STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
VICTOR CARSON HUNT
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by William M. Polk, Director,
Victims and Citizens Services, for the State.
Carlton M. Mansfield for defendant-appellant.
THOMAS, Judge.
Defendant, Victor Carson Hunt, appeals a conviction of assault
with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury.
For reasons discussed herein, we find no error.
The pertinent facts are as follows: Defendant and his
girlfriend, Kelli Bullard, lived together in Pembroke, North
Carolina. On 1 September 1999, sometime around midnight, defendant
returned home. Intoxicated and hungry, he demanded that Bullard
“cook me a damn steak.” Bullard refused. Defendant hit her right
eye, knocking Bullard into the refrigerator. Her head slammed into
the handle of the freezer section and she was knocked unconscious.
When Bullard regained consciousness, defendant had her by the hair
and was dragging her down the hall. Defendant hit and kicked
Bullard and stepped on her neck. He then took Bullard to thebedroom, tore off her clothes, and had sex with her. After the
attack, defendant cut the phone lines and refused to let Bullard
seek help.
At trial, defendant was convicted of assault with a deadly
weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury and sentenced
to a term of seventy-three to ninety-seven months imprisonment. He
appeals.
Defendant's sole assignment of error is his contention that
there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction.
To survive a motion to dismiss, the State must present
substantial evidence of each essential element of the charged
offense. State v. Cross, 345 N.C. 713, 716-17, 483 S.E.2d 432, 434
(1997). “'Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'”
Id. at 717, 483 S.E.2d at 434 (quoting State v. Olson, 330 N.C.
557, 564, 411 S.E.2d 592, 595 (1992)). The essential elements of
an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting
serious injury are: “(1) an assault, (2) with a deadly weapon, (3)
with intent to kill, (4) inflicting serious injury, (5) not
resulting in death.” State v. Wampler, 145 N.C. App. 127, 132, 549
S.E.2d 563, 567 (2001) (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-32(a)).
Defendant first argues that his hands and feet should not have
been considered deadly weapons when taking into account the
relative size and condition of the parties. See State v. Grumbles,
104 N.C. App. 766, 771, 411 S.E.2d 407, 410 (1991). Defendant
notes that he weighs 230 pounds while Bullard's normal weight is190 pounds. He also claims he was highly intoxicated while Bullard
was sober.
This Court has stated that “hands [and feet] may be considered
deadly weapons, given the manner in which they were used and the
relative size and condition of the parties involved.” Grumbles,
104 N.C. App. at 771, 411 S.E.2d at 410 (citing State v. Jacobs, 61
N.C. App. 610, 301 S.E.2d 429 (1983)). In the instant case, the
State presented evidence that defendant beat Bullard with his hands
and feet so severely that she had to be flown from Southeastern
Hospital in Lumberton to Duke University Medical Center in Durham
because Southeastern did not have the facilities to treat her
substantial injuries. Bullard was admitted to the intensive care
unit at Duke and placed on a ventilator. Her injuries included
fractures of the left orbit, or eye socket, and the left maxillary.
Bullard also had swelling and contusions about her face, neck and
upper chest. Additionally, the evidence reflected that defendant
outweighed her by forty pounds and Bullard was nineteen weeks
pregnant at the time of the assault.
Whether defendant used his hands and feet in a manner “likely
to produce fatal results due to [their] use” is a question of fact
to be determined by the jury. State v. Lotharp, 148 N.C. App. 435,
443, 559 S.E.2d 807, 812 (2002) (citing State v. Joyner, 295 N.C.
55, 64-65, 243 S.E.2d 367, 373 (1978)). Given the severity of
Bullard's injuries, the size differential, and the fact she was
pregnant at the time of the assault, the trial court was correct in
denying the defendant's motion to dismiss. The jury was properlyallowed to determine the question of whether defendant's hands and
feet constituted deadly weapons under the circumstances here.
Second, defendant contends the State failed to prove that he
had the specific intent to kill. Defendant says the clearest
evidence of lack of intent to kill is that he did not kill her.
Additionally, he claims the fact he stopped beating Bullard after
taking her to the bedroom is further proof he was not trying to
kill her. Furthermore, while there may have been evidence that he
did not care whether Bullard died, defendant contends this is not
evidence of an intent to kill and there is no credible evidence
beyond speculation that he had the intent to kill Bullard.
This Court has stated:
“Proof of an assault with a deadly weapon
inflicting serious injury not resulting in
death does not, as a matter of law, establish
a presumption of intent to kill. Such intent
must be found by the jury as a fact from the
evidence.” However, “[a]n intent to kill may
be inferred from the nature of the assault,
the manner in which it was made, the conduct
of the parties, and other relevant
circumstances.”
Wampler, 145 N.C. App. at 130, 549 S.E.2d at 566 (citations
omitted). Here, defendant severely beat Bullard and refused to
allow her to seek help. Defendant cut the phone lines in their
home and told Bullard she “weren't calling nobody for help and
won't [be] going to no doctor,” and “You can lay there and die
first.” This evidence, when considered with the evidence of the
attack, the resulting injuries and defendant's actions throughout,
is sufficient to support an inference that defendant intended to
kill her. Accordingly, we find no error. NO ERROR.
Judges WALKER and BIGGS concur.
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***