Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Table of Contents
State v. Baldwin, 240 N.C. App. 413 (Apr. 7, 2015)
The trial court did not err by instructing the jury that it could consider wounds inflicted after the victim was felled in determining whether the defendant acted with premeditation and deliberation. The trial court instructed the jury:
Neither premeditation nor deliberation are usually susceptible of direct proof. They may be proved by circumstances by which they may be inferred such as lack of provocation by the victim; conduct of the defendant before, during, and after the attempted killing; threats and declarations of the defendant; use of grossly excessive force; or inflictions of wounds after the victim is fallen.
The defendant argued this instruction was improper because there was no evidence that he inflicted wounds on the victim after the victim was felled. Following State v. Leach, 340 N.C. 236, 242 (1995)(trial court did not err by giving the instruction, “even in the absence of evidence to support each of the circumstances listed” because the instruction “informs a jury that the circumstances given are only illustrative”), the court found no error.