State v. Hall

Decision Date21 January 2020
Docket NumberNo. COA18-1290,COA18-1290
Citation837 S.E.2d 216 (Table)
CourtNorth Carolina Court of Appeals
Parties STATE of North Carolina v. Tyrone Judea HALL, III, Defendant.

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth N. Strickland, for the State.

Anne Bleyman, for defendant-appellant.

MURPHY, Judge.

On appeal, Defendant makes two arguments. First, he argues the jury should not have received flight instructions. For a trial court to give an instruction on flight, a defendant’s leaving of the crime scene must include some evidence the defendant took steps to avoid apprehension. It cannot be based merely upon failing to stay at the location or moving on with his or her activities. Here, the trial court did not err in giving a flight instruction when Defendant fled a shooting, ran to a friend’s car, and later went to another state where police eventually found him hiding under a bed.

Second, Defendant argues the trial court committed plain error in not instructing the jury on voluntary manslaughter. A jury must not be coerced into convicting a defendant of murder when the evidence would permit the jury to rationally find defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter and acquit him of murder. The jury here could have rationally found imperfect self-defense, which reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter. Taken in the light most favorable to Defendant, Defendant believed the victim recognized him from a previous crime, believed the victim was armed, believed he heard a gun cock behind a door, and believed he was at risk of death or serious bodily harm. Despite the presence of imperfect self-defense, the trial court did not plainly err because there was only a possible impact and not a probable impact on the jury. Defendant used a deadly weapon, which raises a presumption of malice.

BACKGROUND

On 8 August 2015, Abraham Shuler ("Shuler"), David Rivera ("Rivera"), and Tyrone Judea Hall, III ("Defendant") decided to rob Joshua Richard Gutierrez ("Gutierrez"), a known drug dealer. Sometime after 1:00 AM, the three went to Gutierrez’s home, where Gutierrez, his girlfriend Keishanna Finch ("Finch"), and his friend D’Allen Higgins ("Higgins") were sitting in the living room. Rivera knocked on the door and ordered a gram of marijuana. Gutierrez allowed Rivera inside, and Rivera waited at the door. While waiting, Rivera was texting and looking down the entire time.

As Gutierrez was bagging the marijuana, Shuler and Defendant rushed in yelling "get on the ground." Defendant and Shuler carried pistols and wore bandanas to cover their faces. Rivera, Gutierrez, and Finch complied. Higgins recognized Shuler by his physical appearance, and recognized Defendant after he stated "Where’s it at? Where’s the money? Where’s the weed?" Rivera pretended as though he was not involved. After taking money, marijuana, and a few other items, Shuler and Defendant grabbed Rivera by his shirt and left. Gutierrez did not report the robbery because of the nature of his business.

On 12 November 2015, Defendant, his cousin, and Rivera decided to buy marijuana from Gutierrez—the same person they robbed only four months earlier. Rivera remained in the car while Defendant and his cousin went inside to make the purchase. Finch, who was inside Gutierrez’s home, could not see who Gutierrez interacted with when he answered the door, but she heard their conversation. Gutierrez spoke to the person at the door "in a friendly manner" and spoke as if he knew the person. Gutierrez then left the door, counted the money he was given, and had begun bagging the marijuana when three bullets came through the door. Rivera heard two of the gunshots while waiting several minutes for Defendant and his cousin. Gutierrez and Finch were shot. Defendant and his cousin hurried back to the car and Defendant told Rivera to take him home. During the ride, Defendant explained what happened.

In the car, Defendant told Rivera that he knocked on the door, he heard somebody verbally answer but not open the door, he thought Gutierrez recognized them, he thought Gutierrez had a gun, he heard a gun cock, and then he, Defendant, shot through the door. Rivera ended up dropping off Defendant and his cousin at Keith Reynolds’s ("Reynolds") home. There, Defendant told Reynolds he had killed "Scooby," which was one of Gutierrez’s nicknames:

Q. Describe for us what [Defendant] was doing when he came into your house?
[Reynolds.] I mean, he was pacing, he was pacing in a circle.
Q. Was he saying or singing –
[Reynolds.] Yeah, he was singing [a] G Herbo song.
...
Q. Who is G Herbo?
[Reynolds.] It’s a rapper that’s from Chicago.
Q. What was the song he was singing?
[Reynolds.] All I know I kept hearing him say "hollows eating up your back."
...
Q. "Hollows eating up your back" what is that in reference to?
[Reynolds.] I mean, that’s a bullet.
...
Q. How did it come up that y’all had a conversation –
[Reynolds.] Because he was like when I came in my room my baby mama was like I’ve got to talk to you about something. And I was like what is it. And then he told me.
Q. What did he tell you?
[Reynolds.] He said he shot somebody.
Q. What particularly did he say that he had done in terms of firing a number of shots things like that?
[Reynolds.] No, he just said he killed somebody.
Q. Did he say who?
[Reynolds.] Yeah, I mean, I asked him, and then he named the name, and he said Scooby, and I was like, who is Scooby, and then I got it from other people that it was [Gutierrez].

When law enforcement arrived at Gutierrez’s home, they found three bullet holes in the front door, one .38 caliber shell casing, and two .45 caliber shell casings. A firearms expert testified that the .45 caliber bullet recovered from Gutierrez’s body and the .45 caliber bullet recovered from Gutierrez’s home were fired from the same gun. Finch was also taken to the hospital and treated for a gunshot wound.

The autopsy revealed that Gutierrez had been shot twice, once in the chest and once in the thigh. Gutierrez’s cause of death was the gunshot wound to the chest. A .45 caliber projectile was recovered from Gutierrez’s chest.

Over a year later in June 2016, an inspector for the United States Marshal Service in Fugitive Operations was assigned to apprehend Defendant. Two months later, Defendant was found in his girlfriend’s Baltimore, Maryland home hiding under a bed. He was then returned to North Carolina to be prosecuted.

Defendant was indicted for second-degree kidnapping, robbery with a dangerous weapon, felonious conspiracy, felonious breaking or entering, first-degree murder, discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling, and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. The trial began on 23 April 2018 and Defendant did not testify or present evidence.

During trial, it was revealed that in March 2016, a Colt .45 caliber firearm was found in the Baltimore home. After Maryland authorities conducted a trace of the firearm, the Colt was transferred from Baltimore to Cumberland County as evidence in this case. They discovered the Colt had been reported stolen from Cumberland County about a year earlier. Higgins testified that he stole the Colt from a vehicle in 2015 and sold it to Reynolds. In turn, Reynolds sold the Colt, before the 12 November 2015 shooting, to Defendant. The firearms expert testified that the markings on the shell casings at the crime scene matched those made by the Colt.

Defendant was found not guilty of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury and second-degree kidnapping. Defendant was found guilty of second-degree murder, discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling, robbery with a firearm, conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon, and felonious breaking or entering. Defendant appeals his conviction.

ANALYSIS
A. Jury Instruction on Flight

Defendant argues his convictions for robbery with a dangerous weapon, conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon, and felonious breaking or entering must be vacated because Defendant was prejudiced when the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on flight. We disagree.

"[Arguments] challenging the trial court’s decisions regarding jury instructions are reviewed de novo by this Court." State v. Osorio , 196 N.C. App. 458, 466, 675 S.E.2d 144, 149 (2009). "[A] trial court may not instruct a jury on defendant’s flight unless there is some evidence in the record reasonably supporting the theory that defendant fled after commission of the crime charged." State v. Levan , 326 N.C. 155, 164-65, 388 S.E.2d 429, 433-34 (1990) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). "So long as there is some evidence in the record reasonably supporting the theory that defendant fled after commission of the crime charged, the instruction is properly given. The fact that there may be other reasonable explanations for defendant’s conduct does not render the instruction improper." State v. Irick , 291 N.C. 480, 494, 231 S.E.2d 833, 842 (1977).

"To merit an instruction on flight, the defendant’s leaving of the crime scene must be bolstered by some evidence that defendant took steps to avoid apprehension." State v. Rainey , 198 N.C. App. 427, 442-43, 680 S.E.2d 760, 772 (2009) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (upholding flight instruction where the defendant left the crime scene, fled to Ohio, and subsequently failed to appear in court); see Levan , 326 N.C. at 165, 388 S.E.2d at 434 (upholding flight instruction where the defendant left the crime scene, attempted to conceal the crime, and was arrested a year later in his own home in North Carolina); State v. Stitt , 201 N.C. App. 233, 251, 689 S.E.2d 539, 553 (2009) (upholding flight instruction where the defendant left the crime scene and was found in New York, despite the defendant’s assertion that traveling to New York was a standard practice); State v. Allen , 193 N.C. App. 375, 382, 667 S.E.2d 295, 300 (2008) (upholding flight instruction where the defendant left the crime...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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