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 a murder and attempted armed robbery trial, the trial court erred when it excluded the defendant’s proposed testimony that he knew of certain violent acts by the victim and that the victim had spent time in prison. This evidence was relevant to the defendant’s claim of self-defense to the murder charge and to his contention that he did not form the requisite intent for attempted armed robbery because “there is a greater disincentive to rob someone who has been to prison or committed violent acts.” The evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b) because it related to the defendant’s state of mind. The court also held that certified copies of the victim’s convictions were admissible under Rule 404(b) because they served the proper purpose of corroborating the defendant’s testimony that the victim was a violent person who had been incarcerated. State v. Wilkerson, 148 N.C. App. 310, rev’d per curiam, 356 N.C. 418 (2002) (bare fact of the defendant’s conviction, even if offered for a proper Rule 404(b) purpose, must be excluded under Rule 403), did not require exclusion of the certified copies of the victim’s convictions. Unlike evidence of the defendant’s conviction, evidence of certified copies of the victim’s convictions does not encourage the jury to acquit or convict on an improper basis.
In this Durham County case, defendant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, arguing error in (1) denying his motion to dismiss, (2) admitting testimony of several of his prior violent acts, (3) overruling his objection to the State’s closing argument, and (4) excluding evidence surrounding the victim’s alleged gang involvement. The Court of Appeals found no error.
In March of 2019, defendant lived in a townhouse with his girlfriend, as well as his girlfriend’s brother, the brother’s girlfriend, and defendant’s sister. Conflict developed between defendant and his girlfriend/her brother after they learned another woman was pregnant with defendant’s child. On the day of the murder, defendant argued with his girlfriend after her mother recommended defendant move out of the townhouse. Later that evening, a confrontation led to defendant shooting the brother at the back door of the townhouse. Defendant surrendered to law enforcement and told officers he shot in self-defense. Despite the self-defense argument, the jury convicted defendant of first-degree murder.
In (1), defendant argued insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation, an argument the Court of Appeals rejected. The court noted that although defendant and the victim engaged in a fight before the shooting, defendant “walked away from this fight on his own accord” and then he “walked up two flights of stairs, retrieved his gun, walked down to the second floor, talked with his sister for a period of time, and then walked back down to the first floor.” Slip Op. at 7. This showed defendant clearly anticipated another confrontation and planned to respond. The court also pointed to multiple shots from defendant, as “[r]egardless of Defendant’s intent when he fired his first shot, there was adequate time between each shot for Defendant to think through his actions.” Id. at 8. Additionally, the State’s evidence suggested defendant did not act in self-defense, supporting the conviction.
For (2), defendant’s argument referenced testimony from his girlfriend about three previous incidents where he was violent towards her. The court first looked to Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, determining that the testimony was relevant as it provided context to the “circumstances surrounding the parties” and defendant’s relationship with his girlfriend and her brother before the shooting. Id. at 10. Moving to Rule 404(b), the court explained that the evidence showed defendant’s “motive and intent” and was “also sufficiently similar and temporally proximate to the charged crime.” Id. at 13. Finally, the court arrived at Rule 403, determining that “[a]fter considering the arguments made by both parties, the trial court conducted the proper balancing test required under Rule 403 to determine the evidence’s admissibility.” Id. at 16.
Reaching (3), defendant argued that during closing argument a prosecutor misstated the law of self-defense, arguing it did not apply because defendant shot an unarmed man. Defendant objected to the statement, but the trial court overruled the objection. The court quoted the confusing statement: “[e]ven if it is reasonable, the defendant never has a right to use excessive force.” Id. at 17. Despite this confusing statement, the State further argued that defendant’s use of force was unreasonable and the jury instruction was proper, leading the court to conclude any improper statement of law was cured by the correct instructions.
Finally, in (4), defendant argued that denying his attempts to introduce evidence of the victim’s gang affiliation was error. The court disagreed, concluding that even if relevant, the evidence’s “probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice” and did little to support defendant’s claim of self-defense. Id. at 20.
In this Iredell County case, defendant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, arguing error in (1) denying his motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation, (2) omitting stand-your-ground from the instruction on self-defense, and (3) excluding evidence of the victim’s previous felony convictions. The Court of Appeals majority found error in (1) and (3), vacating defendant’s conviction and remanding for a new trial.
In September of 2020, the victim and several other men were dove hunting in a field next to defendant’s land. The victim had permission from the landowner to hunt in the field, and had hunted here for several years, but as a convicted felon he could not legally possess a firearm. Defendant kept a horse rescue farm next to the field, and in 2017 a man hunting with the victim had shot one of defendant’s horses. After that incident, defendant asked the victim to be more cautious while hunting, and to avoid hunting near the fence line. On the morning of the incident, defendant heard shooting and went to confront the victim; defendant was carrying a pistol in his back pocket. After an argument, the victim shoved defendant to the ground. After that, testimony differed as to whether the victim charged defendant and defendant shot him in self-defense, or defendant shot the victim immediately. At trial, the State moved to exclude discussion of the victim’s prior felony convictions, and the trial court granted the motion. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing lack of evidence showing premeditation or deliberation for the murder, but the motion was denied. Defendant also objected to the proposed jury instruction on self-defense, arguing it did not include an instruction on stand-your-ground law, but the trial court declined to change the instruction.
Taking up (1), the Court of Appeals first outlined the eight factors “which assist in the determination of whether premeditation and deliberation were present.” Slip Op. at 12. Here, defendant argued he “did not have a history of arguments, ill will, or serious animosity” towards the victim, and instead “was in fear for his life” as he thought the victim was reaching for a gun. Id. at 14. The court’s majority agreed with defendant that there was no evidence of arguments or ill will, and after reviewing the eight factors, concluded this case did not show premeditation and deliberation. The majority highlighted the age difference, as defendant was 72 years old and the victim was 46, and the conduct of defendant after the shooting, as he went home, unloaded his firearm, and called law enforcement to report the shooting.
Moving to (2), the court disagreed that a stand-your-ground instruction was justified, as defendant was not in a place where he had a lawful right to be, the field adjacent to his property. Defendant argued that “absent evidence that he was a trespasser, he had a lawful right to be in the field and there is no reason to assume he was there unlawfully.” Id. at 21. However, the court looked to G.S. 14-51.3 and caselaw interpreting it, determining that since defendant was on privately owned property, and he did not admit evidence that he had permission to be there, he had not established a lawful right to be there for stand-your-ground purposes. The court also noted that, even assuming the instruction was error, defendant could not demonstrate prejudice as the self-defense instruction required the jury to consider the “the proportionality between the degree of force and the surrounding circumstances” before convicting him of first-degree murder. Id. at 23.
Reaching (3), the court noted that the trial court excluded evidence of the victim’s convictions under Rule of Evidence 404(b) because defendant did not know the nature of the victim’s prior convictions. The majority opinion explained this was error, as the evidence was not being admitted to show the victim’s propensity for violence, but instead to show defendant’s state of mind and fear of being harmed. Applying State v. Jacobs, 363 N.C. 815 (2010), the majority held that “the evidence presented serves a nonpropensity purpose and such evidence should generally be admissible.” Id. at 27. After establishing the evidence was admissible, the majority determined that the error was prejudicial, as “[t]he excluded evidence would most certainly have provided the jury with insight into Defendant’s state of mind, which [was] essential to his claim of self-defense, and whether Defendant’s fear and degree of force was reasonable.” Id. at 28. The exclusion also required redaction of the 911 call and removed the context from testimony about the victim hunting illegally, which would have been relevant to the jury’s deliberation.
Judge Stading concurred in (2), but dissented from the majority’s opinion in (1) and (3), and would have held that sufficient evidence supported premeditation and deliberation and that it was not error to exclude the victim’s felony status. Id. at 32.
In this Wake County case, defendant appealed his conviction for involuntary manslaughter, arguing error in the admission of evidence related to defendant’s prior acts of discipline under Rules 403 and 404(b). The Court of Appeals found no error.
In 2019, defendant lived with his then-girlfriend and her five children in Raleigh. In February, they had a dispute over discipline that led to the end of their relationship, and an agreement that defendant would move out and return to Maryland. However, just before defendant was to leave, his girlfriend had a job interview that required her to leave the home for several hours. Defendant was left watching her three youngest children. While she was gone, the youngest child suffered injuries leading to a 911 call. Defendant told paramedics that the child choked on a waffle, but a CT scan at the hospital revealed a skull fracture and hematomas on both sides of the child’s brain, with no sign of obstruction in the airway. Defendant was charged with involuntary manslaughter. At trial, the state moved to admit evidence of three previous episodes of defendant disciplining the children, two of which involved the defendant striking a child. The trial court admitted this evidence over defendant’s objection.
Reviewing defendant’s objection to the evidence, the Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to admit the evidence under Rules 403 and 404(b). Because defendant did not dispute the findings of fact or conclusions of law on the motion, the issue on appeal was the Rule 403 analysis of whether the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed the probative value of the three episodes. Defendant first argued that the probative value of the three episodes was minimal, although the trial court determined that two of the episodes involved him “striking” the children and the third was “indicative of a temper,” and the events were “probative of the intent . . .the motive . . . the absence of mistake or accident, and malice.” Slip Op. at 6-7. The court found that the trial court handled the unfair prejudice Rule 403 balancing test appropriately. Despite defendant’s arguments about the prejudicial nature of the evidence and the “verbs chosen” by his girlfriend when recounting his behavior toward her children, the court concluded that “the danger of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence” under Rule 403. Id. at 8.