From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Smith

North Carolina Court of Appeals
May 5, 2009
196 N.C. App. 791 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009)

Opinion

No. COA08-1164.

Filed May 5, 2009.

Caswell County No. 07 CRS 745.

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 28 February 2008 by Judge Stuart Albright in Caswell County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 April 2009.

Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Thomas Henry, for the State. D. Tucker Charns, for defendant-appellant.


Adrian Smith (also known as Adrian McLaughlin) ("defendant") appeals from judgment entered upon his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury. For the following reasons, we hold no error.

On 3 August 2007, Nicholas Gwynn ("Gwynn") was gathered with friends outside of an apartment complex in Yanceyville, "hanging out" and drinking. Defendant arrived at some point, and Gwynn approached him to discuss "a lot of rumors going around." The two knew each other well from having grown up together and having attended the same school. The conversation grew heated and the two men went to see Cecilia Willis ("Willis"), who was in her friend Tanya Beasley's ("Beasley") apartment on the ground floor of the nearby apartment building. The door to Beasley's apartment opened onto a breezeway. Both women came out into the breezeway upon hearing Gwynn's knock. Defendant and Gwynn continued to argue.

Gwynn warned defendant not to talk about him and threatened to beat him up if defendant misused Gwynn's name. Defendant then pulled out a gun. Gwynn took off his shirt in anticipation of a fight, but stated that he neither touched defendant, nor prevented him from leaving. Upon seeing the gun, Beasley returned inside her apartment.

Willis, however, grabbed for the gun. The gun went off. Defendant was holding the gun when it was fired. Defendant held the gun for a short time before Gwynn was shot. There was a lot of commotion going on around Gwynn and defendant at the time. Gwynn was shot in the upper part of his leg and he required medical attention for the wound. Defendant left the scene, disposed of the gun in a wooded area, and went to his father's house in Greensboro where he was arrested the next morning. Gwynn gave an oral statement to the police, which was transcribed, reviewed by Gwynn, and signed by him, stating that defendant pulled out a handgun and shot him in the leg.

Defendant was tried on one count of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury. At the close of the State's evidence and again at the close of all the evidence, defendant moved to dismiss the charge for insufficient evidence. The trial court denied the motions. The jury returned a guilty verdict. Defendant had no prior record. The trial court sentenced defendant in the presumptive range to a twenty-five to thirty-nine-month term of imprisonment. Defendant appeals.

Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss when the evidence failed to show defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense charged. He contends that the State failed to present substantial evidence that defendant intentionally shot the victim, because the evidence revealed the shooting was accidental and no direct evidence was presented that defendant fired a weapon. We disagree.

In reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss, this Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, giving the State all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. State v. Taylor, 337 N.C. 597, 604, 447 S.E.2d 360, 365 (1994), cert. denied, 533 S.E.2d 475 (1999). Any discrepancies or contradictions in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the State. Id. Substantial evidence must be presented as to each element of the offense charged, and as to the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime. State v. Scott, 356 N.C. 591, 595, 573 S.E.2d 866, 868 (2002) (citing State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 98, 261 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1980)). "`Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" State v. Jarrett, 137 N.C. App. 256, 262, 527 S.E.2d 693, 697 (quoting State v. Jacobs, 128 N.C. App. 559, 563, 495 S.E.2d 757, 760-61, disc. rev. denied, 348 N.C. 506, 510 S.E.2d 665 (1998)), disc. rev. denied, 352 N.C. 152, 544 S.E.2d 233 (2000). The reviewing court must consider both competent and incompetent evidence in making its determination. Scott, 356 N.C. at 596, 573 S.E.2d at 869 (citation omitted). Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. State v. Jenkins, 167 N.C. App. 696, 699, 606 S.E.2d 430, 432, aff'd, 359 N.C. 423, 611 S.E.2d 833 (2005) (per curiam). It is within the jury's province to resolve any discrepancies or inconsistencies in the evidence, and to weigh the credibility of the witnesses. State v. King, 343 N.C. 29, 36, 468 S.E.2d 232, 237 (1996) (citation omitted); State v. Hyatt, 355 N.C. 642, 666, 566 S.E.2d 61, 77 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1133, 154 L. Ed. 2d 823 (2003) (citations omitted).

"[T]he essential elements of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to inflict serious injury are (1) an assault; (2) with a deadly weapon; (3) inflicting serious injury; (4) not resulting in death." State v. Lawson, 173 N.C. App. 270, 279, 619 S.E.2d 410, 415-16 (2005), disc. rev. denied, 360 N.C. 293, 629 S.E.2d 276 (2006); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-32(b) (2005). "Where an alleged assault is unintentional and the perpetrator acted without wrongful purpose in the course of lawful conduct and without culpable negligence, a resultant injury will be excused as accidental." State v. Thompson, 118 N.C. App. 33, 36, 454 S.E.2d 271, 273, disc. review denied, 340 N.C. 262, 456 S.E.2d 837 (1995) (citing State v. Faust, 254 N.C. 101, 112, 118 S.E.2d 769, 776, cert. denied, 368 U.S. 851, 7 L. Ed. 2d 49 (1961)). "Culpable negligence is such gross negligence or carelessness as `imports a thoughtless disregard of the consequences' or a `heedless indifference to the rights and safety of others.'" Id. (quoting State v. Everhart, 291 N.C. 700, 702, 231 S.E.2d 604, 606 (1977)).

From the evidence presented, we conclude that the jury could reasonably infer and find as fact that defendant either intended to shoot the victim or that he acted with culpable negligence such that the shooting was not accidental. The evidence shows that defendant removed his pistol from his pocket and was holding it while having a heated argument with Gwynn. Gwynn testified that when the gun was fired, defendant was holding the gun. Further, evidence was presented that Gwynn signed a written statement after the incident indicating that defendant shot him. This evidence constitutes substantial evidence of defendant's intent to shoot the victim.

The evidence also supports a finding that defendant acted with culpable negligence such that the shooting was not accidental. Even if the jury believed defendant's evidence that he and Willis struggled with the gun when it went off, and that he did not intend to shoot the victim, the jury could still find that defendant acted with such carelessness as to reflect a "`thoughtless disregard of the consequences'" of his actions. See Thompson, 118 N.C. App. at 36, 454 S.E.2d at 273 (quoting State v. Everhart, 291 N.C. 700, 702, 231 S.E.2d 604, 606 (1977)). While such evidence presents inferences different from those raised by the State's evidence, any discrepancies or contradictions in the evidence are properly resolved by the jury, and the jury is entitled to assess and weigh the credibility of the witnesses. See King, 343 N.C. at 36, 468S.E.2d at 237; Hyatt, 355 N.C. at 666, 566 S.E.2d at 77. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we hold the State presented substantial evidence of defendant's intent and/or culpable negligence. Therefore, the trial court properly allowed the issue to go to the jury and did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss. We discern no error in the trial below.

No error.

Judges Robert C. HUNTER and STEELMAN concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).


Summaries of

State v. Smith

North Carolina Court of Appeals
May 5, 2009
196 N.C. App. 791 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009)
Case details for

State v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ADRIAN SMITH, a/k/a ADRIAN McLAUGHLIN

Court:North Carolina Court of Appeals

Date published: May 5, 2009

Citations

196 N.C. App. 791 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009)