State v. Copley
| Citation | 828 S.E.2d 35,265 N.C.App. 254 |
| Decision Date | 07 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. COA18-895,COA18-895 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Chad Cameron COPLEY, Defendant. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Joseph L. Hyde, for the State.
Massengale & Ozer, Chapel Hill, by Marilyn G. Ozer, for defendant.
Chad Cameron Copley ("Defendant") appeals from a judgment entered following a jury's conviction for first-degree murder. We vacate Defendant's conviction and judgment and grant a new trial.
On 22 August 2016, Defendant was indicted by a grand jury for first-degree murder. Defendant's trial began on 12 February 2018.
At trial, the State presented evidence tending to show the following: On 6 August 2016, Jalen Lewis ("Lewis") hosted a party at his parents’ home, two or three houses down the street from Defendant's house. One of his guests, Chris Malone ("Malone"), and two companions, David Walker ("Walker"), and Kourey Thomas ("Thomas"), arrived at Lewis's party in Walker's car around midnight, and parked on the street. Malone was acquainted with Lewis. Walker and Thomas were not. Malone entered Lewis's house to ask permission for Walker and Thomas to enter. Walker and Thomas waited outside near the front steps of the house.
Sometime between midnight and 1:00 a.m., a group of approximately twenty people arrived separately from Thomas, Walker, and Malone. Lewis and his friends did not know the group of twenty people. After about ten minutes, the group was asked to leave. The group agreed to leave, and walked toward their cars, congregating near the curb in front of Defendant's house to discuss where to go next.
Defendant, who was inside his home and in his second-story bedroom, became disturbed by the group's noise outside. Defendant called 911 and told 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.
At the same time these events were transpiring, a law enforcement officer was conducting a traffic stop nearby, which caused the lights of his police cruiser to reflect down the street. Thomas and Walker saw the lights and became worried about the presence of law enforcement because Thomas possessed a marijuana grinder on his person.
Thomas decided to leave the party after seeing the police cruiser's lights. Thomas left the party first. He ran from Lewis's house, and cut across the yard, towards Walker's car. Before he could reach the car, Thomas was shot by Defendant, who fired one shot without warning, from inside the window of his dark, enclosed garage. EMS arrived and transported Thomas to the hospital, where he died as a result of the gunshot.
Wake County Sheriff's Deputy Barry Carroll ("Deputy Carroll") was one of the first investigators to arrive upon the scene. Deputy Carroll 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 garage 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 shooting Thomas. Deputy Carroll requested Defendant to open the front door. Defendant complied and showed Deputy Carroll the shotgun he had used to fire at Thomas.
At the close of the State's evidence, Defendant moved to dismiss the case. The trial court denied the motion.
Defendant testified and presented evidence tending to show the following: Defendant had argued with his wife on the morning of 6 August 2016, and then spent the day at home drinking, sleeping, and "just hanging out in the garage." After going to sleep that evening in his upstairs bedroom, Defendant awoke at approximately 12:30 a.m. Defendant and his wife then had marital relations. Shortly thereafter, Defendant looked out of his bedroom window and saw a group of people in front of his house. Defendant described the group as "yelling and screaming" and "revving their engines."
Irritated at the noise the group made, Defendant yelled out the window, "You guys keep it the f[**]k down; I'm trying to sleep in here." Members of the group yelled back, "Shut the f[**]k up; f[**]k you; go inside, white boy,’ things of that nature." Defendant saw "firearms in the crowd[,]" and two individuals "lifted their shirts up" to flash their weapons. He testified that he called 911 at 12:50 a.m. at his wife's request.
When Defendant called 911, he thought his son and his son's friends were outside, and stated his teenaged son was the "him" he referenced he was going to "kill" while on the 911 call. After ending the call with 911, he retrieved his shotgun, loaded it, and walked downstairs into his attached garage.
When he discovered his son was inside the garage and not part of the group outside, he told his son to go upstairs for safety and to get a rifle. He again yelled at the group outside, instructing them to leave the premises and informing them that he was armed. Defendant claimed Thomas began running towards Defendant's house and pulled out a gun. Defendant fired one shot from his shotgun towards Thomas through the window of his garage.
At the close of Defendant's evidence, he renewed his motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied. Following deliberation, 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 gave notice of appeal in open court.
Jurisdiction lies in this Court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7A-27(b) and 15A-1444 (2017).
Defendant argues three issues on appeal: (1) the trial court plainly erred by instructing the jury that the defense of habitation was not available if Defendant was the aggressor; (2) the trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to make egregious, improper, and racially-charged arguments during its closing argument; and (3) the trial court erred by instructing the jury on the theory of lying in wait.
We first address Defendant's argument that the trial court erred by overruling his objections to racially-charged statements made by the prosecutor during closing arguments.
During the State's rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor stated, over Defendant's multiple objections:
The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that a defendant's objection made during closing argument should be reviewed as if the defendant had objected to every instance of the challenged statements. State v. Walters , 357 N.C. 68, 104, 588 S.E.2d 344, 365, cert. denied , 540 U.S. 971, 124 S.Ct. 442, 157 L.Ed.2d 320 (2003). In Walters , the prosecutor made a closing argument comparing the defendant to Adolf Hitler. Id . The defendant's counsel objected, and the trial court overruled the objection. Id . The prosecutor then continued making allusions comparing the defendant to Hitler.
Our Supreme Court reasoned:
Whereas it is customary to make objections during trial, counsel are more reluctant to make an objection during the course of closing arguments "for fear of incurring jury disfavor." Defendant should not be penalized twice (by the argument being allowed and by her proper objection being waived) because counsel does not want to incur jury disfavor. Therefore, defendant properly objected to the prosecutor's argument, and no waiver occurred by defendant's failure to object to later references to Hitler.
Id . (citation omitted).
When a defendant properly objects to closing argument, the Court must determine if "the trial court abused its discretion by failing to sustain the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Copley
...that our Supreme Court in Jones noted was held to be prejudicial error warranting new trials in past cases." State v. Copley, ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 828 S.E.2d 35, 43 (2019).We conclude that Jones did not provide an adequate basis for the Court of Appeals’ decision on the prejudice issue......
-
State v. Copley
...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......