State v. Steen
| Decision Date | 18 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 141A19,141A19 |
| Citation | 852 S.E.2d 14,376 N.C. 469 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Jeff David STEEN |
Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellee.
Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by Amanda S. Zimmer, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant.
The issues before us in this case arise from defendant's conviction for the first-degree murder of his grandfather on the basis of the felony-murder rule using the attempted murder of his mother with a deadly weapon as the predicate felony. After the conclusion of all of the evidence and the arguments of counsel, the trial court instructed the jury that it could find defendant guilty of the first-degree murder of his grandfather in the event that it found beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed his grandfather as part of a "continuous transaction" during which he also attempted to murder his mother using either his hands and arms or a garden hoe as a deadly weapon. On appeal, we have been asked to resolve the questions of whether an adult's hands and arms can ever qualify as a deadly weapon for purposes of the felony-murder provisions of N.C.G.S. § 14-17(a) () and whether the trial court's erroneous jury instruction that the jury could find that defendant attempted to murder his mother using a garden hoe as a deadly weapon prejudiced defendant's chances for a more favorable outcome at trial. See N.C.G.S. § 14-17(a) (2019). After careful consideration of the record in light of the applicable law, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, in part; reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision, in part; and remand this case to the Superior Court, Rowan County, for a new trial with respect to the issue of defendant's guilt of the murder of his grandfather.
On the evening of 5 November 2013, defendant repaired a ceiling fan at the home of his mother, Sandra Steen, and his grandfather, J.D. Furr. After working on the fan, defendant's mother handed defendant the bill for a loan that she had secured on his behalf; in response, defendant stated that he would "take care of it." Defendant had a history of borrowing money from his mother and grandfather, both of whom had recently told defendant that they would not lend him any more money. As of 5 November 2013, defendant owed his mother between $4,000 and $6,000, owed his grandfather approximately $500, and had a checking account balance of only $3.64.
As his mother went outside to retrieve certain items from her automobile, defendant, who had followed behind her, told her he was leaving to go to work. After defendant announced his intention to depart, defendant's mother walked to a storage shed behind the house, where she remained for approximately five to ten minutes. At trial, defendant's mother testified that she had no memory of hearing defendant enter his own vehicle or hearing the vehicle leave the premises. While she was in the shed, defendant's mother thought that she heard raised voices. As a result, defendant's mother left the shed for the purpose of checking on her father.
As defendant's mother walked toward the house, she felt someone grab her around her neck with his or her right arm. During her trial testimony, defendant's mother stated that the arm in question felt like defendant's arm and that she had initially assumed that defendant was playing a trick upon her. However, as the grip around her neck tightened, defendant's mother thought, "[n]o[, t]his is somebody trying to kill me." As defendant's mother fought back, "trying to punch or grab whatever [she] could," her attacker placed his or her left hand over her nose and mouth, at which point everything went black. The next thing that defendant's mother remembered, according to her trial testimony, was that someone was opening her eyelid as she lay on the ground and that she saw defendant's face. At that point, defendant's mother believed that defendant was there for the purpose of helping her.
A number of neighbors testified that they did not see any unfamiliar persons or vehicles in the area that night. After working an 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift, defendant returned to the family home on the following morning. Upon his arrival, defendant approached his mother, whom he realized had been attacked. As a result, defendant called for emergency assistance and laid on the ground with her until paramedics arrived.
At the time that defendant's mother was discovered on the ground, she was suffering from hypothermia
and extensive injuries. After being taken to the hospital, defendant's mother was diagnosed with a skull fracture, hemorrhaging of the brain, a mild traumatic brain injury, hypothermia, a cervical neck injury, a collapsed lung, multiple rib fractures, and facial trauma.
According to the paramedics who responded to defendant's call for emergency assistance, defendant's grandfather was dead at the time that they arrived. The paramedics found defendant's grandfather in a face down position near the back door, covered in blood and with a large pool of blood around his head. A garden hoe covered in defendant's grandfather's blood was recovered next to his body. According to the medical examiner, defendant's grandfather died as the result of blunt force injuries to his head and neck
that could have been inflicted using the garden hoe. Defendant's grandfather's wallet, which had blood on it, was found near his body and did not contain the money that was usually kept there. Nothing else appeared to be missing from the property.
Although defendant denied any involvement in the assault upon his mother and the murder of his grandfather both in statements that he made to investigating officers and during his trial testimony, the officers who responded to the scene noticed the presence of scratches upon defendant's arm. Initially, defendant claimed that his mother had scratched him as he lay on the ground beside her while they waited for the paramedics to arrive. As the investigation continued, however, defendant gave ten different explanations concerning the manner in which he had obtained the scratches that had been observed by the investigating officers. Among other things, defendant, at different times, attributed these scratches to his cat, to an injury that he had sustained at work, and to the performance of chores.
The DNA evidence developed from items found at the scene did not connect defendant to the crime. More specifically, the record reflects that defendant's DNA was not found on his grandfather's wallet, in scrapings taken from under his mother's fingernails, or on the garden hoe.
On the day following the assault and murder, while she was still hospitalized, heavily medicated, and just beginning to recover from her traumatic brain injury
, defendant's mother spoke with investigating officers. At that time, defendant's mother told the investigating officers that defendant had left the farm before she was attacked, that the perpetrator "couldn't be [defendant]" because he was taller than her assailant, and that she had been assaulted by someone wearing a ski mask. On the following day, defendant's mother told investigating officers that, "if you're thinking about [defendant as a suspect], then you're barking up the wrong tree," since she did not believe that defendant was capable of committing the assault that had occurred.
After talking with a traumatic brain injury
counselor, however, defendant's mother came to the conclusion that defendant had attacked her and testified at trial that that was In addition, defendant's mother told the jury that "[t]here was no [ski] mask" and that she "had been dreaming all kind of crazy dreams laying up there in ICU." Defendant's mother explained during her trial testimony that she had not initially wanted to believe that her son was capable of attacking her and that she had had difficulty remembering specific details about the assault as a result of the brain injury
that she had sustained.
On 9 December 2013, a Rowan County grand jury returned bills of indictment charging defendant with the first-degree murder of his grandfather, the attempted first-degree murder of his mother, and robbing his grandfather with a dangerous weapon. The charges against defendant came on for trial before the trial court and a jury at the 9 January 2017 criminal session of the Superior Court, Rowan County.
At the jury instruction conference, the State requested the trial court to instruct the jury concerning four separate theories on the basis of which defendant could be convicted of first-degree murder: (1) malice, premeditation, and deliberation; (2) felony-murder based upon the predicate felony of robbery with a dangerous weapon; (3) felony-murder based upon the predicate felony of the attempted first-degree murder of defendant's mother; and (4) lying in wait. In support of this request for the delivery of the third of these instructions, the State relied upon the "continuous transaction" doctrine, under which "the [predicate] felony, in this case, which would be attempted first-degree murder occurs before, during, or soon after the murder victim's death as long as that felony, which is the attempted first-degree murder of [defendant's mother], form[s] one continuous transaction" with the actual killing. In objecting to the delivery of the State's requested instructions, defendant's trial couns...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Allen
......App. at 316, 844 S.E.2d at 40. However, Court of Appeals precedent is not binding upon this court. See State v. Steen , 376 N.C. 469, 497, 852 S.E.2d 14, 33 (2020) (Earls, J., concurring in result in part and dissenting in part) ("The majority also cites a number of cases from the Court of Appeals; however, ‘precedents set by the Court of Appeals are not binding on this Court.’ " (quoting Mazza v. Med. Mut. ......
-
State v. Allen
...... Appeals case, Lane , for the proposition that. "courts can consider the cumulative effect of alleged. errors by counsel." Lane , 271 N.C. App at 316,. 844 S.E.2d at 40 However, Court of Appeals precedent is not. binding upon this court See State v Steen, 376 NC 469, 497,. 852 S.E.2d 14, 33 (2020) (Earls, J, concurring in result in. part and dissenting in part) ("The majority also cites a. number of cases from the Court of Appeals; however,. 'precedents set by the Court of Appeals are not binding. on this Court.'" ......
- State v. Sides
-
State v. Parker
...... State v. Rowe , 231 N.C. App. 462, 470, 752 S.E.2d 223, 228 (2013). ¶ 45 We therefore hold that Defendant has preserved both of his jury instruction arguments for appellate review and that harmless error review is appropriate. See 860 S.E.2d 33 State v. Steen , 376 N.C. 469, 487, 852 S.E.2d 14, 26 (2020) ("[W]e evaluate the prejudicial effect of the delivery of [an erroneous] instruction using our traditional harmless error standard, which requires the defendant to show a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a ......