262 N.C. App. 631
N.C. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant shot two people during a drug transaction; one (Jon) died and the other (Beth) was injured. Defendant claimed he fired in self-defense after Jon shot at him; he testified he intended to shoot Jon, not Beth.
- Defendant was tried on multiple theories: first-degree felony murder (premised on the underlying felony of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury (AWDWIKISI)), first-degree (premeditated) murder, second-degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter for Jon’s death; separate counts charged attempted first‑degree murder and AWDWIKISI for Beth.
- The jury convicted on first‑degree felony murder (based on AWDWIKISI) and second‑degree murder as to Jon, and guilty of AWDWIKISI as to Beth; the trial court entered judgment on the greater first‑degree felony murder charge and sentenced Defendant to life without parole.
- The trial court instructed the jury on the doctrine of transferred intent and gave a self‑defense instruction only as to the homicide charge(s) for Jon, not as to the assault on Beth or as to the felony‑murder theory.
- The appellate majority found the transferred‑intent and self‑defense instructions confusing and legally erroneous in ways that could have permitted conviction on felony murder and the assault charge even if the jury believed Defendant was shooting at Jon in self‑defense.
- Holding: appellate court vacated the AWDWIKISI and first‑degree felony murder judgments, ordered a new trial on the AWDWIKISI count, and remanded to enter judgment for second‑degree murder on Jon’s death.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor’s unobjected‑to remarks in closing required sua sponte intervention | Remarks were permissible closing argument and relevant to theory of guilt | Remarks invited juror adverse inference from Defendant’s choice to stand trial and speculated about other crimes | No reversible error; constitutional claim waived by lack of objection; no plain error found (Phillips standard applied) |
| Admissibility of evidence about victim’s character (gang membership, tattoo, prior armed robbery) | Such evidence was relevant to show victim’s violent character and support self‑defense | Trial court excluded specific conduct under Rules 403/405(b); Defendant offered insufficient foundation under 405(a)/(b) | No error: tattoos/gang evidence not specific instances under Rule 405(b); prior conviction excluded under Rule 403 within trial court’s discretion |
| Whether detective’s opinion that Defendant had confessed was plain error | State says testimony was permissible and any error is harmless or moot given other rulings | Defendant contends the opinion testimony was inadmissible and prejudicial | Not found to be plain error; in any event moot as to felony‑murder (reversed) and not so prejudicial as to meet plain‑error standard |
| Jury instructions: interplay of transferred intent and self‑defense as to AWDWIKISI and felony murder | State contended felony‑murder instruction and transferred intent were proper; self‑defense inapplicable to felony‑murder theory | Defendant argued he was entitled to self‑defense instruction for shots he intended for Jon (and transferred intent would apply to shots that hit Beth) | Reversible error: instructions allowed felony murder and assault convictions without clarifying that self‑defense could bar conviction for shots intended for Jon; vacated felony‑murder conviction and AWDWIKISI; remanded to enter second‑degree murder judgment and for new trial on AWDWIKISI |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Phillips, 365 N.C. 103 (concerning preservation of constitutional objections to prosecutorial argument)
- State v. Wynn, 278 N.C. 513 (articulating the transferred‑intent principle: "malice or intent follows the bullet")
- State v. Terry, 337 N.C. 615 (permits felony‑murder conviction when defendant intended to assault A but unintentionally killed B)
- State v. Stokes, 367 N.C. 474 (authorizes remand to enter judgment on a lesser offense when instructions omitted an essential element of a greater offense)
- State v. Corn, 307 N.C. 79 (defendant claiming self‑defense may introduce evidence of victim’s reputation for violence)