State v. Lamb Hicks
| Docket Number | 136PA22 |
| Decision Date | 01 September 2023 |
| Parties | STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WENDY DAWN LAMB HICKS |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
WENDY DAWN LAMB HICKS
No. 136PA22
Supreme Court of North Carolina
September 1, 2023
Heard in the Supreme Court on 25 April 2023.
On discretionary review pursuant to N.C. G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 283 N.C.App. 74 (2022), reversing a judgment entered on 12 December 2019 by Judge V. Bradford Long in Superior Court, Randolph County, and remanding for a new trial.
Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Michael T. Henry, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.
Marilyn G. Ozer for defendant-appellee.
EARLS, JUSTICE.
Defendant Wendy Dawn Lamb Hicks was convicted of second-degree murder after she shot and killed Caleb Adams in her home. Ms. Hicks and Mr. Adams had a tumultuous relationship, and on the day of the murder, Ms. Hicks had warned Mr. Adams by text message not to come to her residence. He ignored that warning and came anyway, precipitating a confrontation between them that left him dead from two gunshot wounds to his back. At trial, the jury was instructed on self-defense, the defense of habitation, and the aggressor doctrine. Ms. Hicks contends, and the Court
of Appeals agreed, that the evidence did not support an instruction on the aggressor doctrine.
In this case we are again confronted with the proper application of North Carolina's "castle doctrine" statute, which establishes that a person in their home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have held "a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm" when using deadly force to repel an unlawful intruder. N.C. G.S. § 14-51.2(b) (2021); see also State v. Benner, 380 N.C. 621, 632, 2022-NCSC-28, ¶ 26 ("[W]hile the enactment of N.C. G.S. § 14-51.2 was not 'intended to repeal or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law,' we have held that the enactment of N.C. G.S. § 14-51.3 has supplanted the common law right to perfect selfdefense to the extent that it addresses a particular issue ...." (quoting N.C. G.S. § 14-51.2(g))); State v. McLymore, 380 N.C. 185, 195, 2022-NCSC-12 ¶ 23 ("Commonly known as the 'Stand Your Ground' Law, the Act 'restate[d] the law [of self-defense] in some respects and broaden[ed] it in others.'" (alterations in original) (quoting John Rubin, The New Law of Self Defense?, North Carolina Criminal Law: A UNC School of Government Blog (Aug. 17, 2011), https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/the-new-law-of-self-defense)); State v. Coley, 375 N.C. 156, 162 (2020) ("Viewing the evidence at trial in the light most favorable to defendant in order to determine whether the evidence was competent and sufficient to support the jury instructions on self-defense and the defense of habitation, we conclude that defendant was entitled to both instructions.").
As a legal matter, the Court of Appeals held that the statutory presumption entitling a person within their own home to use deadly force regardless of the character of the assault against them remains subject to the limitation that a defendant is not entitled to use self-defense if they were the aggressor in the situation. See State v. Hicks, 283 N.C.App. 74, 81, 2022-NCCOA-263 ¶ 22. Ms. Hicks does not argue that this is incorrect. Instead, Ms. Hicks maintains that there was no evidence in the case from which a jury could find that she was the aggressor in these circumstances.[1] Thus, our only task is to determine whether, in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence was sufficient to support a jury finding that Ms. Hicks was the aggressor when she shot and killed Mr. Adams. The Court of Appeals erroneously considered the evidence in the light most favorable to Ms. Hicks and wrongly concluded that the evidence was insufficient. We hold that the evidence was sufficient to give the aggressor doctrine instruction, find no error in the trial court's decision to give the instruction, and therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
I. Background
A. Evidence at Trial
Wendy Hicks and Caleb Adams first met in September 2015 through their employment at Dart Container. Within a few weeks, they developed an intimate relationship that lasted until Mr. Adams's death on 13 June 2017. Mr. Adams was married to Dana Adams, and he remained so until his death. Ms. Hicks was also married but divorced her husband in April 2016. Both Ms. Hicks and Mr. Adams maintained intimate relationships with other individuals besides each other and their spouses. Ms. Hicks made efforts to keep her other relationships secret from Mr. Adams.
Ms. Hicks and Mr. Adams's relationship was tumultuous; they had several vehement arguments. They frequently referred to each other in a vulgar manner, as demonstrated in their text messages. Mr. Adams was never violent with his wife, though he used coarse language, which his wife attributed to his picking up truck drivers' "lingo."
In early 2017, Mr. Adams introduced Ms. Hicks to methamphetamine. Mrs. Adams testified that using methamphetamine affected Mr. Adams's emotional state. Specifically, she stated that methamphetamine use caused Mr. Adams to become angry. Mr. Adams stored the methamphetamine at Ms. Hicks's house, and she would at times pick up drugs for him.
When Mr. Adams's methamphetamine supplier was arrested, Ms. Hicks introduced Mr. Adams to a new supplier, a man named Doug. Ms. Hicks testified that after a while, she began performing oral sex on Doug at Mr. Adams's instruction to
pay for the methamphetamine. At some point, Ms. Hicks began a separate, intimate relationship with Doug, which she tried to keep secret from Mr. Adams.
The relationship between Ms. Hicks and Mr. Adams became even more strained around 23 May 2017, when Ms. Hicks posted a photo to Facebook of her and Mr. Adams kissing, which was seen by Mr. Adams's wife. Mrs. Adams confronted Mr. Adams who denied that he was the man in the picture. Ms. Hicks then started placing anonymous calls to Mrs. Adams. On 8 June 2017, she called Mrs. Adams around 7:00 a.m., blocking the caller ID, and disclosed that Mr. Adams was having an affair and consuming drugs. Ms. Hicks called again later that day at about 2:00 p.m. and asked Mrs. Adams if she knew that Mr. Adams had been involved in a wreck.
During the week of 12 June 2017, Ms. Hicks and Mr. Adams had several arguments, including one about the photo she had posted to Facebook. Ms. Hicks also testified that Mr. Adams was upset and angry because his supplier had raised the price of methamphetamine and he was concerned about owing people money.
On the morning of 12 June 2017, Mr. Adams went to Ms. Hicks's residence, a trailer where she lived with her seventeen-year-old daughter, April. At trial, April testified that she was awakened that morning by her mother and Mr. Adams arguing. According to April, Mr. Adams slung the door to their residence open, causing the door to hit a dog gate. Mr. Adams proceeded to enter the home and scream profanities and threats at Ms. Hicks. April testified she heard Mr. Adams say, "I've never hit a bitch but you're pushing me to hit a bitch. You're ruining my life. You're ruining my
family." April testified that because she was afraid, she sent messages to her boyfriend describing the events as they occurred. At some point that morning, Mr. Adams left.
That evening, Mr. Adams texted Ms. Hicks multiple times. Ms. Hicks replied that she would leave his drugs on the nightstand in her bedroom, and around 9:15 p.m., Mr. Adams came and picked up his drugs. Around 11:30 p.m., Ms. Hicks texted Mr. Adams, threatening to send sexually explicit photographs to his wife to expose their affair. Approximately half an hour later, around midnight, Ms. Hicks called Mrs. Adams, identified herself, and told her that she and Mr. Adams were having an affair. She also told Mrs. Adams that Mr. Adams was using recreational drugs. During the conversation, Ms. Hicks told Mrs. Adams that she and Mr. Adams had been arguing and asked if he was ever a violent person. Ms. Hicks explained that Mr. Adams had threatened her and that she was concerned for her safety. Mrs. Adams was not aware of Mr. Adams's behavior on the morning of 12 June 2017. Mrs. Adams told Ms. Hicks that Mr. Adams had never been violent with her and stressed that Mr. Adams needed assistance with his substance abuse problem. Ms. Hicks said she had a gun, at which point Mrs. Adams told Ms. Hicks to call the police if she felt threatened by Mr. Adams.
Later that evening, an unknown man arrived at Ms. Hicks's residence. He stood in her yard and yelled, "[W]here's Caleb[?]" Ms. Hicks informed the man that Mr. Adams was not at her residence, and the man instructed Ms. Hicks to tell Mr.
Adams to "call his people." In response, Ms. Hicks began calling Mr. Adams repeatedly. Mr. Adams's reply text stated, "You'll be lucky if you don't end up in a ditch."
At 5:58 a.m. on 13 June 2017, Mr. Adams texted Ms. Hicks and then called her, telling her he was on the way to her house. At 6:13 a.m., Ms. Hicks texted Doug, "He [on the way] here," and then at 6:14 a.m., she texted Mr. Adams, "No, please don't come here. They looking for you." At 6:28 a.m., she texted Doug, "He here."
The next independently verifiable fact is that two minutes later, at 6:30 a.m., Ms. Hicks called 911 and told the operator that she had shot Mr. Adams. Ms. Hicks is the only living eyewitness to what occurred in the bedroom where Mr. Adams was shot. The only other person in the house at the time, April, remained in her room and could only testify regarding what she heard. April testified that she heard Mr. Adams burst into the home and slam the door, as he had done the previous morning. She also heard Mr. Adams tell her mother he was going to kill her, and she could hear that they were engaged in a physical struggle violent enough to move furniture.
Ms. Hicks gave four accounts of what occurred during those two minutes:...
To continue reading
Request your trial