STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v
.
Alamance County
No. 03 CRS 53451
TERRY LEE THOMPSON
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney
General Teresa H. Pell, for the State.
Hardison & Leone, LLP, by Richard B. Glazier, for defendant.
LEVINSON, Judge.
Defendant (Terry Lee Thompson) appeals from conviction and
judgment for first degree murder. We hold that defendant received
a fair trial, free of prejudicial error.
The evidence presented at trial may be summarized as follows:
Harold Stone was found dead in the living room of his home on the
morning of 2 April 2003. Police and EMS personnel were called to
the scene immediately. The EMS team noted knife wounds to Stone's
neck and puncture wounds to his skull. The investigating officers
observed Stone's body lying face down with blood all about the
room. Detective Pat Ingram noted a large amount of blood where the
victim lay and blood on the legs of a brass table stand, on a glass
table top, and on the wall behind the couch. No blood was found inany of the other rooms in the house. SBI Agent Duane Deaver, an
expert in blood stain pattern analysis, testified that, based on
his investigation, the blood stains were the result of impacts to
the victim's head and body. In Agent Deaver's opinion, there were
at least three separate and distinct impacts to the victim. The
first occurred when the victim was in an upright position, the
second occurred when the victim was at the height of the coffee
table, and the third occurred when the victim was on the floor or
extremely close to the floor. Based on the blood spatter analysis,
Agent Deaver explained, the person who struck the victim was
exerting a significant amount of force.
Dr. Thomas Clark, an expert in forensic pathology, conducted
an autopsy on 3 April 2003. Dr. Clark observed thirty-one wounds
on Stone's body. These were caused by a “knife or a knife[-]like
object.” There were cuts on the back and front of Stone's body,
including his chest, neck and head. There were many surface
injuries that were one-to-five inches in length. These did not
penetrate deeply. Also, on the neck, there were seven wounds from
a “knife[-]like” object, again one-to-five inches in length on the
surface. On the head, there were fourteen wounds from a “knife[-
]like” object; of these, four were significant “in that they
cause[d] damage to underlying areas.” Two blows cut the bone of
the skull and two others “were deep enough to go through the skull
and into the brain.” In Dr. Clark's opinion, two of the knife
wounds which penetrated Stone's skull would have been capable of
causing death. Dr. Clark concluded that Stone died as a result ofmultiple stab wounds, specifically the stab wounds to the top of
the head.
James Oldham testified that he and his wife occasionally
smoked crack cocaine with defendant and his wife, Jamie Wall. At
the time of Stone's death, defendant and Wall were staying with the
Oldhams in a boarding house. Oldham knew that defendant was in the
habit of carrying a knife. On Sunday 30 March 2003, Oldham,
defendant, and Wall went to Stone's house so Oldham could borrow
money from Stone. Stone gave Oldham $20.00. On 1 April 2003 after
smoking crack cocaine all day, at approximately 10:00 p.m.,
defendant, Wall, and Oldham drove to Stone's house so that Oldham
could borrow money again from Stone. Jamie Wall was driving,
defendant was seated in the front seat, and Oldham sat in the back
seat. Oldham went inside Stone's residence. Oldham asked Stone
whether he could borrow money. Stone said he only had $2.00, but
that if Oldham came back the next day, he would give him more. As
Oldham and Stone walked to the front door, Stone made a remark and
pulled Oldham towards him. Stone kissed Oldham on the mouth.
Oldham pushed Stone away. Stone reached for Oldham again, and
Oldham pushed him off. Oldham hit Stone in the eye and Stone fell
over the corner of the couch onto the floor. While Stone was face
down on the floor, defendant ran in through the front door and
started hitting Stone. Defendant straddled Stone and continued to
hit him in the head. Oldham told defendant to leave Stone alone.
Oldham said, “[C]ome on, let's go.” Oldham went out the front door
to the car and got in the back seat. Oldham did not see defendantwith any weapons; he only saw defendant hit Stone with his fist.
As Oldham was going out the front door, he heard a “thud” or a
“crack” _ “a sound [he had] never heard before.” Stone was alive
when Oldham left the house. Once inside the car, Oldham told Jamie
Wall she needed to go inside and get defendant because Oldham had
not been able to stop defendant from beating Stone. Jamie Wall did
not go inside. Within approximately one and one half minutes,
defendant came outside and got in the car, saying, “I knocked the
m--- f--- out.” Defendant had something cupped in his shirt when
he came outside, but Oldham could not tell what it was. Defendant
looked “pissed off.” His voice was high and loud and his eyes were
big. Defendant told Wall to “get the hell out of there.” At one
point, defendant told Wall to stop the car. Defendant got out,
leaned over a drain, and dropped what he had in his shirt in the
drain. Wall then drove to the boarding house. During the drive,
defendant was making remarks such as “a faggot and queer.” Later
that day, defendant and Wall left the boarding house. When they
returned the next day, defendant said he had been by Stone's house
and had seen yellow tape. He turned on the television to see if
there were any reports about what had happened to Stone. Defendant
told Oldham that he did not want Oldham to say anything about
defendant being over at Stone's house. Oldham further testified
that he did not stab Stone in the head, and that he did not hit
Stone with anything other than his fist.
Oldham's testimony at trial corresponded, in large measure,
with statements he made to the police. According to Detective JeffSaunders of the Burlington Police Department, however, Oldham had
stated that he called for defendant's assistance after he pushed
Stone away from him. In early April 2003, Oldham was arrested. He
later pled guilty to second degree murder and, at the time of
defendant's trial, was waiting to be sentenced to a term of
fourteen to seventeen years imprisonment.
Jamie Wall, defendant's wife, testified that she and defendant
smoked crack cocaine. At the time of Stone's death, she and
defendant were living with the Oldhams in a boarding house. The
two couples smoked crack together whenever they had money. On the
Sunday afternoon before 1 April 2003, Oldham wanted to borrow money
to buy crack. Wall and defendant drove Oldham to Stone's house.
Oldham went inside the house; Wall and defendant stayed in the car.
They bought crack with the money Oldham received from Stone.
Wall further testified that, on Tuesday 1 April 2003, after
smoking crack cocaine during the day, Oldham suggested they go back
to Stone's house to borrow more money. Wall drove back to Stone's
house. Defendant sat in the front passenger seat and Oldham sat in
the back seat. When they arrived at Stone's house, Oldham got out
and went inside. After approximately thirty to forty-five minutes,
Oldham came out on the front porch and yelled “hey.” Defendant got
out of the car. Oldham went back inside and defendant walked up to
the house. Later, Oldham and defendant came out the front door
together. Wall drove away. When she stopped for a stop sign,
Oldham got out of the back seat and then got back in. When she
stopped at a stop light, defendant got out of the car and then gotback in. They drove to Tommy's Minimart. Oldham gave Wall $10.00
to purchase beer and cigarettes. When Wall came out of the store,
defendant and Oldham had on different shirts. They bought crack
and returned to the boarding house. Wall and defendant did not
stay at the apartment that night. When first interviewed by the
police, Wall said she did not know anything about what had happened
to Stone. Wall testified that she had lied for defendant because
she was afraid he would hurt her because he had done so in the
past. Defendant had hit her in the jaw, stomped on her, and pulled
her hair.
SBI Agent Neil led the interview of defendant on 5 April 2003
at the Burlington Police Station. Defendant stated that he met
Oldham while living at Gracebrook Apartments. Thereafter, he and
Wall shared a room with Oldham and his wife at the boarding house.
Defendant stated he had made two trips with Oldham and Wall to
Stone's house, first on 30 March 2003 and again on 31 March 2003.
Both trips were made so that Oldham could borrow money from Stone,
and during both occasions he and Wall remained in the car.
Defendant gave the boots he was wearing during his interview
with Neil to the police. Defendant stated the boots originally
belonged to Oldham, but that he had obtained them “about a week or
so before [the date of the interview].” The blood found on
defendant's boots was a genetic match to Stone's blood. Likewise,
the blood found on Oldham's jacket and on one of Oldham's shoes
matched Stone's blood. Finally, blood samples taken from theinside of the vehicle driven the night of Stone's death matched
defendant's blood.
Defendant did not present any evidence at trial.
The jury convicted defendant of first degree murder, and the
trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. Defendant appeals.
___________________________________
Defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his motion
to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence made at the close of
the State's evidence and again at the close of all the evidence.
Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence identifying him
as the perpetrator, and insufficient evidence of premeditation and
deliberation necessary to support a conviction of first degree
murder. We disagree.
“In ruling on a motion to dismiss a first-degree murder
charge, the trial court must consider the evidence in the light
most favorable to the State and give the State every reasonable
inference to be drawn therefrom.” State v. Truesdale, 340 N.C.
229, 234, 456 S.E.2d 299, 302 (1995) (citation omitted). “[T]he
trial court must determine only whether there is substantial
evidence of each essential element of the offense charged and of
the defendant being the perpetrator of the offense.” State v.
Crawford, 344 N.C. 65, 73, 472 S.E.2d 920, 925 (1996) (citation
omitted). “Evidence is substantial if it is relevant and adequate
to convince a reasonable mind to accept a conclusion.” State v.
Robinson, 355 N.C. 320, 336, 561 S.E.2d 245, 255 (2002) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). “The trial court does notweigh the evidence, consider evidence unfavorable to the State, or
determine any witness' credibility.” Id. “'Circumstantial
evidence may withstand a motion to dismiss and support a conviction
even when the evidence does not rule out every hypothesis of
innocence.'” State v. Taylor, 337 N.C. 597, 604, 447 S.E.2d 360,
365 (1994) (quoting State v. Stone, 323 N.C. 447, 452, 373 S.E.2d
430, 433 (1988)). “Courts making such determinations may resort to
circumstantial evidence of motive, opportunity and capability to
identify the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.” Id.
(citation omitted).
Murder in the first degree is the intentional
and unlawful killing of a human being with
malice and with premeditation and
deliberation. Premeditation means that the
act was thought out beforehand for some length
of time, however, short; but no particular
amount of time is necessary for the mental
process of premeditation. Deliberation means
an intent to kill carried out by the defendant
in a cool state of blood in furtherance of a
fixed design for revenge or to accomplish an
unlawful purpose and not under the influence
of a violent passion, suddenly aroused by
lawful or just cause or legal provocation.
The phrase “cool state of blood” means that
the defendant's anger or emotion must not have
been such as to overcome the defendant's
reason.
Premeditation and deliberation relate to
mental processes and ordinarily are not
readily susceptible to proof by direct
evidence. Instead, they usually must be
proved by circumstantial evidence. Among
other circumstances to be considered in
determining whether a killing was with
premeditation and deliberation are: (1) want
of provocation on the part of the deceased;
(2) the conduct and statements of the
defendant before and after the killing; (3)
threats and declarations of the defendant
before and during the course of the occurrencegiving rise to the death of the deceased; (4)
ill-will or previous difficulty between the
parties; (5) the dealing of lethal blows after
the deceased has been felled and rendered
helpless; and (6) evidence that the killing
was done in a brutal manner. We have also
held that the nature and number of the
victim's wounds are circumstances from which
premeditation and deliberation can be
inferred.
State v. Gladden, 315 N.C. 398, 430-31, 340 S.E.2d 673, 693 (1986)
(citations omitted).
We conclude, taking the evidence in the light most favorable
to the State, that there was sufficient evidence from which a
rational trier of fact could find defendant was the perpetrator of
the killing. Stone was not injured when he, Oldham and Wall
arrived at Stone's home. Thereafter, defendant was observed
beating Stone about the face and head. Defendant was alone in the
house for a period of time when Oldham returned to the vehicle.
Defendant was known to carry a knife. As defendant was beating
Stone, and Oldham was leaving the house, Oldham heard a “thud” or
a “crack.” It is reasonable to infer that this sound was caused by
defendant striking Stone's skull with a knife. Furthermore, as
defendant returned to the car, he stated, “I knocked the m--- f---
out.” Defendant appeared “pissed off” when he came outside and
appeared to be “in a rage.” Defendant told Wall, who was driving,
to “get the hell out of there.” Defendant had something in his
shirt when he exited Stone's house. After they drove away, Wall
stopped the car and defendant deposited the object he had been
holding in his shirt into a drain by the road. It is reasonable toinfer, given all the facts and circumstances of this case, that
this object was a knife. Finally, Stone's blood was found on
defendant's boots. We hold that there was substantial evidence
that it was defendant who perpetrated the killing of Stone with a
knife, and note that this conclusion is in accord with our common
law precedent. See, e.g., State v. Clanton, 278 N.C. 502, 180
S.E.2d 5 (1971); State v. Barnett, 141 N.C. App. 378, 540 S.E.2d
423 (2000); and State v. Hudson, 56 N.C. App. 172, 288 S.E.2d 383
(1982).
Likewise, we conclude there was substantial evidence from
which a rational trier of fact could find that defendant killed
Stone with the requisite premeditation and deliberation. Here,
defendant inflicted numerous knife injuries to the victim, at least
fourteen of which were inflicted about the head. The evidence
showed a total of thirty-one wounds on the front and back of
Stone's body. A number of wounds were inflicted with a significant
amount of force, particularly the two resulting in penetrations of
Stone's skull and brain. Two separate actions from a knife cut the
bone of the victim's skull. Moreover, again taking the evidence in
the light most favorable to the State, there was no provocation as
to defendant, and no evidence that Stone was armed. When defendant
returned to the car, he stated he had “knocked” Stone out and
directed Wall to leave immediately. Soon after leaving Stone's
home, defendant and Oldham changed the shirts they had been
wearing, and defendant subsequently instructed Oldham not to say
that defendant had been at Stone's house. We hold there wassubstantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation on the part
of defendant to submit the offense of first degree murder to the
jury on account of premeditation and deliberation. Accord State v.
Morgan, 359 N.C. 131, 162, 604 S.E.2d 886, 905 (2004).
The trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss.
This assignment of error is overruled.
No error.
Judges McGEE and HUNTER concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***