State v. Greenfield, COA23-597, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Feb. 19, 2025)

In this New Hanover County case, defendant appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury (AWDWIKISI), arguing error in (1) jury instructions regarding felony murder, (2) permitting the State to contend defendant committed robbery when he was previously acquitted, (3) improperly excluding evidence of the victim’s convictions and gang affiliations, and (4) not intervening in the State’s closing argument. The Court of Appeals found no error.

In February of 2015, defendant went to the apartment shared by the murder victim and his girlfriend to buy marijuana. An argument ensued, and both parties produced firearms. Testimony differed on what happened next, but defendant ended up shooting and killing the victim, and hitting the girlfriend with gunfire as well. Defendant went to trial in 2017 and was convicted of first-degree murder and AWDWIKISI, but acquitted of attempted robbery. Defendant appealed, and in State v. Greenfield, 375 N.C. 434 (2020), the Supreme Court granted defendant a new trial because the trial court did not provide instructions on self-defense and transferred intent. Defendant was retried in 2022 and again convicted, leading to the current case.

In (1), defendant argued that the jury instructions improperly allowed the jury to find him guilty of felony murder without the requisite intent, as the underlying felony was AWDWIKISI for the girlfriend, and defendant argued he was aiming for the murder victim and accidentally hit the girlfriend. The Court of Appeals explained that defendant’s argument rested on an interpretation of the “merger doctrine,” where the assault on a victim cannot be the underlying felony for felony murder of that victim. Here, the jury received instruction on transferred intent, where if defendant intended to harm one victim and instead harmed another, the legal effect would be the same. The court rejected defendant’s interpretation of the situation, explaining “this is not a case where the assault of a single victim resulted in the death of the same single victim.” Slip Op. at 14. Instead, the court found that the trial court’s instructions were correct and did not present the matter in a way that would mislead the jury.

For (2), defendant argued that allowing the State to introduce evidence and argument about the robbery charge represented double jeopardy; because defendant failed to preserve the majority of his objection, the court only considered whether it was error to allow the State to discuss the robbery in closing argument. The court looked to State v. Agee, 326 N.C. 542 (1990), as “both cases involve a continuous series of events that resulted in an acquittal for one charge at a prior trial,” explaining “[t]he State’s discussion of robbery was only used to explain the chain of events that led to the intentional shooting of [the murder victim and his girlfriend].” Slip Op. at 19-20. Based on applicable precedent, allowing this discussion was proper and “whether or not a robbery occurred, the evidence was without objection and tended to explain the chain of events leading to the shooting.” Id.

Reaching (3), the court parsed whether the exclusion of the murder victim’s prior convictions, gang affiliation, thug tattoo, and possession of assault rifles were properly excluded. Defendant argued this in two ways, first that the murder victim was the actual aggressor, and second that the evidence was admissible to rebut evidence of the victim’s peaceable character and gun habits. The court rejected both. First, the court noted these arguments had been rejected previously when defendant appealed his first conviction, but again noted that Rule of Evidence 403 and 405(b) did not support admission under these circumstances. The court then rejected defendant’s arguments about the gun habits and peaceable character, noting defendant was able to testify regarding some of the guns in the home, and the excluded evidence of firearms was not relevant. Regarding the peaceable character of defendant, the court explained that the evidence identified by defendant “does not go to [the victim’s] character for peacefulness and are not pertinent character traits as to whether the [victim] was violent.” Id. at 30. This led the court to conclude that “the testimony cited by Defendant does not open the door to rebuttal evidence of [the victim’s] character for violence.” Id. at 31.

Finally in (4), the court dispensed with defendant’s argument that a detective and prosecutors were permitted to give improper and prejudicial opinions on defendant’s credibility and guilt. The court looked for plain error as defendant did not object at trial. First the court looked at the detective’s testimony, where the detective testified he did not believe defendant acted in self-defense, and noted that the detective “was explaining why he brought that up in his interviews with Defendant” as it was a strategy to keep defendant talking and not a comment on the ultimate issue of self-defense in the case. Id. at 37. The court then looked at the statements made in closing argument, noting that the prosecutor did not explicitly call defendant a liar but instead highlighted the various stories he gave throughout the investigation about the events. The court found no issues justifying intervention ex mero motu and overruled defendant’s arguments.