STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v
.
JEFFERY TREMAINE WILLIAMS
Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney
General David N. Kirkman, for the State.
Narron, O'Hale and Whittington, P.A., by John P. O'Hale, for
defendant-appellant.
HUNTER, Judge.
Jeffery Tremaine Williams (“defendant”) appeals from a
conviction of voluntary manslaughter. We conclude defendant is
entitled to a new trial because the trial court failed to include
not guilty by reason of self-defense as a possible verdict in its
final mandate to the jury.
The evidence presented at trial is briefly summarized as
follows: On 2 May 1999, the body of Halton Taylor (“Taylor”) was
discovered at approximately 4:20 a.m. on Montgomery Heights Road in
Johnston County. When Cathy Cockrell, a paramedic, arrived at the
crime scene, she observed Taylor lying face down in the road with
his arms extended above his head. Taylor had no pulse, was not
breathing, and was cold to the touch. A crack pipe was found in
Taylor's pocket. Edward Peele, crime scene technician for the Johnston County
Sheriff's office, testified that there was an approximately 500
foot drag trail from the location where Taylor's body was found to
a circular shaped area covered in what appeared to be blood, that
was referred to as the “possible confrontation area.” The
“possible confrontation area” was located in defendant's yard. On
5 May 1999, Dale Wheeler, Lieutenant over the Major Crimes Division
of the Johnston County Sheriff's Office (“Lieutenant Wheeler”),
found an orange razor knife with a retractable blade directly
across the road from defendant's residence.
Dr. Robert Thompson, a forensic pathologist with the Office of
the Chief Medical Examiner in Chapel Hill, performed an autopsy on
Taylor's body which revealed that Taylor had ethanol in his system
and the alcohol level was ninety milligrams per deciliter
(equivalent to .09% on the breathalyzer scale). Cocaine was also
found in Taylor's system. Dr. Thompson opined that the cause of
Taylor's death was head, chest, and abdominal injuries, which were
consistent with injuries sustained by someone who had been kicked.
On 5 May 1999, defendant was interviewed at the Johnston
County Sheriff's Office by Greg Tart, a special agent for the State
Bureau of Investigation, and Lieutenant Wheeler. Defendant's
statement was read into evidence. Defendant revealed that he and
his friend Shaun White (“White”) had been in an altercation with
Taylor in defendant's yard on the morning of 2 May 1999. According
to defendant, as he and his friend White were walking home at about
3:00 a.m., they saw Taylor riding his bicycle on Thorne Road. Taylor asked defendant and White for a $20 rock. Defendant and
White responded that they did not mess with that “shit.” According
to defendant, Taylor left his bicycle in the middle of Thorne Road
and defendant and White walked away from Taylor while Taylor
followed them and continued to ask them for drugs. Defendant heard
Taylor clicking a box cutter knife in his pocket. Thereafter,
White turned and walked towards his house which was close by, while
defendant, followed by Taylor, continued walking toward defendant's
home. When defendant and Taylor reached defendant's yard, Taylor
got in defendant's face and asked him again for drugs. Taylor
pulled the knife from his pocket and an altercation between Taylor
and defendant ensued. White came to defendant's aid. Defendant
stated that while Taylor was on the ground, he and White each
kicked Taylor in the face and ribs about fifteen times. According
to defendant, he and White kicked Taylor about ten more times in
the head after Taylor dropped the knife. Defendant spotted
Taylor's knife on the ground, picked it up, and tossed it across
the road. Defendant and White then dragged Taylor, face down on
the ground, to Montgomery Heights Road, where they left Taylor, who
at the time was still breathing and gasping.
Defendant testified on his own behalf. Defendant stated that
he was afraid of Taylor because he knew of specific acts of
violence committed by Taylor prior to 2 May 1999, including the
following: Taylor shot out the windows of an automobile; Taylor
assaulted Carl Sutton, who lived on Montgomery Heights Road; Taylor
threw a cement block into Elmo Sheppard's home; Taylor assaultedKelly Sanders by striking Ms. Sanders in the face with a cooking
pot; Taylor broke into Cheryl Raynor's home and attempted to rape
Ms. Raynor; Taylor broke into Michael Raynor's house; Taylor cut
Donte Markey Atkinson with a razor blade all over his chest and
stomach; and Taylor attempted to burn down Benjamin Ethridge's
home. In addition, during the trial, several individuals testified
that Taylor had a reputation for being a violent person.
Defendant further testified that at the time he was attacked
by Taylor, Taylor was acting “[v]ery wild, crazy, [and] violent”
and defendant detected an odor of alcohol about Taylor's person.
Dr. Nicole Wolfe, a forensic psychiatrist, had reviewed Taylor's
autopsy report, the toxicology report prepared in conjunction with
the autopsy, and the toxicology report prepared by Professor Brian
McMillen of the Department of Pharmacology of East Carolina
University School of Medicine before testifying. Dr. Wolfe
explained that when alcohol and cocaine are used in combination,
they are more potent which makes the effects of both substances
last longer. When the euphoria wears off and an individual is
coming down from a cocaine high, that individual wants more
cocaine. Dr. Wolfe testified that cocaine dependence could make a
person “very, very crazy.” In Dr. Wolfe's opinion, at the time of
his death, Taylor was under the influence of cocaine and alcohol.
Defendant was charged in a true bill of indictment with second
degree murder. Defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter
and was sentenced to thirty-eight to fifty-five months'imprisonment. Defendant appeals from the judgment entered upon the
verdict.
Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to include
in its final mandate to the jury a possible verdict of not guilty
by reason of self-defense. We agree.
We note that in the case sub judice, the trial court discussed
the law of perfect self-defense in the body of the charge.
However, in its final mandate, the trial court failed to instruct
the jury that if they found that defendant acted in self-defense,
then the killing would be excusable homicide and it would be their
duty to return a verdict of not guilty. Our Courts have previously
held that a trial court's failure to include the possible verdict
of not guilty by reason of self-defense in its final mandate to the
jury is prejudicial error, entitling the defendant to a new trial.
State v. Dooley, 285 N.C. 158, 203 S.E.2d 815 (1974); State v.
Kelly, 56 N.C. App. 442, 289 S.E.2d 120 (1982). In addition, our
Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he failure of the trial judge to
include not guilty by reason of self-defense as a possible verdict
in his final mandate to the jury [is] not cured by the discussion
of the law of self-defense in the body of the charge.” Dooley, 285
N.C. at 165-66, 203 S.E.2d at 820.
The trial judge's final mandate in the case at bar included
the following in pertinent part:
So I charge that if you find from the
evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or
about the alleged date the defendant
intentionally and with malice but not in self-
defense, killed the victim with a deadly
weapon thereby proximately causing thevictim's death, it would be your duty to
return a verdict of guilty of second-degree
murder. However, if you do not so find or
have a reasonable doubt as to one or more of
these things, you would not return a verdict
of guilty [of] second-degree murder. If you
do not find the defendant guilty of second-
degree murder, you must consider whether he's
guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
If you find from the evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt that on or about the alleged
date the defendant intentionally killed the
victim with a deadly weapon and the defendant
was the aggressor in bringing on the fight or
used excessive force, it would be your duty to
find the defendant guilty of voluntary
manslaughter even if the State has failed to
prove that the defendant did not act in self-
defense, or if you find from the evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the
alleged date the defendant intentionally and
not in self-defense killed the victim with a
deadly weapon but the State has failed to
satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant did not act in the heat of passion
upon adequate provocation, it would be your
duty to return a verdict of guilty of
voluntary manslaughter. However, if you do
not so find or have a reasonable doubt as to
one or more of these things, you will not
return a verdict of guilty of voluntary
manslaughter.
A possible verdict of not guilty by reason of self-defense was not
included in the final mandate to the jury. Therefore, we conclude
defendant is entitled to a new trial.
The questions raised by defendant's additional assignments of
error may not recur during a new trial and hence, will not be
considered on this appeal.
New trial.
Judges WYNN and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur.
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***