State v. MosleyÂ
256 N.C. App. 148
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Darian Mosley shot and killed his girlfriend with a .22 rifle during an April 2013 altercation; he admitted firing but claimed the shooting was accidental when the victim grabbed the gun.
- At trial the jury was instructed on first-degree murder and the lesser included offenses: second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter; the jury convicted Mosley of second-degree murder.
- The trial court sentenced Mosley to 240–300 months (Class B1 range) for second-degree murder; the verdict was a general verdict that did not specify the theory of malice.
- North Carolina law (post-2012 amendment) treats most second-degree murders as Class B1, except where the required malice is the common-law depraved-heart (inherently dangerous act) malice, which remains Class B2.
- The evidence included testimony that Mosley habitually handled the rifle with his finger on the trigger and without using the safety; a firearms expert criticized that handling—facts that could support a depraved-heart theory.
- Because the jury’s general verdict could rest on either a B1 theory or a B2 (depraved-heart) theory and the verdict did not specify which, the Court of Appeals found the sentence ambiguous for sentencing purposes.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Mosley’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a general jury verdict for second-degree murder authorized sentencing as Class B1 when evidence could support depraved-heart malice (B2) | Evidence supported B1 theories; so B1 sentence was proper | General verdict ambiguous because evidence could support depraved-heart malice, requiring B2 sentencing | Vacated B1 sentence and remanded for resentencing as Class B2 because verdict ambiguous and must be construed for defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lail, 795 S.E.2d 401 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016) (analyzes when a general second-degree murder verdict permits B1 sentencing vs. ambiguity requiring B2 resentencing)
- State v. Coble, 527 S.E.2d 45 (N.C. 2000) (describes the three recognized theories of malice including depraved-heart)
- State v. Goodman, 257 S.E.2d 569 (N.C. 1979) (a general verdict that does not specify the theory of guilt leaves the court without a proper basis for sentencing)
- State v. Whittington, 347 S.E.2d 403 (N.C. 1986) (ambiguities in a verdict are to be construed in favor of the defendant)
- State v. Lilliston, 54 S.E. 427 (N.C. 1906) (recognizes that reckless use of a deadly weapon can constitute depraved-heart malice)