State v. Corbett

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
Citation376 N.C. 799,855 S.E.2d 228
Docket NumberNo. 73A20,73A20
Parties STATE of North Carolina v. Molly Martens CORBETT and Thomas Michael Martens
Decision Date12 March 2021

376 N.C. 799
855 S.E.2d 228

STATE of North Carolina
v.
Molly Martens CORBETT and Thomas Michael Martens

No. 73A20

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed March 12, 2021


Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Jonathan P. Babb and L. Michael Dodd, Special Deputy Attorneys General, for the State-appellant.

Tharrington Smith, L.L.P., Raleigh, by Douglas E. Kingsbery, for defendant-appellee Molly Martens Corbett.

Dudley A. Witt, David B. Freedman, and Jones P. Byrd, Jr., Winston-Salem, for defendant-appellee Thomas Michael Martens.

EARLS, Justice.

376 N.C. 801

¶ 1 In the early morning hours of 2 August 2015, a Davidson County 911 operator received a call regarding an incident at 160 Panther Creek Court. The caller, Thomas Martens (Tom), reported that his son-in-law, Jason Corbett (Jason), "got in a fight" with his daughter, Molly Martens Corbett (Molly), and that he had found Jason "choking my daughter. He said, ‘I'm going to kill her.’ " Tom told the dispatcher that he had hit Jason in the head with a baseball bat. Jason was "in bad shape. We need help.... He, he's bleeding all over, and I, I may have killed him." The 911 operator instructed Tom and Molly to perform CPR while emergency medical technicians (EMTs) were dispatched to the home. When they got there, the EMTs found Molly performing chest compressions on Jason in the master bedroom, but Jason did not survive. Law enforcement officers who arrived shortly thereafter found Molly "very obviously in shock." She told the officers she had been choked.

¶ 2 Subsequently, Molly and Tom were charged with and ultimately convicted of second-degree murder for the homicide of Jason. From their first call to 911 through the trial, Molly and Tom did not deny that they had killed Jason. Instead, they maintained that they had lawfully used deadly force to defend themselves while under the reasonable apprehension that they were facing an imminent threat of deadly harm during a violent altercation initiated by Jason. On appeal, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals vacated Molly's and Tom's convictions and ordered a new trial. State v. Corbett , 269 N.C. App. 509, 512, 839 S.E.2d 361, writ allowed , 373 N.C. 580, 838 S.E.2d 461, and writ dismissed , 375 N.C. 276, 845 S.E.2d 793 (2020).

¶ 3 The jury in this case did not have to determine who killed Jason. Instead, they had to decide to believe either Tom's testimony that Jason was threatening to kill Molly and was in the process of choking her to death, or to believe the State's theory that Tom and Molly were the aggressors in the altercation and killed Jason without justification. After

376 N.C. 802

careful review, we agree with the majority below that the trial court committed prejudicial error in excluding evidence that went to the heart of defendants’ self-defense claims. The trial court's errors in excluding certain evidence deprived defendants of the full opportunity to put the jury in their position at the time they used deadly force. In turn, this deprived the jury of evidence necessary to fairly determine whether Tom and Molly used deadly force at a moment when they were actually and reasonably fearful for their lives. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand to the trial court for a new trial.

855 S.E.2d 233

I. Background

¶ 4 Jason was a citizen and resident of the Republic of Ireland. He had two children, Jack and Sarah, with his first wife, Margaret. Margaret died unexpectedly in 2006, from what the Irish authorities determined to be complications of an asthma attack, just eleven weeks after giving birth to Sarah. In late 2007 or early 2008, Jason hired Molly to work as an au pair in his home in Ireland. The two later began a romantic relationship. In 2011, Jason, Molly, Jack, and Sarah moved to Davidson County, North Carolina, after Jason transferred to an office his employer had recently opened in the United States. Jason and Molly married that same year.

A. The Altercation

¶ 5 At around 8:30 p.m. on 1 August 2015, Molly's parents, Tom and Sharon Martens, who lived in Tennessee, arrived at the Corbett's home in Davidson County for a visit. Tom—a retired FBI agent and former attorney—brought an aluminum baseball bat and a tennis racket as gifts for Jack. According to Tom's testimony, Jason had been drinking beer with his neighbor but was pleasant and social during the evening. Jack, who had been at a party at a friend's house, returned home around 11:00 p.m. Because it was late, Tom decided to wait until the following morning to give Jack the bat and tennis racket. Tom and Sharon went to sleep in the guest bedroom, located on the floor below the master bedroom where Jason and Molly typically slept.

¶ 6 Tom testified that in the middle of the night, he was awakened by the sound of thumping on the floor above him, followed by "a scream and loud voices." He thought "it sounded bad ... like a matter of urgency." He grabbed the baseball bat and ran upstairs toward the source of the noises, which he determined was the master bedroom. Inside the bedroom, Tom encountered Jason and Molly facing each other. Jason's hands were around Molly's neck. Tom testified that he told Jason to let Molly go, to which Jason replied, "I'm going to kill her." Tom again asked Jason to let Molly go, to which Jason again replied, "I'm going to kill

376 N.C. 803

her." Jason then "reversed himself so that he had [Molly's] neck in the crook of his right arm" and started dragging Molly toward the bathroom.

¶ 7 According to Tom, he feared that if Jason reached the bathroom with Molly, Jason would close the door and kill her. In an effort to impede Jason, Tom swung the baseball bat at "the back of the two of them glued together." However, the initial blow apparently had no effect on Jason. From Tom's perspective, it only "further enraged" him. Tom continued striking Jason "to distract him because he now had Molly in a very tight chokehold" and "she was no longer wiggling." Tom was unable to prevent Jason from reaching the bathroom. However, after following Jason into the bathroom, Tom struck Jason in the head with the bat. In response, Jason charged out of the bathroom and back toward the master bedroom, pushing Molly in front of him. Tom continued to swing the baseball bat at Jason to try to separate him from Molly. Eventually, Molly slipped out of Jason's arms, but Jason was able to wrestle the bat out of Tom's grasp. Tom, who had lost his glasses and was pushed to the floor in the struggle, testified that he heard Molly yell "[d]on't hurt my dad," although this portion of his testimony was stricken upon the State's objection. In a written statement admitted into evidence at the trial, Molly maintained that at some point after Jason took the bat from Tom, she "tried to hit [Jason] with a brick (garden décor) I had on my nightstand."

¶ 8 When Tom regained his footing, he saw Molly trapped between Jason and the bedroom wall. He claimed that he was physically weakened and in fear for both his daughter's life and his own. Jason was twenty-six years younger than Tom and outweighed him by more than 100 pounds. Tom testified the following:

A. ... I'm on the other side of the room at the end of the bed. And things look pretty bleak. He's got the bat. He's in a ... good athletic position. He has his weight down on the balls of his feet. He's kind of looking between me and Molly. And so I decided ... to rush him and try to get ahold of the bat.

....
855 S.E.2d 234
A. ... [A]s desperate as it seemed, it seemed like the only thing to do. And so I rush him and I do get both hands on the bat (demonstrating). Now there are four hands on the bat. And we are struggling over control of the bat. And this is not—this is not good for me. He's bigger and stronger and younger.
376 N.C. 804
....

A. ... I try to hit him this way with the end of the bat. I try to hit him with this end of the bat. I don't know. I'm trying to hit him with anything I can (demonstrating) and I win. I get control of the bat. He loses his grip. And I hit him. And—

Q. Why did you hit him?

A. Because I don't want him to take the bat away from me and kill me. I mean—just because he lost control of the bat doesn't mean this is over. This was far from over. And so I still think that, you know, he has the advantage even though—‘cause I know what I'm feeling like. I'm shaking. I'm not doing good now. And so I hit him. And I hit him until he goes down. And then I step away.

Q. Do you know how many times you hit him?

A. I don't.

Q. And why did you continue to hit him after the first hit?

A. I hit him until I thought that he could not kill me. I thought that he was—I mean, he said he was going to kill Molly. I certainly felt he would kill me. I felt both of our lives were in danger. I did the best I could.

Tom gathered his thoughts and told Molly "we need to call 911." Both Tom and Molly were themselves "in pretty bad shape," but Molly eventually brought Tom a phone, and they called 911.

B. The Investigation

¶ 9 The first EMT...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Reid, 20PA19-2
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • March 11, 2022
    ...the statement, and (4) the practical availability of the declarant at trial for meaningful cross-examination.’ " State v. Corbett , 376 N.C. 799, 2021-NCSC-18, ¶ 41, 855 S.E.2d 228 (quoting State v. Triplett , 316 N.C. 1, 10–11, 340 S.E.2d 736 (1986) ). "A trial court's determination as to ......
  • State v. Thomas, COA20-402
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • December 21, 2021
    ...for testing." In making that argument, Defendant relies heavily on State v. Corbett , 269 N.C. App. 509, 839 S.E.2d 361 (2020), aff'd 376 N.C. 799, 2021-NCSC-18, 855 S.E.2d 2284 , where this Court agreed with the defendant's argument that an expert was unreliable if he failed to follow his ......
  • State v. Thomas, COA20-402
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • December 21, 2021
    ...for testing." In making that argument, Defendant relies heavily on State v. Corbett, 269 N.C.App. 509, 839 S.E.2d 361 (2020), aff'd 376 N.C. 799, 2021-NCSC-18[4], where this Court agreed with the defendant's argument that an expert was unreliable if he failed to follow his own admitted reli......
  • State v. Thomas, COA20-402
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • December 21, 2021
    ...for testing." In making that argument, Defendant relies heavily on State v. Corbett, 269 N.C.App. 509, 839 S.E.2d 361 (2020), aff'd 376 N.C. 799, 2021-NCSC-18[4], where this Court agreed with the defendant's argument that an expert was unreliable if he failed to follow his own admitted reli......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT