{ "id": 11918111, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES EDWARD McCOY", "name_abbreviation": "State v. McCoy", "decision_date": "1996-05-21", "docket_number": "No. COA95-918", "first_page": "482", "last_page": "486", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "122 N.C. App. 482" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "19 ALR4th 861", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "449 S.E.2d 753", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "337 N.C. 804", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2550240, 2549860, 2550122, 2552337, 2551092 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/337/0804-04", "/nc/337/0804-01", "/nc/337/0804-02", "/nc/337/0804-05", "/nc/337/0804-03" ] }, { "cite": "336 S.E.2d 90", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "92" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "314 N.C. 633", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4686938 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "637" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/314/0633-01" ] }, { "cite": "444 S.E.2d 233", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "235" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 N.C. App. 25", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12121320 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "28" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/115/0025-01" ] }, { "cite": "417 S.E.2d 259", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "331 N.C. 289", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2500672, 2497028, 2502469, 2502161, 2501780 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/331/0289-03", "/nc/331/0289-05", "/nc/331/0289-01", "/nc/331/0289-02", "/nc/331/0289-04" ] }, { "cite": "413 S.E.2d 301", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "303-304" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "105 N.C. App. 402", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523492 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "405" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/105/0402-01" ] }, { "cite": "417 S.E.2d 489", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "493" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "331 N.C. 583", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2497387 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "589" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/331/0583-01" ] }, { "cite": "451 S.E.2d 131", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "137" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "338 N.C. 315", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2518881 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "328" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/338/0315-01" ] }, { "cite": "377 S.E.2d 54", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "65" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 146", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2486736 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "164" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0146-01" ] }, { "cite": "447 S.E.2d 727", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "736" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "337 N.C. 543", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2552812 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/337/0543-01" ] }, { "cite": "349 S.E.2d 317", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "319", "parenthetical": "involuntary manslaughter" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "83 N.C. App. 146", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8358185 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "148-149", "parenthetical": "involuntary manslaughter" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/83/0146-01" ] }, { "cite": "342 S.E.2d 904", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "voluntary manslaughter" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "316 N.C. 384", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4703105, 4694539, 4696367, 4704373, 4705269 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/316/0384-02", "/nc/316/0384-04", "/nc/316/0384-03", "/nc/316/0384-05", "/nc/316/0384-01" ] }, { "cite": "338 S.E.2d 122", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "124" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "78 N.C. App. 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522675 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "555" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/78/0551-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 576, "char_count": 9704, "ocr_confidence": 0.738, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.826332157719559e-07, "percentile": 0.8388012196850086 }, "sha256": "b188667f062468284936c4d1ee7210208546fa658db05a64d0356bd22ab7b4eb", "simhash": "1:8576f00176261df4", "word_count": 1563 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:52.508825+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges GREENE and JOHN concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES EDWARD McCOY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Mark D., Judge.\nDefendant Charles Edward McCoy appeals from conviction on one count of voluntary manslaughter.\nAt trial, the State\u2019s evidence tended to show the following: In the early morning hours of 22 June 1992, Arthur Springs (Springs), the deceased, allegedly assaulted Ginette McCoy (McCoy), defendant\u2019s sister. Later that same morning, after learning of the incident, defendant and a companion named Elbow drove to Springs\u2019 house. Defendant armed himself with a .45 caliber automatic handgun and armed Elbow with a .357 caliber handgun. Upon arrival at Springs\u2019 residence, defendant parked the car down the street; hid behind a bush; and instructed Elbow to \u201cgo to the door to get [Springs] outside.\u201d\nShortly after 2:45 a.m., Elbow knocked on the front door of the house. Springs opened the door and stepped onto the front porch. As Elbow was talking to Springs, defendant emerged from behind the bush. Defendant watched Elbow draw the .357 caliber handgun and fire three to four shots at Springs. Springs ran toward some bushes near the side of the house while Elbow continued to shoot in Springs\u2019 direction.\nDefendant saw Springs near the bushes and fired two shots into the bushes where Springs had fled. Defendant alleges he shot at the base of the bushes. Patricia McClelland (McClelland) testified defendant told her he shot at the bushes. After firing two additional shots into the air, defendant\u2019s gun jammed and he stopped shooting. Springs ran to the front of the house with his hands over his bloody chest. Springs looked at defendant and stated, \u201cCoon, why did you do this?\u201d Springs entered the front door of his house, collapsed on the floor, and died.\nDefendant and Elbow left the scene together and went to McClelland\u2019s house, where defendant said, \u201cwe killed the mother-f-.\u201d Later that same day, defendant disposed of both weapons by throwing them into a river in South Carolina.\nDefendant told investigating officers he did not know whether he or Elbow shot Springs but that Elbow fired from a closer range. Defendant also told the investigators his intention was to \u201ckick [Springs\u2019] ass\u201d and the guns were only for self-protection.\nAn autopsy disclosed two bullet wounds, one of which entered Springs\u2019 back, pierced a lung, and grazed his heart before exiting his chest cavity; the other entered through the rear flank area and passed through several internal organs before exiting through the abdominal wall. Dr. Robert Thompson, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy, testified Springs died from both gunshot wounds. Dr. Thompson further testified that the bullet which entered Springs\u2019 back was the immediate cause of death and was probably fired from a large caliber gun.\nPolice officers recovered four .45 shell casings from the edge of the street near Springs\u2019 house, four .45 caliber bullets from Springs\u2019 front yard, and one bullet from either a .357 magnum or .38 special from the front wall of the house.\nAt the close of the State\u2019s evidence, defendant made a motion to dismiss the case which the trial court denied. Defendant did not present any evidence. The trial court instructed the jury on the charges of second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter.\nAt the conclusion of trial, the jury found defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter and the trial court imposed an active sentence of seventeen years.\nOn appeal defendant contends the trial court erred by allowing the jury to find defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Specifically, defendant argues that voluntary manslaughter cannot be a lesser included offense of second degree murder when premised on the doctrine of acting in concert. We disagree.\nAt the outset we note defendant fails to cite any authority to support his proposition that the doctrine of acting in concert is inapplicable to voluntary manslaughter. In any event, it is well established the doctrine is applicable when the State presents \u201csufficient evidence that two or more persons acted together with a common plan to commit a crime,\u201d State v. Moxley, 78 N.C. App. 551, 555, 338 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1985), disc. review denied, 316 N.C. 384, 342 S.E.2d 904 (1986), and has been applied to voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter, see, e.g., id. (voluntary manslaughter), State v. Robinson, 83 N.C. App. 146, 148-149, 349 S.E.2d 317, 319 (1986) (involuntary manslaughter).\nDefendant\u2019s reliance on State v. Blankenship, 337 N.C. 543, 447 S.E.2d 727 (1994), is wholly misplaced. In Blankenship our Supreme Court concluded:\n[O]ne may not be criminally responsible under the theory of acting in concert for a crime like premeditated and deliberated murder, which requires a specific intent, unless he is shown to have the requisite specific intent.\nId. at 558, 447 S.E.2d at 736. Because the Blankenship rule does not apply to general intent crimes, and voluntary manslaughter is a general intent crime, State v. Clark, 324 N.C. 146, 164, 377 S.E.2d 54, 65 (1989), defendant\u2019s contention is meritless.\nDefendant next contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the charges of voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter because the evidence was insufficient to prove defendant fired the shot which killed Springs. We again disagree.\nIn ruling on a motion to dismiss, \u201cthe trial court must view all the evidence ... in the light most favorable to the State, giving the State the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn from it . . . .\u201d State v. Abraham, 338 N.C. 315, 328, 451 S.E.2d 131, 137 (1994). If there is substantial evidence of the essential elements of the offense charged, or of a lesser included offense, and of defendant being the perpetrator, \u201cthe trial court must deny the motion to dismiss . . . and submit [the charges] to the jury . . . .\u201d State v. McAvoy, 331 N.C. 583, 589, 417 S.E.2d 489, 493 (1992).\nVoluntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. State v. Mathis, 105 N.C. App. 402, 405, 413 S.E.2d 301, 303-304, disc. review denied, 331 N.C. 289, 417 S.E.2d 259 (1992). Involuntary manslaughter, on the other hand, is defined as the \u201c \u2018unintentional killing of a human being without malice, proximately caused by ... a culpably negligent act or omission.\u2019 \u201d State v. Lane, 115 N.C. App. 25, 28, 444 S.E.2d 233, 235 (quoting State v. McGill, 314 N.C. 633, 637, 336 S.E.2d 90, 92 (1985)), disc. review denied, 337 N.C. 804, 449 S.E.2d 753 (1994).\nIn the instant action, the State\u2019s evidence tended to show defendant and his accomplice drove to Springs\u2019 house armed with deadly weapons. Defendant supplied the weapons. Upon arrival at Springs\u2019 house, defendant parked his car down the street; hid from view; and instructed Elbow to lure Springs out of the house. After Springs exited the house, both defendant and Elbow fired on Springs as he attempted to dodge the gunfire by running into nearby bushes. Defendant intentionally fired his .45 caliber handgun into the bushes where Springs had fled. Defendant and Elbow left the scene together and proceeded to McClelland\u2019s house where defendant admitted the pair had killed Springs. A police technician later recovered four .45 shell casings from the edge of the street near the house and four .45 caliber bullets on the other side of the yard from the cartridge casings.\nTaken in the light most favorable to the State, substantial evidence was introduced from which the jury could reasonably infer that defendant and his accomplice were acting pursuant to a common plan or purpose or, alternatively, that defendant\u2019s solitary acts resulted in Springs\u2019 death. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nFinally, defendant\u2019s remaining assignment of error which he failed to bring forward or argue in his brief is deemed abandoned pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(5).\nNo error.\nJudges GREENE and JOHN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Mark D., Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Special Deputy Attorney General John R. Come and Associate Attorney General Bruce S. Ambrose, for the State.", "Richard H. Tomberlinfor defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES EDWARD McCOY\nNo. COA95-918\n(Filed 21 May 1996)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 361 (NCI4th)\u2014 manslaughter premised on acting in concert \u2014 lesser offense of second-degree murder\nThere was no merit to defendant\u2019s contention that voluntary manslaughter cannot be a lesser included offense of second-degree murder when premised on the doctrine of acting in concert.\nAm Jur 2d, Homicide \u00a7 216.\nPropriety of manslaughter conviction in prosecution for murder, absent proof of necessary elements of manslaughter. 19 ALR4th 861.\n2. Homicide \u00a7\u00a7 319, 329 (NCI4th)\u2014 voluntary manslaughter\u2014 involuntary manslaughter \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe evidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the charges of voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter where it tended to show that defendant and his accomplice drove to the victim\u2019s house armed with deadly weapons which defendant supplied; upon arrival at the house, defendant parked his car down the street, hid from view, and instructed the accomplice to lure the victim out of the house; when the victim exited the house both defendant and his accomplice fired on him as he attempted to dodge the gunfire by running into the bushes; defendant intentionally fired his weapon into the bushes; and defendant and his accomplice left the scene and went to another person\u2019s house where defendant admitted that they had killed the victim.\nAm Jur 2d, Homicide \u00a7 425.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 23 March 1995 by Judge Chase B. Saunders in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 April 1996.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Special Deputy Attorney General John R. Come and Associate Attorney General Bruce S. Ambrose, for the State.\nRichard H. Tomberlinfor defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0482-01", "first_page_order": 518, "last_page_order": 522 }