State v. Greenfield
| Citation | 847 S.E.2d 749,375 N.C. 434 |
| Decision Date | 25 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 11A19,11A19 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Tyler Deion GREENFIELD |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellee.
Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant.
Here, we review (1) whether the trial court erred by failing to give defendant's proposed jury instructions on self-defense and transferred intent with regard to the charge of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury against Beth,1 and (2) whether the trial court's error prejudiced defendant. Because we conclude that defendant was prejudiced by the trial court's failure to give his proposed jury instructions on self-defense and transferred intent in connection with the assault charge, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. However, because we conclude that the proper remedy for this prejudicial error is to remand the case for a new trial on all charges, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the Court of Appeals.
On 31 October 2016, a New Hanover County grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging defendant with (1) first-degree murder; (2) attempted first-degree murder; (3) attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon; and (4) assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury.2 Defendant's trial began on 6 February 2017.
At trial, the evidence showed that on 2 February 2015, defendant arrived with a friend at Jon and Beth's apartment to purchase marijuana from Jon. Subsequent events in the apartment are disputed. However, by the time defendant and his friend left the apartment, Jon was dead and both Beth and defendant had been shot.
Defendant testified that upon arrival he asked to use the bathroom. Defendant testified that he did not notice a safe in Jon's bedroom or the fact that Beth was asleep as he passed through the bedroom on the way to the bathroom. After using the bathroom, defendant returned to the living room where Jon and defendant's friend were talking. While they were talking, defendant picked up a gun that he found on a coffee table. Defendant testified that he picked the gun up off the coffee table because he thought it "looked like something off a movie" and "it looked cool."
According to defendant, Jon noticed that defendant picked up the gun from the coffee table and "started amping at [him]." Specifically, Jon stood up from where he was seated and started acting "crazy" and "aggressive," asking defendant if he was planning to rob him. Then Beth came out of the bedroom holding a gun up to defendant as if "she just had every intention on shooting [defendant]." Defendant testified that he was "scared" and thought that he was "about to die." Defendant pointed the gun that he picked up from the coffee table at Beth after she pointed her gun at him. Defendant then pointed the gun at Jon because he thought he had "to be as tough as possible to get out of th[e] situation." Defendant shouted "[p]ut the gun down or I'm gonna shoot him in the head." Defendant testified that he only made this threat to get Beth to put the gun down so that he could get out of the apartment.
Eventually, Beth put the gun down on the table and defendant tried to run out of the apartment. As he tried to leave, defendant saw Jon pull a gun from behind his back and then defendant felt himself get shot in the side. When he got shot, defendant "felt like [he] was going to die" and thought "it was all over" for him.
Defendant testified that after he was shot, he "just started shooting" and pulled the trigger "as many times as [he could] until [he] got to the door." Defendant stated that he was not aiming at anyone in particular, and he was "just ... shooting and running." However, defendant also testified that he aimed in Jon's direction "as best as [he] could," and that while running he "intentionally" shot at Jon.
At trial, Beth testified for the State. Her account of events inside the apartment diverged from defendant's testimony. Specifically, Beth testified that: Jon's voice got "shaky" after defendant asked to use the bathroom; she did not actually hear defendant use the bathroom; she would have been able to hear defendant use the bathroom from where she was in her and Jon's bedroom; and defendant's path to the bathroom led him right past the safe in the bedroom.
According to Beth, when defendant returned to the living room, she heard his voice become "more aggressive" and Jon's voice become "more shaky and more scared." Beth said that she heard defendant aggressively ask Jon where the guns, money, and drugs were, and then she grabbed a gun located in the bedroom. As she grabbed the gun, a third person that Beth did not recognize entered the apartment carrying a black bag, found Beth in the bedroom, and called out that Beth had a gun. Beth testified that defendant told her to bring the gun into the living room or he would shoot Jon in the face.
Beth entered the living room with her gun pointed down to the ground and placed it on the coffee table.
Beth then stepped between Jon and defendant. Jon attempted to push her away from him as he made a move for the gun that she had just placed on the coffee table. She closed her eyes and turned away as shots came at her from defendant's direction. Beth testified that she felt a pain on the left side of her head and that she saw defendant pointing his gun at her as she was closing her eyes. Beth lost consciousness after she was shot. When she regained consciousness, she saw defendant and the third person running out of the apartment. After attempting to get help from a neighbor, Beth called 9-1-1 and reported that she and Jon were shot during an attempted robbery.
Prior to trial, defendant gave notice to the State that he was planning to offer the affirmative defense of self-defense at trial pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-905(c). At the charge conference, defendant asked the trial court to give an instruction on self-defense for all charges and specifically requested an instruction on "the doctrine of transferred intent as [it] relates to self-defense." Defendant wanted the instruction to "capture the idea that an individual ... lawfully acting in self-defense who accidentally injures another is entitled to the transference of his intent from his original actions to an innocent bystander." Up until the charge conference, defendant had been referring to the jury instruction as an "accident" instruction, but later explained that he had always intended to request an instruction on self-defense.
Defendant's proposed instruction provided as follows:
The trial court also gave the following general instruction on transferred intent:
If the defendant intended to harm one person but instead harmed a different person, the legal effect would be the same as if the defendant had harmed the intended victim.
The trial court also gave a self-defense instruction for first-degree murder under the theory of premeditation and deliberation and its lesser included offenses, but did not give a self-defense instruction for first-degree murder under the felony murder rule or for any underlying felonies, including the assault charge.
The jury ultimately found defendant guilty of first-degree murder based on the felony murder rule with the assault charge as the underlying felony. The jury also found defendant guilty of second-degree murder, but the trial court set that verdict aside. The jury found defendant not guilty of attempted first-degree murder and attempted robbery with a deadly weapon. Defendant appealed.
The Court of Appeals held in pertinent part that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on self-defense with regard to the assault charge. State v. Greenfield , 262 N.C. App. 631, 642, 822 S.E.2d 477, 485 (2018). Specifically, the Court of Appeals reasoned that based on the evidence at trial, "[d]efendant was entitled to a self-defense instruction on the homicide of Jon and the assault of Beth, but only if the jury determined that those crimes were committed with shots intended for Jon." Id. at 639, 822 S.E.2d at 483. The Court of Appeals determined that defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction for any shots intended for Beth because Id. at 639, 822 S.E.2d at 483–84.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hooper
...being shot at or faces the imminent possibility of being shot has the right to defend themselves. See, e.g., State v. Greenfield , 375 N.C. 434, 436–37, 442, 847 S.E.2d 749 (2020) (holding that the evidence was sufficient to entitle defendant to a self-defense jury instruction where defenda......
-
State v. Harvin
...jury found [Greenfield] not guilty of attempted first-degree murder and attempted robbery with a deadly weapon." State v. Greenfield , 375 N.C. 434, 438, 847 S.E.2d 749 (2020). On appeal, this Court granted Greenfield a new trial on all charges. Id. , 375 N.C. 434, 438, 847 S.E.2d at 447. T......
-
State v. King
...believes such force is necessary to prevent death or bodily harm arising from a fight he did not initiate. See State v. Greenfield , 375 N.C. 434, 441, 847 S.E.2d 749, 755 (2020). Each of the State's questions reasonably asked: "Would you be willing to accurately apply the law of self-defen......
-
State v. Hooper
...presented by a defendant for the purpose of determining whether a jury should be instructed on self-defense. See, e.g., State v. Greenfield, 375 N.C. at 440 State v. Mash, 323 N.C. 39, 348 (1988)) (" 'To resolve whether a defendant is entitled to a requested instruction, we review de novo w......