State v. Williams

873 S.E.2d 433

STATE of North Carolina

v.Dominique Alexander WILLIAMS

No. COA20-633

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 7, 2022

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Mary Carla Babb, for the State-Appellee.

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, for Defendant-Appellant.

COLLINS, Judge.

¶ 1 Defendant Dominique Alexander Williams appeals a judgment entered upon a jury's verdicts of guilty of second-degree murder and of attaining violent habitual felon status, and Defendant's guilty plea of possession of a firearm by a felon. Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the murder charge for insufficient evidence and by failing to correctly instruct the jury on defense of others. The trial court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the murder charge. However, following the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision in State v. McLymore , 380 N.C. 185, 2022-NCSC-12, 868 S.E.2d 67, we conclude that the trial court prejudicially erred by failing to fully instruct the jury on defense of others. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's judgment and remand for a new trial.

I. Facts

¶ 2 The evidence at trial tended to show the following: On the night of 16 November 2018, Defendant Dominique Williams went out for drinks with his cousin, Michael Williams; Defendant's girlfriend, Tyler Reid; and Michael's girlfriend, Ciara Jackson.

¶ 3 Michael had a history of a violent temper, aggression, and physical abuse. Ciara testified to enduring repeated assaults by Michael, stating the assaults "got more violent every time." At one point in their relationship, Michael stood over Ciara and stomped on her head while she lay on the ground. Another time, Michael kicked Ciara so hard he broke his own leg. That same day, he attacked Ciara while she drove him home, causing her car to swerve into a guardrail. On more than one occasion, when Michael was attacking Ciara, Defendant intervened. Michael once pulled a gun on Defendant when Defendant was trying to protect Ciara; Defendant also had a gun on him at the time, but did not brandish it. At one point, Michael and Ciara broke up. Shortly thereafter, Ciara filed assault charges against Michael and sought a domestic protection order. The two soon got back together and Ciara did not pursue the charges.

¶ 4 On 16 November 2018, Defendant, Michael, Tyler, and Ciara met and drank tequila at Tyler's house before driving in Ciara's car to a Greensboro bar. At the bar, Michael got drunk. The group left in Ciara's car with Ciara driving.

¶ 5 While on the road, Michael and Ciara got into an argument about another woman Michael had been seeing. Michael said to Ciara, "Bitch, I'll kill you." Then Michael began hitting Ciara while she was driving; he hit her in the head with a beer bottle and punched her with his fists.

¶ 6 Tyler told Ciara to pull over. Once on the side of the road, Michael and Ciara got out of the car, and Michael aggressively approached Ciara. Defendant broke up the fight and Michael calmed down somewhat. The group got back in the car and back onto the road, whereupon Michael again attacked Ciara, who was still driving; he pulled her hair and hit her in the face. Defendant said to Michael, "You're always doing this." Tyler told Ciara to pull over to avoid having an accident. Ciara pulled over in front of a TRD Motorsports.¹ Ciara got out of the car and ran towards Michael, who had also stepped out of the car, and pushed him.

¶ 7 During this altercation, Ciara and Michael ended up in the front seat of the car with Michael on top of Ciara, beating her the whole time. Ciara feared Michael would kill her and she fought back. Tyler tried to pull Michael off Ciara. Michael got out of the car, pushed Tyler to the ground, and said to Defendant, "Come get your bitch." Michael then resumed attacking Ciara.

¶ 8 Defendant, who was standing on the opposite side of the car from Michael, came around the car and shot at least two bullets, hitting Michael in the chest. The group put Michael, who was still conscious, into the car and proceeded to the High Point Hospital.

¶ 9 While driving to High Point, Defendant was on the phone with an unidentified person. He told that person that Michael had been shot in a drive-by-shooting by a person in a gray Dodge Challenger. The group pulled off the highway at the High Point exit. While stopped at an intersection, Tyler got out of the car and started to walk home. Defendant also got out of the car and walked away.

¶ 10 Ciara realized Michael had stopped breathing and called 911.² She told the 911 operator that Michael had been shot by someone in a gray Dodge Challenger in a drive-by shooting. Police officers arrived and took Ciara in for questioning. At the police station, Ciara's version of events changed. She first told officers that Michael had been shot in a drive-by, but eventually she told them that Defendant had shot Michael. Michael died from the gunshot wounds.

¶ 11 The following day, 17 November 2018, Defendant turned himself in at the police station. He stated that he had "shot his cousin." Defendant was taken into custody.

II. Procedural History

¶ 12 On 4 March 2019, the Guilford County Grand Jury indicted Defendant for first-degree murder, possession of a firearm by a felon ("PFF"), and attaining violent habitual felon status.

¶ 13 The case came on for trial on 17 February 2020. Defendant pled guilty to PFF and not guilty to the remaining charges. Defendant moved to prohibit the State from referencing Defendant's prior felony convictions, including his contemporaneous PFF guilty plea, if Defendant did not testify. The trial court granted the motion. No evidence was presented on Defendant's prior felonies or contemporaneous PFF guilty plea.

¶ 14 At the close of the State's evidence, Defendant moved to dismiss the murder charge on grounds of insufficient evidence. The trial court denied the motion.

¶ 15 During the charge conference, Defendant requested a jury instruction on defense of others. The trial court denied Defendant's request on the basis that, as a matter of law, Defendant was disqualified from claiming the defense under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-51.4 and this court's decision in State v. Crump , 259 N.C. App. 144, 151, 815 S.E.2d 415, 421 (2018), rev'd on other grounds , 376 N.C. 375, 851 S.E.2d 904 (2020).

¶ 16 The trial court gave a limited defense of others instruction on the charges of first-degree and second-degree murder, stating only that to find Defendant guilty of first-degree or second-degree murder, the State must prove in addition to the elements of first-degree or second-degree murder, "that the defendant did not act in lawful defense of another." The trial court also gave an instruction on imperfect defense of others in the voluntary manslaughter charge. The trial court did not reference defense of others in its final mandate to the jury on either the first or second-degree murder charges; but did include the imperfect self-defense instruction in its final mandate on the voluntary manslaughter charge.

¶ 17 On 25 February 2020, the jury found Defendant guilty of second-degree murder and of attaining violent habitual felon status. The trial court entered judgment and sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without parole. Defendant appealed.

III. Discussion

¶ 18 Defendant contends the trial court erred by (1) failing to fully instruct the jury on defense of others, (2) denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the murder charge for insufficient evidence, and (3) instructing the jury on the aggressor doctrine.

A. Defense of Others Jury Instruction

¶ 19 Defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on defense of others in its instructions on first-degree and second-degree murder.

¶ 20 A trial court's decisions regarding jury instructions are reviewed de novo. State v. Osorio , 196 N.C. App. 458, 466, 675 S.E.2d 144, 149 (2009). A trial court must give the substance of a requested jury instruction if it is "correct in itself and supported by [the] evidence[.]" State v. Locklear , 363 N.C. 438, 464, 681 S.E.2d 293, 312 (2009) (citation omitted). If there is sufficient evidence, when taken in the light most favorable to the defendant, to support a defense of others instruction, "the instruction must be given even though the State's evidence is contradictory." State v. Montague , 298 N.C. 752, 755, 259 S.E.2d 899, 902 (1979). "[A]n error in jury instructions is prejudicial and requires a new trial only if ‘there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial out of which the appeal arises.’ " State v. Castaneda , 196 N.C. App. 109, 116, 674 S.E.2d 707, 712 (2009) (citation omitted) (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1443(a) (2007) ). The burden to show prejudice is on the defendant. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1443(a) (2020).

¶ 21 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-51.3(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that "a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if ... [h]e or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-51.3(a)(1) (2020). However, "[t]he justification described in ... [N.C. Gen. Stat. §] 14-51.3 is not available to a person who used defensive force and who ... [w]as attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a felony." Id. § 14-51.4(1) (2020). This Court held in Crump that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-51.4(1) does not require a causal nexus between the disqualifying felony and the defendant's use of defensive force for that statutory provision to disqualify the defendant from pleading he was justified in his use of that force. 259 N.C. App. at 151, 815 S.E.2d at 420.

¶ 22 In McLymore , the Supreme Court overruled the above-noted portion of Crump and held that the...