{ "id": 8471887, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DANNY LYNN SNIDER", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Snider", "decision_date": "2005-03-01", "docket_number": "No. COA04-248", "first_page": "701", "last_page": "707", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "168 N.C. App. 701" } ], "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": "539 U.S. 985", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 8940409, 8940346, 8940372, 8940287 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/539/0985-04", "/us/539/0985-02", "/us/539/0985-03", "/us/539/0985-01" ] }, { "cite": "582 S.E.2d 593", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "607" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "357 N.C. 257", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 491439 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "278" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/357/0257-01" ] }, { "cite": "508 S.E.2d 496", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "516", "parenthetical": "citing Hennis, 323 N.C. at 283, 372 S.E.2d at 526" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "349 N.C. 382", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 571580 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "414", "parenthetical": "citing Hennis, 323 N.C. at 283, 372 S.E.2d at 526" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/349/0382-01" ] }, { "cite": "372 S.E.2d 523", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "527" }, { "page": "526" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "323 N.C. 279", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2562603 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "285" }, { "page": "283" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/323/0279-01" ] }, { "cite": "512 S.E.2d 414", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "421", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279, 285, 372 S.E.2d 523, 527 (1988)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 247", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 131954 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "258", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279, 285, 372 S.E.2d 523, 527 (1988)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0247-01" ] }, { "cite": "473 S.E.2d 291", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "306", "parenthetical": "citing Alston, 341 N.C. at 239, 461 S.E.2d at 709" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "343 N.C. 667", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 798937 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "692-93", "parenthetical": "citing Alston, 341 N.C. at 239, 461 S.E.2d at 709" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/343/0667-01" ] }, { "cite": "461 S.E.2d 687", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "709" }, { "page": "709" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "341 N.C. 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 793223 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "239" }, { "page": "239" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/341/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "322 S.E.2d 110", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "122" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 92", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4759870 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "111" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0092-01" ] }, { "cite": "558 S.E.2d 97", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "106", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Huffstetler, 312 N.C. 92, 111, 322 S.E.2d 110, 122 (1984)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 N.C. 117", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 219899 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "131", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Huffstetler, 312 N.C. 92, 111, 322 S.E.2d 110, 122 (1984)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/355/0117-01" ] }, { "cite": "340 S.E.2d 673", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "693" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 N.C. 398", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4720550 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "431" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/315/0398-01" ] }, { "cite": "447 S.E.2d 748", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "759", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Gladden, 315 N.C. 398, 431, 340 S.E.2d 673, 693 (1986)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "337 N.C. 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2551126 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "489", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Gladden, 315 N.C. 398, 431, 340 S.E.2d 673, 693 (1986)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/337/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "588 S.E.2d 55", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "161 N.C. App. 183", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8956397 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/161/0183-01" ] }, { "cite": "407 S.E.2d 158", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "329 N.C. 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2555500 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/329/0534-01" ] }, { "cite": "449 S.E.2d 694", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "338 N.C. 168", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2519058 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/338/0168-01" ] }, { "cite": "456 S.E.2d 299", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "340 N.C. 229", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 790156 ], "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/340/0229-01" ] }, { "cite": "539 S.E.2d 922", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 234", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135796 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0234-01" ] }, { "cite": "357 S.E.2d 641", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "653" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "320 N.C. 276", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4725713 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "295" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/320/0276-01" ] }, { "cite": "506 S.E.2d 455", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "472", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "349 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 571614 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "33", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/349/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-17", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "465 S.E.2d 77", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "82" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "121 N.C. App. 273", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11916692 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "281" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/121/0273-01" ] }, { "cite": "557 S.E.2d 638", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "642", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Rogers, 121 N.C. App. 273, 281, 465 S.E.2d 77, 82 (1996)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "148 N.C. App. 141", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9364200 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "146", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Rogers, 121 N.C. App. 273, 281, 465 S.E.2d 77, 82 (1996)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/148/0141-01" ] }, { "cite": "373 S.E.2d 426", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "428" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "323 N.C. 455", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2560540 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "458" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/323/0455-01" ] }, { "cite": "475 S.E.2d 202", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "215", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Rose, 323 N.C. 455, 458, 373 S.E.2d 426, 428 (1988)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "344 N.C. 242", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 867711 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "273", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Rose, 323 N.C. 455, 458, 373 S.E.2d 426, 428 (1988)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/344/0242-01" ] }, { "cite": "528 S.E.2d 326", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "341", "parenthetical": "upholding short-form indictment for murder" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "351 N.C. 481", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1155877 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "504-05", "parenthetical": "upholding short-form indictment for murder" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/351/0481-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 L. Ed. 2d 702", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 801, "char_count": 14738, "ocr_confidence": 0.762, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.548122755204445e-08, "percentile": 0.34934179560275525 }, "sha256": "5ed58026cf1f597b5e9c59ed4ec89fd8cbfa595f4896191a99a2736a458f618e", "simhash": "1:8d7b762a36e54454", "word_count": 2373 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:36:09.557360+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges TYSON and GEER concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DANNY LYNN SNIDER" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "TIMMONS-GOODSON, Judge.\nDanny Lynn Snider (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals his conviction of first-degree murder. For the reasons stated herein, we find no error in the trial.\nThe facts of this case are summarized as follows: On 7 July 2001, defendant attended a cook-out with his girlfriend, Lisa Cersosimo (\u201cCersosimo\u201d), and their son, William. At the cook-out, defendant socialized with his neighbor, Steve Seagle (\u201cSeagle\u201d). As defendant, Cersosimo and William left the event, Seagle requested a ride home. Defendant and Cersosimo agreed to take Seagle home. Seagle rode in the back seat of the car with William and Seagle\u2019s twin nephews, Roger and Dale, who were invited to spend the night with William.\nDuring the drive home, Seagle pressed his fingernails into William\u2019s knee and called William a \u201cp*ssy.\u201d When the group arrived at the house shared by defendant and Cersosimo, Seagle pulled one of the twins from the car by his arm and threw him to the ground. As a result of Seagle\u2019s actions, defendant argued with Seagle and a physical fight ensued whereby both men sustained knife wounds. Cersosimo and the children went into the house, and Cersosimo called the police. A short while later, defendant came into the house, retrieved a rifle from the bedroom closet, returned outside and shot Seagle in the chest. Seagle died as a result of a single gunshot wound.\nDefendant was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. He was tried before a jury, which convicted him of the charge. The trial court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment without parole. It is from this conviction that defendant appeals.\nAs an initial matter, we note that defendant\u2019s brief contains arguments supporting only four of the original seventeen assignments of error on appeal. The omitted assignments of error are deemed abandoned pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2004). We therefore limit our review to the assignments of error addressed in defendant\u2019s brief.\nThe issues presented on appeal are whether (I) the trial court erred by denying defendant\u2019s requested jury instruction; (II) the trial court erred by overruling defendant\u2019s objection to the State\u2019s closing argument; (III) the trial court erred by admitting Seagle\u2019s autopsy photographs into evidence; and (IV) the short-form first-degree murder indictment was constitutionally defective.\nDefendant first argues that the trial court erred by denying defendant\u2019s request to instruct the jury on the felled victim theory of premeditation and deliberation. We disagree.\nDuring the charge conference, defendant requested that the trial court include the phrase \u201cinfliction of lethal blows after Steve Seagle was felled\u201d in its jury instruction on the circumstances from which premeditation and deliberation could be inferred. The trial court refused to provide the requested instruction and instructed the jury in pertinent part as follows:\nNeither premeditation nor deliberation is usually susceptible to direct proof. They may be proved by circumstances from which they may be inferred, such as the lack of provocation by Steve Seagle, conduct of the defendant before, during, and after the killing, threats and declarations of the defendant, use of grossly excessive force, brutal or vicious nature \u2014 brutal or vicious circumstances of the killing, manner in which or means by which the killing was done, and ill will between the parties.\n\u201cThe trial court is required to instruct the jury on all substantial features of a case.\u201d State v. Elliott, 344 N.C. 242, 273, 475 S.E.2d 202, 215 (1996) (citing State v. Rose, 323 N.C. 455, 458, 373 S.E.2d 426, 428 (1988)). The trial court should honor a defendant\u2019s request for a jury instruction only if the instruction is supported by the evidence and is a correct statement of the law. See State v. Sams, 148 N.C. App. 141, 146, 557 S.E.2d 638, 642 (2001) (citing State v. Rogers, 121 N.C. App. 273, 281, 465 S.E.2d 77, 82 (1996)).\nTo prove first-degree murder, the State must provide evidence of a \u201cwillful, deliberate, and premeditated killing.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-17 (2003).\n[Premeditation means that the act was thought out beforehand for some length of time, however short, but no particular amount of time is necessary for the mental process of premeditation. Deliberation means an intent to kill, 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.\nState v. Davis, 349 N.C. 1, 33, 506 S.E.2d 455, 472 (1998) (citations omitted).\n\u201c[T]he premise of the \u2018felled victim\u2019 theory of premeditation and deliberation is that when numerous wounds are inflicted, the defendant has the opportunity to premeditate and deliberate from one shot to the next.\u201d State v. Austin, 320 N.C. 276, 295, 357 S.E.2d 641, 653 (1987). The felled victim theory is typically advanced by the State in first-degree murder cases where the defendant is accused of inflicting multiple lethal wounds on the victim. See State v. Leazer, 353 N.C. 234, 539 S.E.2d 922 (2000); State v. Truesdale, 340 N.C. 229, 456 S.E.2d 299 (1995); State v. Watson, 338 N.C. 168, 449 S.E.2d 694 (1994); State v. Brogden, 329 N.C. 534, 407 S.E.2d 158 (1991); State v. Austin, 320 N.C. 276, 357 S.E.2d 641 (1987); State v. Sims, 161 N.C. App. 183, 588 S.E.2d 55 (2003). In such cases, the State argues that premeditation and deliberation may be inferred by \u201c \u2018the dealing of lethal\u2019blows after the deceased has been felled and rendered helpless,\u2019 \u201d and \u201c \u2018the nature and number of the victim\u2019s wounds.\u2019 \u201d State v. Keel, 337 N.C. 469, 489, 447 S.E.2d 748, 759 (1994) (quoting State v. Gladden, 315 N.C. 398, 431, 340 S.E.2d 673, 693 (1986)).\nIn the present case, defendant argues that \u201cif the presence of [multiple lethal wounds] evidences premeditation and deliberation, then the absence of such [wounds] negates premeditation and deliberation.\u201d We conclude that the absence of multiple lethal wounds does not negate the elements of premeditation and deliberation in this case because the State established the elements of premeditation and deliberation by evidence other than the number of shots fired. 'The State presented evidence that defendant walked away from the argument with Seagle, entered the house, retrieved the firearm from a bedroom closet, exited the house, and shot Seagle. This evidence tends to show that defendant formed the intent to shoot Seagle at some point between the time he left the argument and the time of the actual shooting. Because the evidence tends to show that defendant\u2019s actions were deliberate and premeditated, we conclude that the trial court did not err by denying defendant\u2019s request to have the jury consider the lack of lethal blows after the killing as a factor in assessing premeditation and deliberation.\nDefendant also argues that the trial court erred by overruling defendant\u2019s objection to the State\u2019s closing argument. We disagree.\nWhere a defendant timely objects to a prosecutor\u2019s closing argument, this Court must determine \u201cwhether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to sustain the objection.\u201d State v. Jones, 355 N.C. 117, 131, 558 S.E.2d 97, 106 (2002) (citing State v. Huffstetler, 312 N.C. 92, 111, 322 S.E.2d 110, 122 (1984)). A prosecutor\u2019s argument is proper where it is consistent with the record and does'not espouse conjecture or personal opinion. Counsel may argue to the jury the law, the facts in evidence, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. State v. Alston, 341 N.C. 198, 239, 461 S.E.2d 687, 709 (1995). \u201cWhen determining whether the prosecutor\u2019s remarks are grossly improper, the remarks must be viewed in context and in light of the overall factual circumstances to which they refer.\u201d State v. Womble, 343 N.C. 667, 692-93, 473 S.E.2d 291, 306 (1996) (citing Alston, 341 N.C. at 239, 461 S.E.2d at 709).\nIn the present case, defense counsel made the following pertinent remarks in his closing argument:\nSometimes silence speaks volumes. And I would contend to you in this case that\u2019s very true.... The State never called these twins [Roger and Dale] to the witness stand to say that what these folks claimed didn\u2019t happen.\nI contend to you that the absence of evidence is very important here. And the absence of the twins is important.\nThe State, in its closing argument, rebutted defense counsel\u2019s remarks as follows:\nAnd then, finally, Mr. Shuford said, Now, silence is important. And the fact that they didn\u2019t bring the two twins in here, you should take account of that, and you can if you want to, but don\u2019t forget . . . there was nothing to prevent him from subpoenaing the parents to bring those kids in here and have a chance to see a four-year-old kid testify in front of a jury.\nIt is to the aforementioned statements that defendant objected.\nWe conclude that the State\u2019s closing argument is consistent with the record and does not espouse conjecture or personal opinion. The State\u2019s remarks are appropriate to rebut defense counsel\u2019s remarks about the fact that the State did not call Roger and Dale as witnesses. Furthermore, the State\u2019s argument addresses a reasonable inference from defendant\u2019s strategy, i.e., defendant\u2019s failure to present additional witnesses to testify about the events leading up to the shooting. Thus, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling defendant\u2019s objection.\nDefendant also argues that the trial court erred by admitting autopsy photographs of Seagle into evidence. Defendant asserts that the inflammatory nature of the photographs outweighs their probative value. We disagree.\nRelevant evidence \u201cmay be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 403 (2003). The decision to admit photographic evidence \u201clies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court\u2019s ruling should not be overturned on appeal unless the ruling [is] manifestly unsupported by reason or [] so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.\u201d State v. Goode, 350 N.C. 247, 258, 512 S.E.2d 414, 421 (1999) (citing State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279, 285, 372 S.E.2d 523, 527 (1988)). Our appellate courts continue to recognize \u201cthe long-standing rule that photographs of a murder victim, though gory or gruesome, may be introduced for illustrative purposes so long as they are not used in an excessive or repetitious manner aimed exclusively at arousing the passions of the jury.\u201d State v. Call, 349 N.C. 382, 414, 508 S.E.2d 496, 516 (1998) (citing Hennis, 323 N.C. at 283, 372 S.E.2d at 526).\nIn the instant case, the trial court admitted three autopsy photographs into evidence to illustrate the testimony of Dr. Patrick Lantz, Forsyth County Medical Examiner. In the first photograph, Seagle\u2019s left arm is raised to reveal two lacerations on the left side of Seagle\u2019s torso and a laceration on his chest. The second photograph shows a surgical incision on the right side of Seagle\u2019s torso. The third photograph shows the same surgical incision on the right side of Seagle\u2019s torso and a second surgical incision on Seagle\u2019s right shoulder. Dr. Lantz testified that Seagle suffered a knife wound on his right shoulder, a knife wound on the left side of his torso, and a gunshot wound to his chest, the latter of which was the cause of Seagle\u2019s death. The trial court allowed the State to publish two autopsy photographs to the jury by projecting them onto a screen in the courtroom, noting \u201cwith these small photographs, it certainly would be helpful to enlarge [them].\u201d\nWe hold that the trial court\u2019s ruling admitting the enlarged photographs that were projected onto a screen was proper for the purpose of illustrating the extent of Seagle\u2019s wounds. Thus, the probative value of the photographs outweighs any potential unfair prejudice due to the nature of the photographs. The photographs were not used in a repetitive manner and it was not excessive to project them onto a screen for the purpose of making them more easily viewed. We con-elude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the enlarged photographs that were projected onto a screen.\nDefendant also argues that the short-form first-degree murder indictment was constitutionally defective. We disagree.\nOur Supreme Court has consistently held that short-form murder indictments are constitutionally sound. State v. Hunt, 357 N.C. 257, 278, 582 S.E.2d 593, 607, cert. denied, 539 U.S. 985, 156 L. Ed. 2d 702, petition denied, 539 U.S. 985, 156 L. Ed. 2d 702 (2003); see also State v. Wallace, 351 N.C. 481, 504-05, 528 S.E.2d 326, 341 (2000) (upholding short-form indictment for murder). Accordingly, we overrule this assignment of error as it is without merit.\nNO ERROR.\nJudges TYSON and GEER concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "TIMMONS-GOODSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Ralf F. Haskell, for the State.", "Nora Henry Hargrove, attorney for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DANNY LYNN SNIDER\nNo. COA04-248\n(Filed 1 March 2005)\n1. Homicide\u2014 premeditation and deliberation \u2014 felled victim theory \u2014 absence of multiple lethal wounds\nThe trial court did not err by denying defendant\u2019s request to have the jury consider the lack of lethal blows after the killing as a factor in assessing premeditation and deliberation. Although defendant argues that the absence of multiple lethal wounds negates premeditation and deliberation if the presence of such wounds shows premeditation and deliberation (the felled victim theory), the State established premeditation and deliberation by other evidence.\n2. Criminal Law\u2014 closing arguments \u2014 failure to call witnesses\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling defendant\u2019s objection to the State\u2019s closing argument where defendant had commented on the State\u2019s failure to call two witnesses and the State\u2019s argument that defendant could have called the four-year-old witnesses was appropriate to rebut defense counsel\u2019s remarks.\n3. Evidence\u2014 autopsy photographs \u2014 projected onto screen\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in a murder prosecution by admitting autopsy photographs projected onto a screen to illustrate the medical examiner\u2019s testimony. The photographs were not used in a repetitive manner and it was not excessive to project them onto a screen so that they could be viewed more easily.\n4. Homicide\u2014 first-degree murder \u2014 short-form indictment\u2014 constitutional\nThe short-form first-degree murder indictment is constitutional.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 22 April 2003 by Judge Marcus L. Johnson in Lincoln County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 November 2004.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Ralf F. Haskell, for the State.\nNora Henry Hargrove, attorney for defendant." }, "file_name": "0701-01", "first_page_order": 731, "last_page_order": 737 }