State v. Lee, 720 S.E.2d 884

On 7 January 2009, Crystal Boswell was working at Nana's Quick Mart in Roanoke Rapids when defendant Lee entered with an AK-47 and opened fire.
Sirhan, behind a desk in his office, was shot and severely injured; Ransom returned fire after receiving a weapon from Sirhan; Hawkins observed the events and alerted authorities.
Police collected shell casings, a .45 handgun, cash, and blood/flesh material; arrest warrants were issued based on witness statements.
Lee was arrested 8 January 2009, Mirandized, and provided multiple statements admitting the shootings and his motive tied to drugs and money.
Lee was tried beginning 1 November 2010, represented himself with standby counsel; the court dismissed some charges and submitted AWDWITKISI, attempted first-degree murder, and attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon against Sirhan to the jury.
The jury found Lee guilty of AWDWITKISI of Sirhan, attempted first-degree murder of Sirhan, and attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon; not guilty on attempted murder of Ransom; sentencing followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AWDWITKISI variance is material	Lee argues the indictment named a handgun while trial evidence showed an AK-47.	Lee contends this variance defeats the AWDWITKISI charge as fatal.	Not material; variance harmless.
Shackles in presence of jury violated rights	Lee argues shackling violated § 15A-1031 and due process.	Lee asserts the restraints biased the jury and violated rights.	Error occurred but harmless.
Speedy trial violation	Lee claims delay violated his speedy-trial rights.	Lee argues the state caused and benefited from the delay.	No denial; no substantial prejudice; motion denied.
Coercion of jury verdicts by postures/recess instruction	Lee argues the stay-until-unanimous-verdict instruction coerced the jury.	Lee contends the instruction pressured deliberations.	Not coercive; harmless under totality of circumstances.
Sufficiency of the evidence	State argues substantial evidence supports all three charged offenses.	Lee claims insufficient evidence to prove intent to kill and other elements.	Substantial evidence supported all three offenses; proper submission.

State v. McDowell, 1 N.C.App. 361 (1968) (variance analysis; essential elements must be charged)
State v. Skinner, 162 N.C.App. 434 (2004) (variance not fatal if not prejudicial; 'functional notice' principle)
State v. Norman, 149 N.C.App. 588 (2002) (variance analysis; notice sufficiency)
State v. Ryder, 196 N.C.App. 56 (2009) (deadly weapon identity; cannot alter indictment on appeal)
State v. Brinson, 337 N.C. 764 (1994) (identifying deadly weapon; notice and proof standards)
State v. Palmer, 293 N.C. 633 (1977) (deadly weapon inference standards)
State v. Tolley, 290 N.C. 349 (1976) (shackling discretion and need for findings)
State v. Jackson, 162 N.C.App. 695 (2004) (shackling context and due process concerns)
State v. Webster, 337 N.C. 674 (1994) (speedy trial prejudice framework)
State v. Avery, 302 N.C. 517 (1981) (speedy trial balancing framework)
State v. Marlow, 310 N.C. 507 (1984) (prejudice in slow trials; significant evidence)
State v. Rose, 339 N.C. 172 (1994) (substantial evidence standard)