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 Wake County case, the Supreme Court modified and affirmed a Court of Appeals decision upholding defendant’s conviction for first-degree murder. The Court held that the trial court erred when providing the lying-in-wait instruction to the jury, but because defendant was convicted on two theories of first-degree murder, his conviction was upheld and no new trial was necessary.
In 2016, the victim attended a party in defendant’s neighborhood. During the night, crowds of people gathered outside defendant’s house, and he became angry, yelling at some of the people outside. Defenant called 911 and claimed the people outside were vandalizing his property, and he went to his garage with a shotgun. Later, as the victim crossed defendant’s yard near the curb, defendant shot and killed him. Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder by premeditation and deliberation, and by lying in wait. He appealed, reaching the Supreme Court for the first time in State v. Copley, 374 N.C. 224 (2020), arguing the prosecutor improperly mentioned race in closing arguments. The Court found no prejudicial error and remanded to the Court of Appeals to consider the remaining arguments. The Court of Appeals considered defendant’s three remaining arguments and found no error, leading to the current appeal.
The Supreme Court first considered defendant’s argument that the trial court should have intervened during closing argument when the prosecutor suggested defendant could not invoke the defense of habitation because he was the aggressor. The Court explained the standard of review was gross impropriety because defendant did not object at trial; this standard requires that the remarks be both improper and prejudicial. Here, the Court held that the prosecutor did not misstate the law, as “the prosecutor never labeled him the ‘aggressor’ for purposes of self-defense, but instead characterized discrete actions as ‘aggressive.’” Slip Op.at 11.
The Court then moved to the challenged jury instructions, beginning with defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the defense of habitation is unavailable to an aggressor. The Court explained that the instruction came from footnote 4 of N.C. Pattern Jury Instruction 308.80, and dealt with provocation, not with the aggressor doctrine. The Court also noted that defense counsel requested aggressor language in the self-defense instruction, inviting the error defendant then referenced on appeal.
Finally, the Court reached the lying-in-wait instruction for first-degree murder, explaining that the castle doctrine was relevant to the consideration of defendant’s case. The Court explained that “[i]f the statutory castle doctrine applies, it disclaims the elements of lying in wait and displaces that offense.” Id. at 20. In the current case, the Court held that “the trial court’s lying-in-wait instruction distorted the interplay between the crime and the castle doctrine” and deprived defendant of his right to defend his home. Id. at 22. However, because defendant was also convicted under the premeditation and deliberation theory, this error did not merit a new trial.
On remand from the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision (summary here) that there was no prejudicial error in the prosecutor’s closing argument with respect to race in this murder trial, the Court of Appeals considered the defendant’s remaining arguments regarding jury argument and jury instructions. Largely based on its view that the prosecutor’s jury argument was made in the context of self-defense rather than, as the defendant maintained, the habitation defense, the court disagreed with the defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by failing to intervene to correct an alleged incorrect statement of law regarding the aggressor doctrine in the prosecutor’s closing argument to which the defendant did not object. The court went on to decline to reach the defendant’s argument that the trial court plainly erred with respect to jury instructions on the aggressor doctrine in the context of the defense of habitation, finding the argument waived by the defendant’s active participation in the formulation of the jury instructions during the charge conference and failure to object at trial. Finally, the court held that the trial court did not err by instructing the jury on murder by lying in wait because the instruction was supported by sufficient evidence even if it was assumed that the defendant offered evidence of a conflicting theory of defense of habitation. The court noted with respect to lying in wait that the State’s evidence showed that the defendant concealed himself in his darkened garage with a suppressed shotgun and fired through a garage window, bewildering unwarned bystanders.
Judge Tyson dissented, expressing the view that the trial court erred with respect to instructing the jury on murder by lying in wait given that the defendant was wholly inside his home with his family as an armed intruder approached the home and given shortcomings in the trial court’s instructions regarding the State’s burden of disproving the defendant’s assertion of self-defense and the jury’s responsibility to evaluate evidence and inferences on that issue in the light most favorable to the defendant.
The trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss a first-degree murder charge based on the theory of lying in wait. The defendant asserted that no ambush occurred because the defendant announced his presence. The evidence showed that the victim was in his residence with friends when the defendant arrived after dark. The victim went outside to speak with the defendant. There was no evidence that the defendant threatened or directed harm at the victim. The victim returned to his trailer, unharmed, after speaking with the defendant. The defendant waited for the victim to go back inside and then fired his weapon into the trailer, killing the victim. The victim had no warning that the defendant intended any harm. When the defendant spoke with the victim, the defendant told the victim to send another person outside, indicating that he only had an issue with the other person. Therefore, the court concluded, the victim was taken by complete surprise and had no opportunity to defend himself.
In this first-degree murder case, the trial court did not err by instructing the jury on a theory of lying in wait. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that this theory required the State to prove a “deadly purpose” to kill, noting that the state Supreme Court has held that "lying in wait is a physical act and does not require a finding of any specific intent." (quotation omitted). The court continued:
As the Supreme Court has previously held, [h]omicide by lying in wait is committed when: the defendant lies in wait for the victim, that is, waits and watches for the victim in ambush for a private attack on him, intentionally assaults the victim, proximately causing the victim's death. In other words, a defendant need not intend, have a purpose, or even expect that the victim would die. The only requirement is that the assault committed through lying in wait be a proximate cause of the victim's death.
(quotation and citation omitted). The court went on to find that the evidence was sufficient to support a lying in wait instruction where the defendant waited underneath a darkened staircase for the opportunity to rob the victim.
The evidence supported a jury instruction for first-degree murder by lying in wait. The evidence showed that the defendant parked outside the victim’s house and waited for her. All of the following events occurred 15-20 minutes after the victim exited her home: the defendant confronted the victim and an argument ensued; the defendant shot the victim; a neighbor arrived and saw the victim on the ground; the defendant shot the victim again while she was lying on the ground; the neighbor drove away and called 911; and an officer arrived on the scene. This evidence suggests that the shooting immediately followed the defendant’s ambush of the victim outside the house.