State v. Copley

855 S.E.2d 522

STATE of North Carolina

v.Chad Cameron COPLEY

No. COA18-895-2

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 16, 2021

I. Appellate History

¶ 1 On appeal, this Court, over a dissent, vacated defendant's convictions and remanded for retrial by reason that the State inappropriately discussed the race of defendant and the victim in his closing argument. State v. Copley , 265 N.C. App. 254, 257, 828 S.E.2d 35, 37-38 (2019). The Court did not reach defendant's remaining issues on appeal. Based upon the dissent, id. at 269-79, 828 S.E.2d at 45-50 (Arrowood, J., dissenting), the State appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina. Finding no prejudicial error in the prosecutor's closing argument with respect to race, our Supreme Court reversed and remanded for this Court to consider defendant's remaining arguments. State v. Copley , 374 N.C. 224, 232, 839 S.E.2d 726, 731 (2020). Upon consideration of defendant's remaining arguments on remand, we find defendant received a fair trial free from error.

II. Background

¶ 2 On 22 August 2016, a Wake County Grand Jury indicted defendant on one count of first-degree murder. The matter came on for trial on 12 February 2018 in Wake County Superior Court, the Honorable Michael J. O'Foghludha presiding. The State's evidence tended to show the following.

¶ 3 On 6 August 2016, Jalen Lewis ("Mr. Lewis") hosted a party at his parents’ home, two or three houses down from defendant's house. Three of his guests, Kourey Thomas ("Mr. Thomas" or "victim"), David Walker ("Mr. Walker"), and Chris Malone ("Mr. Malone") arrived at the party in Mr. Walker's car around midnight, and parked on the street. As the party progressed, a group of approximately twenty people showed up that Mr. Lewis and his friends did not know. After about ten minutes, the group was asked to leave. The group agreed, and walked towards their cars, congregating near the curb in front of defendant's house to discuss where to go next.

¶ 4 Defendant, who was inside his home, became disturbed by the group's noise. He yelled out an upstairs window, "[y]ou guys keep it the f*** down; I'm trying to sleep in here." He then called 911, telling the operator he was "locked and loaded" and going to secure the neighborhood. Defendant also stated, "I'm going to kill him." The operator attempted to obtain more information from defendant, but the phone call was terminated.

¶ 5 Meanwhile, a law enforcement officer conducted a traffic stop nearby, causing the lights of his police cruiser to reflect down the street. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Walker, and Mr. Malone saw the lights and became worried about the presence of law enforcement because Mr. Thomas had a marijuana grinder on his person.

¶ 6 The three men decided to leave the party due to the police presence. Mr. Thomas left the party first. He ran from Mr. Lewis’ house, cutting across the yard, towards Mr. Walker's car. Before he could reach the car, he was shot by defendant, who fired without warning, from his dark, closed garage. EMS arrived and took Mr. Thomas to the hospital, where he died as a result of the gunshot.

¶ 7 Deputy Barry Carroll of the Wake County Sheriff's Office ("Deputy Carroll"), one of the first investigators on the scene, approached defendant's house after observing broken glass in defendant's driveway and a broken window in the garage. He shined a light through a window, and saw defendant step through a door from the house into the garage. Deputy Carroll asked defendant if he had shot someone. Defendant admitted to shooting Mr. Thomas. Deputy Carroll requested defendant open the front door. Defendant complied and showed Deputy Carroll the shotgun he used to shoot the victim.

¶ 8 At the close of the State's evidence, defendant moved to dismiss the case. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant presented evidence tending to show as follows.

¶ 9 Defendant argued with his wife on the morning of 6 August 2016, and then spent the day drinking, sleeping, and "just hanging out in the garage." After going to sleep that evening, he woke and saw the group leaving Mr. Lewis’ party. Irritated at the noise the group made, he yelled, "[y]ou guys keep it the f*** down; I'm trying to sleep in here" out the window. Members of the group yelled back, " ‘Shut the f*** up; f*** you; go inside, white boy,’ things of that nature." He saw "firearms in the crowd[,]" and two individuals "lifted their shirts up" to flash their weapons. He testified that he called 911 at his wife's request. When he called 911, he thought it was his son and his son's friends outside, and stated that the "him" he referred to killing while on the call was his son. After ending the call with 911, he grabbed his shotgun and loaded five rounds.

¶ 10 When he discovered his son was not part of the group outside, he told his son to get a rifle and go upstairs for safety. He again yelled at the group outside, instructing them to leave the premises and informing them that he had a gun. Defendant claimed Mr. Thomas then began to walk towards defendant's house and to reach for a gun, so he shot him.

¶ 11 At the close of defendant's evidence, he renewed his motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied. On 22 February 2018, the jury found defendant guilty of first-degree murder by premeditation and deliberation and by lying in wait. The trial court sentenced defendant to life without parole. Defendant timely noted his appeal.

III. Discussion

¶ 12 In his remaining arguments, defendant contends: (1) the trial court erred by allowing the State to make improper statements of law during its closing argument concerning the aggressor doctrine and defense of habitation; (2) the trial court plainly erred by instructing the jury that the defense of habitation was not available if defendant was the aggressor; and (3) the trial court erred by instructing the jury on the theory of first-degree murder by lying in wait. Addressing each in turn, we find no error.

A. Closing Argument

¶ 13 Defendant first argues the trial court violated his constitutional rights when it failed to intervene when the State argued incorrect law concerning the aggressor doctrine of self-defense and defense of habitation in its closing argument. We disagree.

¶ 14 Because defendant failed to object on this basis at trial, we review the allegedly improper closing arguments for

whether the remarks were so grossly improper that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to intervene ex mero motu. In other words, the reviewing court must determine whether the argument in question strayed far enough from the parameters of propriety that the trial court, in order to protect the rights of the parties and the sanctity of the proceedings, should have intervened on its own accord and: (1) precluded other similar remarks from the offending attorney; and/or (2) instructed the jury to disregard the improper comments already made.

State v. Jones , 355 N.C. 117, 133, 558 S.E.2d 97, 107 (2002) (citation omitted).

¶ 15 First, defendant contends the State erred when it told the jury defendant could be found to be the aggressor if he left the second floor of his house and went downstairs to the garage because this argument is contrary to State v. Kuhns , 260 N.C. App. 281, 817 S.E.2d 828 (2018) and grossly prejudicial.

¶ 16 Defendant does not quote the language he refers to as egregious, and only provides a citation to a page in the transcript where the prosecutor discusses the aggressor doctrine. Upon review of the transcript, it is clear the references to the aggressor by the prosecutor in this portion of the transcript arose in the context of self-defense, not the habitation defense :

And I'm going to talk more about some of the things that he told you later, but what I want to get to is this excused killing by self-defense , okay?

....

He doesn't have to retreat from his home, but if you're upstairs and somebody makes a show of force at you, it's not retreating to stay upstairs. It's, in fact, the opposite of that, right? But if you take your loaded shotgun and go down to the garage and if you buy him at his word, which I don't know that you can, you are not retreating. You are being aggressive. You're continuing your aggressive nature in that case.

(Emphasis added). Therefore, defendant's argument that the trial court erred by failing to intervene when the State misstated the law on the habitation defense is without merit.

¶ 17 Second, defendant argues the State incorrectly added exceptions to the habitation defense that our statutes only permit as exceptions to self-defense. Defendant maintains the State committed this error in the following portion of its argument:

You can consider the size, age, strength of defendant as compared to the victim.... You've got somebody who's standing at this point in a yard and you've got somebody on a second floor window. How much danger is he to him at that point? Especially at that point, he's not even saying they're pointing a gun at him. All they've done is this – (indicating) – if you buy him at his word.

....

Reputation for violence, if any, of the victim, you didn't hear that he was a violent guy. You didn't hear that he was a gangbanger. All you heard is that he was actually the opposite of that, right?

We disagree. As with defendant's first argument, this portion of the transcript refers to self-defense, not the habitation defense. Defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Instruction on Defense of Habitation

¶ 18 Next, defendant argues the trial court plainly erred by instructing the jury that the defense of habitation was not an available justification if defendant was the aggressor. Defendant alleges plain error because he did not object on this basis at trial. N.C.R. App. P. 10(a)(2), (a)(4) (2019). We decline to reach this assignment of error.

¶ 19 During the charge conference, the trial court stated that it would give N.C. Pattern Jury Instruction 308.80, defense of habitation. The trial court added it would include...