STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Wake County
No. 02 CRS 74191
BERNARD ROGERS,
Defendant.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney
General James P. Longest, Jr., for the State.
Terry W. Alford, for defendant-appellant.
HUDSON, Judge.
Upon the jury's guilty verdict on the charge of first-degree
murder, the trial court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment
without parole. Defendant gave timely notice of appeal.
The State's evidence tended to show that on the morning of 24
August 2002, defendant knocked on Corrine Davis's front door at
5915 Dixon Drive in Raleigh, North Carolina, demanding to speak
with Erika Lucas. Although Lucas was trying to end her romantic
relationship with defendant, they had spent the previous night
together at defendant's mother's house. When told Lucas was
asleep, defendant went across the street to his mother's house and
tried to reach Lucas by telephone. Getting no answer, defendantreturned to 5915 Dixon Drive, threw a cinder block through the
sliding glass back door, and walked inside. Davis heard a loud
crash and saw defendant coming up the stairs toward her bedroom.
Defendant proceeded upstairs, where he kicked open the bathroom
door and confronted Lucas. Lucas saw a silver gun in defendant's
hand. Lucas' friend, Kebba Janneh, came into the hallway and told
defendant that nothing was going on. Defendant struck Janneh with
the gun. The two men struggled, falling into the shower. Janneh
stood up and began to walk out of the bathroom. Defendant fired
two shots at Janneh, the second of which struck him fatally in the
chest. Defendant testified that when he pushed Janneh backward
toward the stairs, Janneh slipped and grabbed defendant's hand,
discharging the gun. Defendant then walked past Janneh's body and
left Davis' home.
After the shooting, defendant mailed a letter to a friend,
stating, I thought old boy my girl was f------ so you know, I
flipped and had to retal[iate]. I popped the n----- because you
know me and Erika was f------ around. . . . Don't worry about me,
though, they have no case, no burner, just them b-----s and I doubt
if they show up for court. Defendant explained at trial that
burner meant gun.
Defendant first claims that the short form indictment filed by
the State was insufficient to support his conviction for first
degree murder, in light of the United States Supreme Court's
holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435
(2000). We disagree. Our Supreme Court has held that indictmentsfor murder based on the short-form indictment statute are in
compliance with both the North Carolina and United States
Constitutions. . . . Nothing in Apprendi . . . alters this prior
case law. State v. Braxton, 352 N.C. 158, 174-75, 531 S.E.2d 428,
437-38 (2000), cert. denied, Braxton v. North Carolina, 531 U.S.
1130, 148 L. Ed. 2d 797 (2001) (internal citations omitted).
Accordingly, we must overrule this assignment of error.
Next, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his
motion to dismiss the charge of first-degree murder. A motion to
dismiss is properly denied when the evidence, viewed in the light
most favorable to the prosecution, would allow a reasonable juror
to find the defendant guilty of the essential elements of the
charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., State v.
Jordan, 321 N.C. 714, 717, 365 S.E.2d 617, 619-20 (1988). The
essential elements of first-degree murder are:
First-degree murder is the unlawful killing of
a human being with malice, premeditation, and
deliberation. The element of premeditation
requires the state to show that the accused
formed the specific intent to kill at some
time, however brief, before the killing took
place. Deliberation is the intention to kill,
and it must be formed not in the heat of
passion, but while defendant is in a cool
state of blood.
State v. Nicholson, 355 N.C. 1, 37, 558 S.E.2d 109, 134, cert.
denied, 537 U.S. 845, 154 L. Ed. 2d 71, cert. denied, Nicholson v.
North Carolina, 537 U.S. 845, 154 L. Ed. 2d 71 (2002) (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted). Defendant contends that he
acted in the heat of passion, not with deliberation, and thus was
guilty of no more than second-degree murder. Premeditation and deliberation are mental processes and
ordinarily are not susceptible to proof by direct evidence.
Instead, they usually must be proved by circumstantial evidence.
State v. Laws, 345 N.C. 585, 593-94, 481 S.E.2d 641, 645 (1997).
Here, the evidence showed that defendant went across the street to
obtain a loaded gun before breaking into Davis' house to confront
Lucas and her suspected paramour. Moreover, defendant fired twice
at Janneh as Janneh attempted to flee. Finally, after shooting
Janneh, defendant did not continue arguing with Lucas, but walked
past Janneh's fallen body and left the house. Viewing this
evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a jury could
reasonably infer that defendant acted deliberately in arming
himself with the gun, that when he retrieved the gun from his
mother's house he intended to use it, that he intentionally shot a
retreating Janneh, and that he left Davis' house having
accomplished his pre-meditated purpose. We overrule this
assignment of error.
Turning to the trial court's charge to the jury, defendant
argues that the trial court erred in refusing to give an
instruction on the lesser included offense of voluntary
manslaughter. [A] trial court does not commit prejudicial error
in failing to give a voluntary manslaughter instruction when a jury
rejects a verdict of guilty of second-degree murder and instead
finds defendant guilty of first-degree murder. State v. Lyons,
340 N.C. 646, 663, 459 S.E.2d 770, 779 (1995). Here, as in Lyons,
the court instructed the jury on first-degree murder and second-degree murder. The jury found defendant guilty of first-degree
murder. [W]hen a jury does not find that defendant was in the
grip of sufficient passion to reduce the murder from first-degree
to second-degree, then ipso facto it would not have found
sufficient passion to find the defendant guilty only of voluntary
manslaughter. Id. at 664, 459 S.E.2d at 779 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Defendant also faults the trial court for failing to instruct
the jury on the defense of accident. [E]vidence does not raise
the defense of accident where the defendant was not engaged in
lawful conduct when the killing occurred. State v. Riddick, 340
N.C. 338, 342, 457 S.E.2d 728, 731-32 (1995). Even by his own
account of events, defendant was not engaged in a lawful enterprise
at the time of the shooting, having armed himself with a loaded gun
before breaking into Davis' house bent on a confrontation.
Defendant's claim that one of the two shots fired at Janneh was
unintentional is unavailing. See State v. Lytton, 319 N.C. 422,
425-26, 355 S.E.2d 485, 487 (1987)). Where, as here, the evidence
is uncontroverted that the defendant was engaged in unlawful
conduct and acted with a wrongful purpose when the killing
occurred, the trial court does not err in refusing to submit the
defense of accident. Riddick, 340 N.C. at 343, 457 S.E.2d at 731-
32.
The record on appeal contains an additional assignment of
error not addressed in defendant's brief to this Court. Pursuant
to N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6), we deem it abandoned. No error.
Judges TYSON and BRYANT concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***