was sufficient evidence of the version of the offense involving an occupied dwelling where a bullet struck a porch attached to a house, the court determined that striking the toolbox of the vehicle was sufficient to meet the firing “into [property]” element of the offense.
The defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon, three counts of assault with a deadly weapon and seven counts of discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle based on an incident in which he chased two women from his house and fired at the car of a Good Samaritan who stopped to assist the women on the highway.
(1) Though the defendant did not object to the testimony at trial, he argued on appeal that the Good Samaritan should not have been permitted to testify as a lay witness that the shots were not fired from an automatic weapon. The court of appeals found no error in the admission of the testimony, which was based on the witness’s first-hand knowledge of the incident and his familiarity with the distinction between automatic and semi-automatic rifle fire, gained through decades of military service.
(2) Defendant argued on appeal that the State failed to prove the six additional shots fired into the truck after the first shot were discharged willfully or wantonly within the meaning of G.S. 14-34.1(b). The court of appeals rejected the defendant’s argument. The court noted that the Good Samaritan’s testimony provided evidence that the defendant did not use an automatic weapon but instead used a weapon that required him to pull and release the trigger (and thus employ his thought process) each time he decided to shoot into the occupied truck. In addition, testimony from the Good Samaritan and one of the women established that the shooting continued over an identifiable period of time, as opposed to occurring in a rapid burst of gunfire.
Finally, the court of appeals dismissed the defendant’s argument that he had been sentenced in violation of his right to be free from double jeopardy on the basis that the defendant failed to preserve the argument by objecting a trial.
After getting into an argument at a holiday party, the defendant fired a warning shot from a rifle into the air and then fired a single shot into a moving vehicle occupied by two people, striking one of them in the neck and seriously injuring him. Defendant was subsequently convicted and sentenced for four felonies related to the shooting, including charges for both: (1) discharging a weapon into an occupied vehicle in operation inflicting serious bodily injury, a Class C felony under G.S. 14-34.1(c) (for the injured victim); and (2) discharging a weapon into an occupied vehicle in operation, a Class D felony under G.S. 14-34.1(b) (for the second occupant). On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court should have arrested judgment on the lesser of the two charges for firing into an occupied vehicle, because he could not be sentenced twice for the single act of firing one shot. The Court of Appeals agreed and held that although the defendant could be indicted and tried for both charges, upon conviction the trial court should have arrested judgment for the lesser offense. This case was distinguishable from other cases in which multiple judgments were supported because the defendant fired multiple shots or fired into multiple vehicles. In this case, where there was only one shot fired into one vehicle, the relevant inquiry under the statute is only whether the vehicle was occupied; the number of occupants is immaterial. To the extent that the presence of additional occupants in the vehicle increases the risk of injury or enhances the culpability of the act, that factor is accounted for by the ascending levels of punishment prescribed under the statute.
The evidence was sufficient to support a conviction of discharging a weapon into occupied property. The defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to show that the defendant knew that the property was occupied when he shot into the house. Here, an eyewitness testified that before discharging his firearm, the defendant loudly “called out” individuals inside the home, challenging them to come outside, and an individual was standing in the doorway just minutes earlier when the defendant slowly drove past, looking at the dwelling.
(1) The trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss a charge of discharging a firearm into occupied property. The trial court improperly instructed the jury that it had to find that the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the dwelling was occupied; this instruction raised the evidentiary bar for the State, as this offense only requires proof that the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that the building might be occupied. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the State was bound by the higher standard stated in the jury instruction. Evidence that the shooting occurred in a residential neighborhood in the evening and resident’s car was parked outside of her home sufficiently established that the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the dwelling might be occupied. (2) The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court’s jury instruction on discharging a firearm into occupied property was an improper disjunctive instruction. The defendant was indicted for firing into the home of Ms. Knox. At trial, all the evidence pertains to Knox’s home. The trial court’s jury instruction referred to discharging a firearm “into a dwelling,” without specifying Knox’s home. The jury instruction was not phrased in the disjunctive nor did it have “the practical effect of disjunctive instruction,” as argued by the defendant.
In a discharging a barreled weapon into occupied property case, the trial court did not err by instructing the jury that because the crime was a general intent crime, the State need not prove that the defendant intentionally discharged the fireadisrm into occupied property, and that it needed only prove that he intentionally discharged the firearm.
The evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for discharging a firearm into occupied property (a vehicle), an offense used to support a felony-murder conviction. The defendant argued that the evidence was conflicting as to whether he fired the shots from inside or outside the vehicle. Citing prior case law, the court noted that an individual discharges a firearm “into” an occupied vehicle even if the firearm is inside the vehicle, as long as the individual is outside the vehicle when discharging the weapon. The court continued, noting that mere contradictions in the evidence do not warrant dismissal and that here the evidence was sufficient to go to the jury.
The trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s request for a diminished capacity instruction with respect to a charge of discharging a firearm into occupied property that served as a felony for purposes of a felony-murder conviction. Because discharging a firearm into occupied property is a general intent crime, diminished capacity offers no defense.
With regard to a felony-murder charge, the evidence was sufficient to show the underlying felony of discharging a firearm into occupied property (here, a vehicle). The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the evidence failed to establish that he was outside of the vehicle when he shot the victim.
No violation of double jeopardy occurred when the trial court sentenced the defendant for three counts of discharging a firearm into occupied property. Although the three gunshots were fired in quick succession, the bullet holes were in different locations around the house’s front door area. The evidence also showed that at least one shot was fired from a revolver, which, in single action mode, must be manually cocked between firings and, in double action mode, can still only fire a single bullet at a time. The other gun that may have been used was semiautomatic but it did not always function properly and many times, when the trigger was pulled, would not fire. Neither gun was a fully automatic weapon such as a machine gun. There was sufficient evidence to show that each shot was "distinct in time, and each bullet hit the [house] in a different place.” In reaching this holding, the court declined to apply assault cases that require a distinct interruption in the original assault for the evidence to support a second conviction.
In a discharging a firearm into occupied property case, a residence was occupied when the family was on the front porch when the weapon was discharged.
(1) This crime is a general intent crime; it does not require the State to prove any specific intent to shoot into the vehicle but only that the defendant intentionally fire a weapon under such circumstances where he or she had reason to believe the conveyance that ended up being shot was occupied. (2) N.C.P.J.I.—Crim. 208.90D, which was used in this case, properly charged the jury as to the required mental state.
Only a barreled weapon must meet the velocity requirements of G.S. 14-34.1(a) (capable of discharging shot, bullets, pellets, or other missiles at a muzzle velocity of at least 600 feet per second); a firearm does not.