State v. McKoy

• Decision Date: 01 June 2021
• Docket Number: No. COA20-582,COA20-582
• Citation: 858 S.E.2d 148 (Table)
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Walter MCKOY, Defendant.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

858 S.E.2d 148 (Table)

STATE of North Carolina v. Walter MCKOY, Defendant.

No. COA20-582

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 1, 2021

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas O. Lawton, III, for the State.

William D. Spence, for Defendant-Appellant.

INMAN, Judge.

¶ 1 Walter McKoy ("Defendant") appeals from a jury verdict finding him guilty of first-degree murder, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and discharge of a firearm within the city limits, in violation of a city ordinance. Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motions to dismiss each of these charges. After careful review, we hold the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss on the discharge of a firearm charge.

I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 2 The evidence presented at trial tends to show the following:

¶ 3 Defendant shot and killed William Covington ("Mr. Covington") in Mr. Covington's Chevrolet Malibu in the early morning hours of 31 March 2015.

¶ 4 Earlier that night, Defendant, Mr. Covington, Alex Robinson ("Mr. Robinson"), and Pat Stephens ("Mr. Stephens") smoked marijuana in Mr. Covington's parked Malibu outside Mr. Stephens's home in Lumberton, NC. There was an ongoing conflict between Defendant and Mr. Covington about a missing gun.

¶ 5 The foursome temporarily dispersed when Defendant drove Mr. Robinson home. Mr. Robinson warned Defendant not to drive back to Mr. Stephens's home, but Defendant returned and rejoined Mr. Stephens and Mr. Covington in the Malibu. Mr. Covington was in the driver's seat, Defendant was in the passenger's seat, and Mr. Stephens was in the back seat.

¶ 6 When Mr. Stephens left the car, Defendant shot Mr. Covington three times in the side of the head, above and around his right ear, killing him. Defendant immediately exited the Malibu, opened the driver's side door, and took a .32-caliber revolver from the victim. Defendant placed that revolver and his own .38-caliber revolver in the sunroof of his Jeep Grand Cherokee and fled the scene.

¶ 7 In a videotaped interview with police, Defendant initially lied about being at the scene of the murder. Later in the interview, when Defendant eventually admitted his participation, he contradicted himself about how and why he shot the victim. Defendant claimed he shot Mr. Covington after Mr. Covington reached for his own gun in the car.

¶ 8 At trial, in addition to presenting the videotape of Defendant's interview with police, the State relied on physical evidence and testimony from Mr. Robinson, Mr. Stephens, the medical examiner, and police officers. Defendant did not testify or present evidence at trial. Defendant's counsel argued that he shot Mr. Covington in self-defense.

¶ 9 Although Defendant was charged with discharging a weapon within the city limits of Lumberton in violation of a local ordinance, the arrest warrant and indictment did not include the applicable city ordinance caption—"Discharging firearms." Nor could the jury review the ordinance because the State failed to introduce the ordinance in evidence at trial.

¶ 10 The jury found Defendant guilty on all charges. The trial court consolidated the offenses and sentenced Defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Defendant gave oral notice of appeal.

II. ANALYSIS

¶ 11 On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his motions to dismiss: (1) the charge of first-degree murder, (2) the robbery with a dangerous weapon charge, and (3) the charge of firing a weapon within city limits.

¶ 12 We review each motion to dismiss de novo , State v. Sanders , 208 N.C. App. 142, 144, 701 S.E.2d 380, 382 (2010), viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, giving the State the benefit of every reasonable inference, and resolving any contradictions in the State's favor, State v. Billinger , 213 N.C. App. 249, 253, 714 S.E.2d 201, 205 (2011) (citation omitted). "Contradictions and discrepancies do not warrant dismissal ... but are for the jury to resolve." State v. Barnes , 334 N.C. 67, 75, 430 S.E.2d 914, 918 (1993) (citation omitted). In order to survive a motion to dismiss, substantial evidence must exist of each essential element of the charged offense, and of the defendant's being the perpetrator. State v. Israel , 353 N.C. 211, 216, 539 S.E.2d 633, 636 (2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

A. First-Degree Murder

¶ 13 Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge of first-degree murder because the State did not disprove his theory of self-defense and the State presented insufficient evidence of the elements of premeditation and deliberation. We disagree.

1. Contradicting Evidence of Self-Defense

¶ 14 Defendant argues the State did not disprove self-defense, even though the evidence—mainly exculpatory portions of Defendant's interview with police—raised it.

¶ 15 When the evidence supports a claim of self-defense, the State, not the defendant, must disprove it. State v. Gilreath , 118 N.C. App. 200, 208, 454 S.E.2d 871, 876 (1995). Perfect self-defense requires that: (1) a defendant believes it necessary to kill decedent to save himself from death or great bodily harm, (2) the defendant's belief was reasonable, (3) the defendant was not the aggressor, and (4) the defendant did not use excessive force. State v. Harvey , 372 N.C. 304, 307-08, 828 S.E.2d 481, 483 (2019) (citation omitted). The State is bound by a defendant's exculpatory statements "which are not contradicted or shown to be false by any other facts or circumstances in evidence." State v. Carter , 254 N.C. 475, 479, 119 S.E.2d 461, 464 (1961). As noted above, when the evidence is in conflict, we review it in the light most favorable to the State. Billinger , 213 N.C. App. at 253, 714 S.E.2d at 205.

¶ 16 Here, Defendant contradicted his own statements to police about why he shot Mr. Covington. At one point during the interview, Defendant claimed he thought the victim was going to rob him and that he did not intend to kill Mr. Covington. At another point, Defendant told police he feared for his life because the victim was reaching into his coat pocket for his gun. He later stated he only shot when the victim "pointed the gun at [him.]"

¶ 17 In addition, the State presented evidence contradicting Defendant's statements about how he shot the victim. Defendant claimed he was leaning away from Mr. Covington to his right and fired his gun from his waist at a downward angle. But the physical evidence along with testimony from the medical examiner and responding police officers tended to show Mr. Covington was shot in the right side of his head, near his ear, three times, indicating he was sitting upright and looking straight ahead. The location of Mr. Covington's fatal wounds contradicted Defendant's testimony that he fired from his waist at a downward angle. Responding officers also testified that Mr. Covington's body was found facing forward—not toward the right or in an offensive position, as Defendant claimed.

¶ 18 Viewing the conflicting evidence of self-defense—including Defendant's own statements to police—in the light most favorable to the State, the first-degree murder charge properly went to the jury to resolve. See Gilreath , 118 N.C. App. at 209, 454 S.E.2d at 876 ; Barnes , 334 N.C. at 75, 430 S.E.2d at 918.

2. Sufficient Evidence of Premeditation & Deliberation

¶ 19 Defendant further contends that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence that the killing was premeditated and deliberate because the evidence showed he fired his weapon only after Mr. Covington reached for his own gun.

¶ 20 Premeditation requires that "the defendant formed the specific intent to kill the victim some period of time, however short, before the actual killing[,]" and deliberation necessitates that the intent to kill was formed "in a cool state of blood ... and not under the influence of a violent passion, suddenly aroused by ... provocation." State v. Bonney , 329 N.C. 61, 77, 405 S.E.2d 145, 154 (1991) (citations omitted). However, deliberation does not preclude emotion or passion, State v. Vause , 328 N.C. 231, 236, 400 S.E.2d 57, 61 (1991) (citation omitted), and it may even arise during a quarrel, State v. Larry , 345 N.C. 497, 513, 481 S.E.2d 907, 916 (1997) (citation omitted).

¶ 21 Defendant relies exclusively on our Supreme Court's decision in State v. Corn , 303 N.C. 293, 278 S.E.2d 221 (1981). That case is distinguishable. In Corn , the decedent, who was highly intoxicated at the time, barged into the defendant's home unannounced and insulted him. 303 N.C. at 297-98, 278 S.E.2d at 223-24. The defendant immediately grabbed a rifle and shot decedent several times, killing him. Id. Our Supreme Court held there was insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation because the dispute was a "sudden event" lasting "only a few moments," providing the defendant no time to weigh his actions or act according to some "fixed design." Id.

¶ 22 In this case, even if Defendant were provoked by a quarrel with Mr. Covington, their dispute was not a "sudden event" so that Defendant did not have time to weigh his actions. Defendant drove Mr. Robinson home and returned to the scene even though Mr. Robinson had discouraged him from doing so. Defendant got back into Mr. Covington's car armed with a gun, waited until Mr. Stephens left the car, and then he shot Mr. Covington three times in the head. This evidence substantially supports the charge that Defendant acted with premeditation and deliberation. See State v. Childress , 367 N.C. 693, 695, 766 S.E.2d 328, 330 (2014) ("[The Supreme Court of North Carolina] has additionally considered whether a defendant arrived at the scene of the crime with a weapon and whether a defendant fired multiple shots."). Defendant's attempt to hide his gun and the victim's gun also constitutes substantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation. See State v. Chapman ,...