STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v
.
Guilford County
No. 02 CRS 96104
TRAVIS BERNARD WATKINS
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney
General Tiare B. Smiley, for the State.
J. Clark Fisher for defendant-appellee.
ELMORE, Judge.
Travis Watkins (defendant) appeals his conviction for
voluntary manslaughter on the basis that the trial court committed
prejudicial error by denying him the opportunity to present
testimony which the trial court found inadmissible under Rule 403
of the Rules of Evidence. We disagree and find no error in the
trial court's decision.
Defendant was tried and convicted for the 3 September 2002
killing of Richard Boggs (Boggs), his girlfriend's former husband.
That morning Mary Boggs (Mary), the victim's former wife, was at
defendant's home waiting for him to get ready so they could go
shopping. Just after defendant got out of the shower, the two
heard loud banging noises on the front door. Defendant looked outthe window and confirmed that Boggs was outside his house banging
on the doors and windows yelling for the two of them to either come
outside or he was coming in. Defendant retrieved and loaded his
gun while Mary called 911. Defendant testified that he came out of
the bedroom to find Boggs in the house and, fearing for his life,
shot at Boggs. Defendant then followed Boggs outside and continued
firing on him as he was getting into his truck and, as defendant
perceived, reaching for a gun. Defendant then came back in the
house, set his gun down, and told Mary to go check on Boggs because
he had fallen out of the truck.
Officers from the Greensboro Police Department responded to
the call of a shooting to find Mary standing over Boggs in the
street. They called for defendant to come out of the house, and he
immediately complied, telling them that the gun was in the kitchen.
Later investigation could not determine whether any shots were
fired in the house, but ten shell casings were found outside in the
yard and around defendant's truck. Boggs was hit with six shots.
An analysis of the scene suggested that Boggs was shot both outside
the truck and while he was in the driver's seat, also all of the
shots that had entered the cab of the truck came through the
passenger's side window. A loaded gun was found in the glove
compartment of Boggs's truck. Defendant signed a statement stating
that he had shot Boggs inside the house and in his truck in self-
defense.
At trial Mary testified to numerous incidents throughout her
relationship with Boggs that suggested he might have been theinitial aggressor against she and defendant. On different
occasions throughout the couple's marriage, Mary testified that
Boggs hit her with a whisk, threw her against a wall, hit her in
the head with a broiler pan, rammed a hot curling iron into her
genital area, inserted a gun into her vagina, and on several
occasions pointed a gun at her head. She stated that the couple's
marriage was marred with many incidents of domestic violence, both
physical and emotional. She testified that she was constantly
fearful of what Boggs would do to her. She further testified that
defendant had been informed of many incidents of violence
perpetrated against her by Boggs.
Defendant also testified that Boggs had threatened him while
he was dating Mary. He testified that Boggs came to Mary's
apartment and threatened him with a gun and on a different occasion
had threatened him while he was walking Mary's dog.
Mary testified that she was at defendant's home on the day of
the shooting because Boggs had just the previous day been to her
apartment and threatened her. She testified that following the
separation Boggs had repeatedly stalked and harassed her, following
her to defendant's home, to her appointments, and other places
around town. She eventually discovered that he had installed a
tracking device on her car.
Defendant contends that had the trial court allowed him to
present an additional example of Boggs's aggressive nature he would
have been found not guilty. We disagree. On voir dire, defendant
solicited testimony from Mary that four years prior to theSeptember 2002 incident, Mary received a call from Boggs that their
newborn son was injured. When Mary arrived home, Boggs told her
that he had dropped the baby carrier on the ground and the child
landed on his face. Although admitting her doubt about Boggs's
account of the child's injury on the stand, Mary testified that
Boggs threatened to manufacture stories of abuse and unfitness to
win custody of their son should she ever mention the incident to
anyone or seek medical attention for the child. The trial court
ruled that this evidence was inadmissible under Rule 403.
It is well settled that a defendant charged with a homicide
and proceeding under a self-defense theory is entitled to present
evidence of specific acts reflecting upon the victim's character
for aggression or establishing that his fear or apprehension of the
victim was reasonable. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rules 404(a)(2)
and 405(b) (2003); State v. Ray, 125 N.C. App. 721, 725, 482 S.E.2d
755, 758 (1997).
'Defendant may admit evidence of the victim's
character to prove defendant's fear or
apprehension was reasonable and, as a result,
his belief in the need to kill to prevent
death or imminent bodily harm was also
reasonable.' State v. Watson, 338 N.C. 168,
187, 449 S.E.2d 694, 706 (1994), cert denied,
Watson v. North Carolina, 514 U.S. 1071, 115
S. Ct. 1708, 131 L.E.2d 569(1995), overruled
in part on other grounds, State v. Richardson,
341 N.C. 585, 461 S.E.2d 724 (1995). The
specific incident of conduct a defendant seeks
to enter into evidence becomes relevant 'only
if defendant knew about it at the time of the
shooting.' State v. Shoemaker, 80 N.C. App.
95, 101, 341 S.E.2d 603, 607 (1986).
State v. Dewberry, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 600 S.E.2d 866, 871
(2004). But this evidence still may be irrelevant or otherwise
inadmissible under other rules of evidence.
Rule 403 gives the trial court discretion to exclude evidence
“if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the
jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or
needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” N.C. Gen. Stat. §
8C-1, Rule 403 (2003); see also State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170,
174, 478 S.E.2d 191, 194 (1996) (“Whether to exclude evidence under
Rule 403 is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial
court, and its ruling may be reversed for abuse of discretion only
upon a showing that the ruling was so arbitrary that it could not
have been the result of a reasoned decision.”).
We find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in
determining that the proffered incident was inadmissible. The
trial court allowed Mary to testify to numerous specific acts
reflecting Boggs's aggression. This particular act happened four
years prior to the shooting and involved the couple's child and
there was no information solicited suggesting that defendant knew
of this incident. Given the wealth of information already
admissible on the trait in question, the evidence would have been
cumulative at best and likely prejudicial. Accordingly, we find no
error in the trial court's evidentiary ruling.
No error.
Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge McCULLOUGH concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***