State v. Williamson

872 S.E.2d 388

STATE of North Carolina

v.Rocky Kurt WILLIAMSON, Defendant.

No. COA16-631

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 19, 2022

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Kathryne E. Hathcock, for the State.

Glover & Petersen, P.A., Chapel Hill, by James R. Glover, for Defendant-Appellant.

INMAN, Judge.

¶ 1 Defendant Rocky Kurt Williamson ("Defendant") appeals from a judgment following a jury verdict finding him guilty of second-degree murder and aggravated felony death by vehicle. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence presented was insufficient to permit a reasonable juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant engaged in the reckless conduct required to establish malice for a conviction of second-degree murder. By petition for writ of certiorari, which this Court granted, Defendant also argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for appropriate relief by striking a witness's testimony in full without first issuing a material witness order compelling the witness to appear for further questioning and without informing the witness that he had waived his testimonial privilege against self-incrimination and was required to answer further questions on the subject of his direct testimony under penalty of contempt. After careful review, we hold Defendant's trial was free from error and affirm the trial court's order denying Defendant's motion for appropriate relief.

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 Evidence presented at trial tends to show the following:

¶ 3 On 4 July 2012, Defendant, Fred Jacobs ("Mr. Jacobs"), and Dakota Hammonds ("Mr. Hammonds"), Mr. Jacobs’ fifteen-year-old relative, were out driving late at night. Defendant and Mr. Jacobs were in the front seat and Mr. Hammonds was in the back seat. Both Defendant and Mr. Jacobs had been drinking throughout the night, at Fourth of July celebrations earlier in the evening and from a twelve-pack of beer they purchased while they drove. Around 3:30 a.m. the group visited Charles Anthony Carr ("Mr. Carr") at his house. Defendant got out of the car and spoke with Mr. Carr for a few minutes before the group left and began driving again. At about 4:00 a.m., the car veered off the road and crashed. Mr. Jacobs was the only one wearing a seatbelt; Defendant and Mr. Hammonds were flung from the car in the crash and seriously injured. Mr. Hammonds was airlifted to the hospital, where he was declared dead later that morning.

¶ 4 Defendant was indicted for six offenses on 5 July 2012: (1) second-degree murder; (2) aggravated felony death by vehicle; (3) felony death by vehicle; (4) reckless driving; (5) driving while impaired ("DWI"); and (6) operating a motor vehicle while not having a driver's license. The case came on for trial 21 September 2015.

¶ 5 The central issue at trial was the identity of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the fatal wreck. Mr. Jacobs testified Defendant was driving. Defendant testified that Mr. Jacobs was driving and that he did not remember the crash. Mr. Carr served as the only other witness and testified that he saw Mr. Jacobs in the passenger seat and Mr. Hammonds in the backseat when Defendant came to speak with him in front of his house that night.

¶ 6 On 8 October 2015, the jury found Defendant guilty of second-degree murder, aggravated felony death by vehicle, DWI, reckless driving, and operating a motor vehicle without a valid operator's license. The trial court consolidated Defendant's second-degree murder and aggravated felony death by vehicle convictions into one judgment and sentenced Defendant to 180 to 228 months in prison. The trial court arrested judgment on Defendant's other charges. Defendant filed written notice of appeal.

¶ 7 With his appeal, Defendant also filed a motion for appropriate relief alleging that Mr. Carr had recanted his trial testimony as false. We granted Defendant's motion, vacated his convictions based on the motion, and ordered a new trial. As a result, we did not resolve Defendant's original appeal.

¶ 8 Our Supreme Court then reviewed and vacated the order of this Court, concluding the matter should be remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. We then remanded the motion to the trial court for that purpose.

¶ 9 The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's motion for appropriate relief in three sessions over more than a year's time, on 7 June 2018, 7 February 2019, and 29 October 2019.

¶ 10 On 7 June 2018, Mr. Carr appeared and voluntarily testified that at Defendant's trial, he had falsely testified that: (1) he saw Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Hammonds on 5 July 2012; (2) he saw Mr. Jacobs sitting in the passenger side of the vehicle; and (3) he saw Mr. Hammonds sitting in the back seat on the driver's side. The trial court then advised Mr. Carr he was potentially facing criminal and contempt charges for perjury. After it became clear that Mr. Carr had not consulted with an attorney, the trial judge adjourned the hearing to allow Mr. Carr to obtain representation.

¶ 11 On 7 February 2019, Mr. Carr again appeared but invoked the Fifth Amendment to refuse to testify in response to virtually all of the trial prosecutor's questions on cross-examination. The prosecutor objected to Mr. Carr asserting his privilege against self-incrimination after he testified on direct examination, so the trial court again adjourned the hearing to determine whether Mr. Carr had waived his right to assert his privilege.

¶ 12 On 29 October 2019, Mr. Carr did not appear. The trial court held that he had waived his privilege against self-incrimination by testifying on direct examination at the first hearing and struck his testimony in full because he had not appeared in court to answer questions on cross-examination.

¶ 13 On 14 May 2020, the trial court entered an order denying Defendant's motion for appropriate relief. Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari requesting our review of the order denying the motion for appropriate relief along with a motion to reinstate his original appeal. This Court ordered Defendant's appeal reinstated and granted his petition.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Merits of Defendant's Original Appeal

¶ 14 Defendant asserts the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the charge of second-degree murder when Defendant moved to dismiss all charges at the close of all evidence at trial. Specifically, Defendant contends that the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the State, was only sufficient to establish culpable negligence for a conviction of involuntary manslaughter and was insufficient to establish malice, which is an essential element of second-degree murder. We disagree.

¶ 15 Our standard of review on appeal is well-established:

Upon the defendant's motion to dismiss, the question for the court is whether substantial evidence was introduced of each element of the offense charged and that the defendant was the perpetrator. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion .... The court is to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State in ruling on a motion to dismiss. The State is entitled to every reasonable intendment and inference to be drawn from the evidence; contradictions and discrepancies do not warrant dismissal—they are for the jury to resolve.

State v. Alston , 310 N.C. 399, 404, 312 S.E.2d 470, 473 (1984) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

¶ 16 Involuntary manslaughter is the "unlawful and unintentional killing of another human being, without malice , which proximately results from ... an act or omission constituting culpable negligence." State v. Wallace , 309 N.C. 141, 145, 305 S.E.2d 548, 551 (1983) (emphasis added). Second-degree murder, on the other hand, is "(1) the unlawful killing, (2) of another human being, (3) with malice , but (4) without premeditation and deliberation." State v. Banks , 191 N.C. App. 743, 751, 664 S.E.2d 355, 361 (2008) (emphasis added). To prove malice for second-degree murder, by reckless driving, in particular, the State does not need to demonstrate Defendant had a specific intent to kill, but it must show "that [the] defendant had the intent to perform the act of driving in such a reckless manner as reflects knowledge that injury or death would likely result, thus evidencing depravity of mind." State v. Miller , 142 N.C. App. 435, 441, 543 S.E.2d 201, 205 (2001) (citation omitted).

¶ 17 This Court has recognized that evidence of knowingly driving while impaired, whether by alcohol or an illegal substance—particularly when combined with evidence of reckless driving or behavior—may constitute sufficient evidence to prove malice for a second-degree murder charge. See, e.g., State v. Grooms , 230 N.C. App. 56, 67-68, 748 S.E.2d 162, 169-70 (2013) (holding substantial evidence of malice when the defendant knowingly consumed multiple impairing substances, swerved off the road prior to the collision, failed to brake, failed to call 911, did not aid the two victims he struck, and registered a 0.16 BAC at the time of the accident); State v. Davis , 197 N.C. App. 738, 743, 678 S.E.2d 385, 389 (2009), aff'd in part, rev'd in part , 364 N.C. 297, 698 S.E.2d 65 (2010) (holding sufficient evidence of malice where the defendant consumed nine to twelve beers in a two-hour period, ran over a road sign, weaved side to side until he ran off the road, crashed into the victim's truck without attempting to brake, and registered a 0.13 BAC).

¶ 18 Evidence introduced at trial, especially testimony by Mr. Jones, established that Defendant drove after consuming alcohol and while he consumed alcohol over the course of several hours and that he was impaired. At one point while driving, Defendant engaged the emergency break, locking the back tires and causing the car to swerve. Defendant was driving at the time the vehicle veered off the road and crashed. Before the crash, Defendant fell asleep at the wheel...