State v. Sierra

• Decision Date: 04 March 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93A93,93A93
• Citation: 440 S.E.2d 791,335 N.C. 753
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Jaime Duarte SIERRA.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Page 791

440 S.E.2d 791

335 N.C. 753

STATE of North Carolina v. Jaime Duarte SIERRA.

No. 93A93.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 4, 1994.

Appeal as of right by defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(a) from a judgment imposing a sentence of life imprisonment upon his conviction of first-degree murder entered by Hudson, J., at the 5 October 1992 Criminal Session of Superior Court, Lee County. Heard in the Supreme Court 8 December 1993.

Michael F. Easley, Atty. Gen. by Steven F. Bryant, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for the State.

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, and Constance H. Everhart, Asst. Appellate Defender, Durham, for defendant-appellant.

MEYER, Justice.

On 29 June 1992, defendant, Jaime Duarte Sierra, was indicted for the first-degree murder of Refugio "Cuco" Maldonado. Defendant was tried noncapitally in the Superior Court, Lee County, in October 1992 and was found guilty of the first-degree murder of Refugio Maldonado. The trial court thereafter imposed the mandatory life sentence.

The evidence presented by the State at trial tended to show the following. The victim and his father were Mexican natives who had come to the United States seeking work in 1988. When the victim and his father first came to North Carolina, they stayed with the Saucedas, whom they had known in Mexico. However, the two families soon began quarreling over personal matters, and the Maldonados moved out of the Saucedas' home. Defendant was the father of two of Estella Sauceda's children and had lived with her for five years. Defendant had told the victim, whom he knew from work, that he would "back" the Saucedas in their argument with the Maldonados. Defendant and the victim had also had a personal argument over a lost driver's license manual.

On 9 April 1992, the victim and his father saw Estella Sauceda at a grocery store. The victim and his father were standing in the grocery store talking and laughing when Estella came up to them and said in Spanish, "this afternoon your joy will end."

Around 10:00 that evening, there was a knock on the door of the victim's mobile home. As the victim was unlocking the door, shots were fired through it. The victim's father, Gregorio, ducked behind a counter to avoid the gunfire. When the shooting stopped, Gregorio went to a neighbor and asked someone to call for help. Refugio had been struck by three bullets and showed no signs of life after the shooting. Emergency medical service ("EMS") personnel arrived in response to the call and immediately transported the victim to Central Carolina Hospital. The victim was found to be dead upon arrival at the hospital.

The evidence showed that shots had been fired from the front porch and front yard of the Maldonados' mobile home. Six brass casings from a .9-millimeter weapon were found on the porch; three plastic waddings from .20-gauge shotgun shells and three .20-gauge shotgun shells were found in the yard. No fingerprints, footprints, hair, or clothing fibers were found at the crime scene.

After leaving the crime scene, Detective Dawkins, who was in charge of the investigation, went to Central Carolina Hospital in Sanford to check on the victim. While at the hospital, a member of the hospital staff gave Dawkins a rubber glove that contained a partially flattened .9-millimeter brass-jacketed bullet.

Witness Seagroves reported seeing a black Blazer driving away from the crime scene a little after he heard shots being fired. Detectives had been told by Gregorio that he believed the Sauceda men were involved in the shooting. The detectives went to the Saucedas' home to investigate and learned from Carlos Sauceda that defendant owned a black Blazer. Police then went to defendant's home, where they spotted a black Blazer, which defendant said he owned. Witness Seagroves later identified defendant's Blazer as similar to the one he saw driving away from the crime scene.

Defendant, Estella Sauceda, defendant's brother, and Estella's three children were at the mobile home when police arrived that night. Estella gave the police permission to search her mobile home. The police found four to five pounds of marijuana, a Ruger .9-millimeter automatic pistol, a Beretta .380 semiautomatic handgun, and a Mossburg .20-gauge pump shotgun in the mobile home. Defendant admitted owning the .9-millimeter pistol.

It was determined that the .9-millimeter casings found on the porch and the bullet recovered from the hospital were fired from the .9-millimeter pistol seized from defendant's mobile home. The three .20-gauge shotgun shells found in the yard had been "worked through" the action of the .20-gauge shotgun recovered from defendant's mobile home. Although not able to identify the specific type of weapon that caused the victim's wounds, it was determined that victim's wounds were not from a shotgun.

One of defendant's cellmates, Mark Baldwin, testified that defendant told him that he had killed the victim because of an argument between Estella and the Maldonados at the grocery store earlier in the day. Defendant said that he, his brother, and his brother-in-law went to the Maldonados, knocked on the door, and began shooting when "the boy" came to the door.

Defendant took the stand on his own behalf and stated that he did not shoot the victim. Defendant said he had loaned the gun to his friend Antonio Sunega earlier that day and that Sunega had returned the gun that evening before the police had arrived. Defendant testified that he did not tell Baldwin that he had shot the victim and presented additional evidence that Baldwin was known to be a liar.

Estella testified that someone had come to their door the night of the murder after she and defendant had gone to sleep but before the police arrived. Estella also said that defendant had been asleep next to her since 8:00 p.m. on the night of the murder. Finally, Estella denied going to the Food Lion on the day of the murder and stated that she had not seen the Maldonados in quite some time.

Additional facts will be discussed as necessary for the proper disposition of issues raised by defendant.

At the end of the State's evidence, defendant moved to dismiss the charge of first-degree murder. This motion was renewed at the close of all evidence. Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that defendant killed Refugio Maldonado with specific intent, after premeditation and deliberation. In reviewing defendant's argument on this issue, we note that the standard of review under which we consider this issue has been well established.

The evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the State. State v Thomas, 296 N.C. 236, 250 S.E.2d 204 (1978). All contradictions in the evidence are to be resolved in the State's favor. State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 313 S.E.2d 585 (1984). All reasonable inferences based upon the evidence are to be indulged in. Id. ... [W]hile the State may base its case on circumstantial evidence requiring the jury to infer elements of the crime, that evidence must be real and substantial and not merely speculative. Substantial evidence is evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find the fact to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Pridgen, 313 N.C. 80, 326 S.E.2d 618 (1985); State v. Jones, 303 N.C. 500, 279 S.E.2d 835 (1981).

State v. Reese, 319 N.C. 110, 138-39, 353 S.E.2d 352, 368 (1987).

Before a trial court may submit a charge of first-degree murder to a jury, there must be substantial evidence of every essential element of the offense charged and that defendant was the perpetrator of the crime. State v. Franklin, 327 N.C. 162, 171, 393 S.E.2d 781, 787 (1990). The trial court need only satisfy itself that the evidence is sufficient to take the case to the jury; it need not be concerned with the weight of that evidence. Id.

We have reviewed the transcripts, record, and briefs in this case and conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence of the intent to kill to allow the jury to determine whether defendant was guilty of first-degree premeditated and deliberated murder.

To determine if a crime was done with premeditation and deliberation, there must be evidence that a defendant thought about the act for some length of time, however short, before the actual killing; no particular amount of time is necessary to illustrate that there was premeditation. State v. Myers, 299 N.C. 671, 677, 263 S.E.2d 768, 772 (1980). To determine if a defendant deliberated or intended to kill someone, we consider if the crime was "carried out in a cool state of blood, in furtherance of a fixed design for revenge or to accomplish an unlawful purpose and not under the influence of a violent passion, suddenly aroused by lawful or just cause or legal provocation." State v. Bullock, 326 N.C. 253, 257, 388 S.E.2d 81, 83 (1990). We have recognized that it is difficult to prove premeditation and deliberation and that these factors are usually proven by circumstantial evidence because they are mental processes that are not readily susceptible to proof by direct evidence. State v. Thomas, 332 N.C. 544, 556, 423 S.E.2d 75, 82 (1992). Recognizing this difficulty, this Court has set out circumstances that are illustrative of the existence of premeditation and deliberation. They include:

(1) absence of provocation on the part of deceased, (2) the statements and conduct of the defendant before and after the killing, (3) threats and declarations of the defendant before and during the occurrence giving rise to the death of the deceased, (4) ill will or previous difficulties between the parties, (5) the dealing of lethal blows after the deceased has been felled and rendered helpless, (6) evidence that the killing was done in a brutal manner, and (7) the nature and number of the victim's wounds.

State v. Olson, 330 N.C. 557, 565, 411 S.E.2d 592, 596 (1992). Four of the seven above circumstances were present in the...