{ "id": 8352509, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THOMAS HENRY MYERS and JESSE WARREN COLEMAN, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Myers", "decision_date": "2005-11-15", "docket_number": "No. COA04-567", "first_page": "526", "last_page": "532", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "174 N.C. App. 526" } ], "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": "238 S.E.2d 784", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "785" }, { "page": "786" }, { "page": "786", "parenthetical": "internal citation and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.C. 585", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565738 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "586" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/293/0585-01" ] }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 299", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4683956 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0299-01" ] }, { "cite": "309 S.E.2d 464", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 7, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "466" }, { "page": "465-66" }, { "page": "465" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 N.C. App. 234", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523250 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "236" }, { "page": "234-35" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/65/0234-01" ] }, { "cite": "329 S.E.2d 406", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "313 N.C. 510", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4725644, 4719117, 4725619, 4720151, 4722815 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/313/0510-01", "/nc/313/0510-02", "/nc/313/0510-05", "/nc/313/0510-03", "/nc/313/0510-04" ] }, { "cite": "328 S.E.2d 11", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "15" }, { "page": "15-16" }, { "page": "15" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "74 N.C. App. 208", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523759 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "213" }, { "page": "212-15" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/74/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 S.E.2d 679", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "682" }, { "page": "681" }, { "page": "682" }, { "page": "682" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 379", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564082 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "383" }, { "page": "381" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0379-01" ] }, { "cite": "509 S.E.2d 178", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "191" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "349 N.C. 428", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 571533 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "447" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/349/0428-01" ] }, { "cite": "501 S.E.2d 334", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "343" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "348 N.C. 474", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1659843 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "488" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/348/0474-01" ] }, { "cite": "305 S.E.2d 718", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "720" }, { "page": "720", "parenthetical": "internal citation omitted" }, { "parenthetical": "internal citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "309 N.C. 176", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4760004 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "179" }, { "page": "179" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/309/0176-01" ] }, { "cite": "573 S.E.2d 866", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "868" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 591", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511364 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "595-96" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0591-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 769, "char_count": 15183, "ocr_confidence": 0.759, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.316128376802698e-07, "percentile": 0.9426578537976539 }, "sha256": "03fa31c6a7ac5c28b55a9ad676f09c26a3941e973cefb9901be96f59faf0f4cd", "simhash": "1:0241a43af17d457a", "word_count": 2646 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:19:44.302822+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges WYNN and STEELMAN concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THOMAS HENRY MYERS and JESSE WARREN COLEMAN, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HUDSON, Judge.\nDefendants were tried for second-degree murder on 10 November 2003. At the close of the State\u2019s evidence and again at the close of all the evidence, defendants moved to dismiss, which motions the court denied. On 20 November 2003, the jury returned a verdict of guilty against both defendants. Before entry of judgment, defendants again moved to dismiss and the court granted their motion. The State appeals. We affirm the trial court\u2019s dismissal.\nDefendants were tried for the murder of Tommy Lee Barrow. The State introduced evidence that Mary Ann Essell was delivering newspapers around 3:00 a.m. on 10 July 2001 when she noticed a man lying in the middle of Hopedale Road near the residence of May and Damon Herring. The man was propped up on one elbow and held up his hand. Ms. Essell thought the man was drunk and homeless. The man was black and was wearing long dark pants, a dark shirt, and an Army jacket. She did not see any blood. After looking around for police assistance, Ms. Essell left the scene to get help. She returned to the area fifteen to twenty minutes later, accompanied by her son, to look for the man, but he was gone. Ms. Essell and her son looked in the Herrings\u2019 yard and the surrounding area, but could not find him. Ms. Essell never identified Barrow as the man she saw in the road. She also testified that she saw an unidentified man in a white t-shirt riding a bicycle in the area.\nEvidence also showed that during the early morning of 10 July 2001, the Herrings heard a noise outside of their home that sounded like someone or something had hit their aluminum carport. Mr. Herring turned on the outside light and saw nothing. Around 6:00 a.m., he went out to get the newspaper and noticed nothing unusual. However, later in the morning when he went outside to do yard work, he saw a black male, later identified as Tommy Lee Barrow, lying on the ground near his carport. The man had on muddy socks, boxer shorts, and a white t-shirt covered in blood on the back. His sneakers and jean shorts were on the ground nearby, as was a wallet, some scattered change, keys, a crack pipe, and a bag. No jacket was found at the scene. Mrs. Herring called the police. A deputy from the Cumberland County Sheriff\u2019s Department arrived and found no vital signs.\nAn autopsy of the victim revealed a stab wound in the right back, from a blow which struck his right lung and damaged the liver. The victim died as a result of both internal and external bleeding. The stab wound would not have caused instantaneous death; the victim could have moved some distance for an unspecified period of time after being stabbed. North Carolina\u2019s Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. John Butts, opined that the injury was caused by a knife or knife-like object. The autopsy also revealed a cut on the left side of the victim\u2019s face, as well as some blunt force injuries with scraped skin adjacent to the nose.\nThe State\u2019s primary witness, Lisa Beeler, testified that on the afternoon of 9 July 2001, and the night of 10 July 2001, she was at the Lady Slipper trailer park, where she bought crack from defendant Coleman and got high with defendant Myers. She testified that Myers cut the crack into smaller pieces with a big knife that had brass knuckles. According to Beeler, the victim visited the trailer where Beeler was using crack several times that evening and left about 1:00 a.m. after speaking with defendant Coleman. She testified that she left the trailer park with both defendants around 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. to get more drugs. She claims that defendant Coleman told her that they were going to meet a man nearby and pick up more crack and that in the vicinity of Hopedale Road, Coleman told Myers, \u201cThere he is. There he is. Go over there and get the stuff, go talk to him.\u201d Ms. Beeler testified that she looked and saw a black man walking up the street, but she did not identify this man as the victim, as she said she could not see him well enough to tell who it was. She and Coleman waited by a bush near the corner where the Herrings live. Beeler testified that she heard loud arguing coming from the direction where Myers and the other man were located and that Coleman turned her around and told her not to look that way, saying \u201cYou don\u2019t want to see this.\u201d According to Beeler, while they were still waiting, a light came on in the Herrings\u2019 house and Coleman said he was going to go see what was taking so long. Beeler testified that after a minute or so, she heard a loud groan coming from a struggle and then silence. She began to leave when defendants ran up to her about five minutes later. When she asked what was going on, Coleman told her to shut up and be patient.\nBeeler testified that when she and defendants reached an intersection with a street light, Beeler saw that Myers had dirt and what appeared to be blood on him. Coleman told Myers he better remove the bloody clothes, to go home and shower. According to Beeler, Myers told Coleman, \u201cI got him good, didn\u2019t I cuz?\u201d, to which Coleman responded that Myers should shut his mouth and be quiet, that he needed to think. Beeler claims that as they walked, Myers was going through something that appeared to be like a wallet and that one of the defendants commented that there was no money in the wallet. When Beeler again asked what was going on, she says that Coleman told her, \u201cDon\u2019t you want to get high? Just keep your mouth shut, or you\u2019re in like Tommy.\u201d However, Beeler testified that she believed that Coleman was referring to Tommy Myers and how dirty he was from the struggle. Coleman and Beeler returned to a friend\u2019s trailer, and when Myers got there about twenty minutes later, he had showered and changed into clean clothes. Beeler had made prior inconsistent statements to the police, but when questioned about this at trial, she stated that after she learned of the victim\u2019s death and realized what had happened, that she came forward.\nOur review of a trial court\u2019s ruling on a motion to dismiss is the same regardless of whether the motion is made at the close of the State\u2019s evidence, at the close of all the evidence, after return of a verdict of guilty and before entry of judgment, or after discharge of the jury without a verdict and before the end of the session. State v. Scott, 356 N.C. 591, 595-96, 573 S.E.2d 866, 868 (2002). In reviewing the trial court\u2019s ruling, we must evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Molloy, 309 N.C. 176, 179, 305 S.E.2d 718, 720 (1983). All contradictions must be resolved in favor of the State. Id. The ultimate question is \u201cwhether a reasonable inference of the defendant\u2019s guilt may be drawn from the circumstances.\u201d State v. Lee, 348 N.C. 474, 488, 501 S.E.2d 334, 343 (1998). As long as the evidence supports a reasonable inference of defendant\u2019s guilt, it is up to the jury to decide whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Trull, 349 N.C. 428, 447, 509 S.E.2d 178, 191 (1998). This is true regardless of whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial. Id. However, if the evidence is \u201csufficient only to raise a suspicion or conjecture as to either the commission of the offense or the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator, the motion to dismiss must be allowed.\u201d Molloy, 309 N.C. at 179, 305 S.E.2d at 720 (internal citation omitted). \u201cThis is true even though the suspicion aroused by the evidence is strong.\u201d Id. (internal citation omitted).\nAs noted by other courts faced with this issue, the rules regarding a determination of sufficiency of the evidence are easier to state than to apply and require a case-by-case analysis. See, e.g., State v. Cutler, 271 N.C. 379, 383, 156 S.E.2d 679, 682 (1967); State v. Davis, 74 N.C. App. 208, 213, 328 S.E.2d 11, 15, disc. review denied, 313 N.C. 510, 329 S.E.2d 406 (1985); State v. Bell, 65 N.C. App. 234, 236, 309 S.E.2d 464, 466 (1983), aff'd, 311 N.C. 299, S.E.2d 72 (1984). After an exhaustive review of the record, we conclude that while the State\u2019s evidence raises a strong suspicion of defendants\u2019 guilt, it does not permit a reasonable inference that defendants were responsible for the death of the victim.\nOur conclusion is guided, in part, by several instructive cases. In State v. Cutler, the State offered evidence that on the same day as the murder, a truck similar to defendant\u2019s was seen at the victim\u2019s house and defendant was seen drunk and \u201cbloody as a hog\u201d with a large gash on his head about 500 yards from the victim\u2019s house. 271 N.C. at 381, 156 S.E.2d at 681. Defendant was also found in possession of a knife with both human blood and a hair \u201csimilar\u201d to the chest hair of the victim on it. Id. at 384, 156 S.E.2d at 682. Nevertheless, the Court held that the evidence was insufficient, noting that the State\u2019s evidence did not show any blood from the deceased on \u201cthe person, clothing, knife or vehicle\u201d of the defendant and that the testimony regarding the chest hair was inconclusive. Id. at 384, 156 S.E.2d at 682.\n[The evidence was] sufficient to raise a strong suspicion of the defendant's guilt but not sufficient to remove that issue from the realm of suspicion and conjecture. It may reasonably be inferred that the defendant was at the home of the deceased when the deceased came to his death, or shortly thereafter. However, it is not enough to defeat the motion for nonsuit that the evidence establishes that the defendant had an opportunity to commit the crime charged.\nId.\nIn State v. Bell, defendant was arrested near the scene of a murder near the time of the crime in clothes similar to those worn by a man spotted at the scene. 65 N.C. App. at 234-35, 309 S.E.2d at 465-66. He had blood on his clothing, and bloodstains consistent with defendant\u2019s blood type, but inconsistent with the victim\u2019s, were found inside the victim\u2019s apartment. Id. When arrested, defendant had keys which fit the victim\u2019s door and post office box. Id. Police recovered a ten-inch dagger near the scene of the arrest and a sheath which fit this knife was found in the victim\u2019s apartment. Id. In reversing the trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss, the Court held that this evidence was too \u201ctenuous\u201d and \u201cnebulous,\u201d concluding that at most, it established that defendant had the opportunity to kill the victim. Id. at 241, 309 S.E.2d at 465. The Court concluded that the evidence regarding the knife and sheath was \u201ctoo tenuous to be considered as substantial proof of anything\u201d because it required first inferring that the knife belonged to defendant because it was found near where he was apprehended, and then also inferring that the knife found belonged to the sheath found in the victim\u2019s apartment. Id.\nOther courts have also refused to permit \u201cdouble inferences.\u201d In State v. Chapman, the evidence tended to show that the victim was shot in the back by a shotgun and that defendant lived nearby and had recently been acquitted of robbery charges brought by the victim. 293 N.C. 585, 586, 238 S.E.2d 784, 785 (1977). Shortly after the shooting, police recovered a shotgun from defendant and the gun carried a strong odor of gun powder. Id. A spent shell recovered from an alleyway between defendant\u2019s home and where the victim was shot was found to have been fired from defendant\u2019s gun and was introduced into evidence at trial. Id. However, the Court held that while there was \u201cstrong evidence,\u201d it was \u201cnot adequate to support the double inference that: (1) the victim was shot with defendant\u2019s gun; and (2) defendant fired the shot.\u201d Id. at 587, 238 S.E.2d at 786. The Court opined:\nThe most the State has shown is that the victim could have been shot by a shell fired from defendant\u2019s gun. There is nothing, other than an inference which could arise from mere ownership of the gun, that would tend to prove that defendant actually fired the shot. Beyond that we must sail in a sea of conjecture and surmise. This we are not permitted to do. Even when the State\u2019s evidence is enough to raise a strong suspicion, if it is insufficient to remove the case from the realm of conjecture, non-suit must be allowed.\nId. at 587-88, 238 S.E.2d at 786 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). (See also Davis, 74 N.C. App. at 212-15, 328 S.E.2d at 15-16 (holding that evidence that the victim\u2019s keys were found in an area where the police had found defendant sleeping eight hours prior required impermissible \u201cbuilding of inferences\u201d to reach conclusion that defendant killed victim: that defendant dropped the keys and also that he obtained the keys from her home and killed her in the process).\nWe conclude that as in Cutler and Bell, the evidence here establishes at most that defendants'had the opportunity to commit the crime. Although the facts here raise a strong suspicion, as in Bell, Davis, and Chapman, the evidence requires a double inference to find defendants guilty. Taking the testimony in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence tends to establish that: defendants were in the vicinity of the Herring residence sometime in the early morning of 10 July 2001, that the victim\u2019s body was found in this vicinity several hours later, that defendants argued and struggled with an unidentified individual who groaned at one point during the struggle, and that defendant Myers appeared to have blood and dirt on his shirt after the struggle. We note that none of the State\u2019s witnesses identified the victim Barrow as the man involved in the struggle with defendants, or as the man Mary Ann Essell saw in the road near the Herring residence. Furthermore, there was testimony indicating that there were other unidentified males in the area around the same time the murder is alleged to have occurred. In order to find that defendants killed the victim, the jury must first infer that the unidentified individual with whom the defendants struggled was the dead man found later, and building upon that inference, that the struggle was what led to the victim\u2019s death. Since \u201c[e]very inference must stand upon some clear and direct evidence,\u201d and the latter inference does not, we conclude that the trial court correctly granted defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss. Davis at 212, 328 S.E.2d at 15.\nAffirmed.\nJudges WYNN and STEELMAN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HUDSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General William B. Grumpier, for the State.", "Daniel Shatz, for defendant-appellee Myers.", "Brian Michael Aus, for defendant-appellee Coleman." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THOMAS HENRY MYERS and JESSE WARREN COLEMAN, Defendants\nNo. COA04-567\n(Filed 15 November 2005)\nHomicide\u2014 second-degree murder \u2014 motion to dismiss \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe trial court did not err by granting defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the charge of second-degree murder after the return of a verdict of guilty but before entry of judgment because, while the State\u2019s evidence raises a strong suspicion of defendants\u2019 guilt, it does not permit a reasonable inference that defendants were responsible for the death of the victim.\nAppeal by the State from Order entered 20 November 2003 by Judge Robert F. Floyd, Jr., in Cumberland County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 February 2005.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General William B. Grumpier, for the State.\nDaniel Shatz, for defendant-appellee Myers.\nBrian Michael Aus, for defendant-appellee Coleman." }, "file_name": "0526-01", "first_page_order": 556, "last_page_order": 562 }