{ "id": 8374973, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PERCELL WATKINS, JR., Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Watkins", "decision_date": "2007-02-06", "docket_number": "No. COA04-295-2", "first_page": "502", "last_page": "510", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "181 N.C. App. 502" } ], "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": "616 S.E.2d 496", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633572 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/616/0496-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 832", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3793573 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0832-01" ] }, { "cite": "610 S.E.2d 746", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2005, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "169 N.C. App. 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8471355 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/169/0518-01" ] }, { "cite": "616 S.E.2d 496", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633572 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "500" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/616/0496-01" ] }, { "cite": "301 S.E.2d 335", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "349" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 47", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4709664 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "69" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0047-01" ] }, { "cite": "422 S.E.2d 679", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "685", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Williams, 308 N.C. 47, 69, 301 S.E.2d 335, 349 (1983)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "332 N.C. 611", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2506996 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "622", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Williams, 308 N.C. 47, 69, 301 S.E.2d 335, 349 (1983)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/332/0611-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 S.E.2d 230", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1945, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "232", "parenthetical": "internal quotations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "225 N.C. 746", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8617981 ], "year": 1945, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "749", "parenthetical": "internal quotations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/225/0746-01" ] }, { "cite": "467 S.E.2d 233", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "234" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "342 N.C. 628", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 795913 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "630" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/342/0628-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 S.E.2d 114", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "117" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 95", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573434 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "99" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0095-01" ] }, { "cite": "265 S.E.2d 164", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "169" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559773 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "78-79" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "400 S.E.2d 57", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "61" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 N.C. 231", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2541929 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "236" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/328/0231-01" ] }, { "cite": "583 S.E.2d 661", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "669" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "159 N.C. App. 312", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8955754 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "323" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/159/0312-01" ] }, { "cite": "302 S.E.2d 164", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "171", "parenthetical": "\"We have consistently held that the State may not introduce evidence that a defendant exercised his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4707923 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "283", "parenthetical": "\"We have consistently held that the State may not introduce evidence that a defendant exercised his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 S.E.2d 790", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "793-94", "parenthetical": "discussing corroborative testimony" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "320 N.C. 718", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4724272 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "724", "parenthetical": "discussing corroborative testimony" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/320/0718-01" ] }, { "cite": "488 S.E.2d 769", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "779" }, { "page": "779" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "346 N.C. 365", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 139608 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "385" }, { "page": "385" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/346/0365-01" ] }, { "cite": "595 S.E.2d 124", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "135", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Bishop, 346 N.C. 365, 385, 488 S.E.2d 769, 779 (1997)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "358 N.C. 330", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2988021 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "346", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Bishop, 346 N.C. 365, 385, 488 S.E.2d 769, 779 (1997)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/358/0330-01" ] }, { "cite": "459 S.E.2d 718", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "728", "parenthetical": "\"A third party may give permission to search where the third party possesses common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "340 N.C. 573", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 790147 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "592", "parenthetical": "\"A third party may give permission to search where the third party possesses common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/340/0573-01" ] }, { "cite": "589 S.E.2d 374", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "377", "parenthetical": "\"One who shares a house or room or auto with another understands that the partner, may invite strangers[, and that his] privacy is not absolute, but contingent in large measure on the decisions of another. Decisions of either person define the extent of the privacy involved . . -.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "161 N.C. App. 615", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8959520 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "620" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/161/0615-01" ] }, { "cite": "530 S.E.2d 281", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "288" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 N.C. 37", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 684981 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "45" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/352/0037-01" ] }, { "cite": "300 S.E.2d 340", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "343" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 608", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565330 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "613" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0608-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 L. Ed. 2d 992", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "531 U.S. 1165", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9783616, 9783489, 9784512, 9784931, 9785068, 9784364, 9784782, 9784238, 9785236, 9783863, 9783992, 9784122, 9784638 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/531/1165-02", "/us/531/1165-01", "/us/531/1165-08", "/us/531/1165-11", "/us/531/1165-12", "/us/531/1165-07", "/us/531/1165-10", "/us/531/1165-06", "/us/531/1165-13", "/us/531/1165-03", "/us/531/1165-04", "/us/531/1165-05", "/us/531/1165-09" ] }, { "cite": "532 S.E.2d 496", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "501", "parenthetical": "internal quotations omitted" }, { "page": "502" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 N.C. 489", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 685022 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "498", "parenthetical": "internal quotations omitted" }, { "page": "498-99" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/352/0489-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 832", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3793573 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "839" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0832-01" ] }, { "cite": "610 S.E.2d 746", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "169 N.C. App. 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8471355 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/169/0518-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 909, "char_count": 19526, "ocr_confidence": 0.754, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3562193650597931e-07, "percentile": 0.6345715522410766 }, "sha256": "041ed2d020375e1fbce6c8988ace8a4547adf54f65666837147a3d5a52f49f95", "simhash": "1:838dcca04ebf4e73", "word_count": 3176 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:19:54.793724+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges WYNN and HUDSON concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PERCELL WATKINS, JR., Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ELMORE, Judge.\nThis appeal arises out of defendant\u2019s convictions of attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. The North Carolina Supreme Court has remanded this case for reconsideration in light of State v. Jones, 359 N.C. 832, 616 S.E.2d 496 (2005). This opinion supersedes our earlier opinion reported at State v. Watkins, 169 N.C. App. 518, 610 S.E.2d 746 (2005). Upon reconsideration, we find no error in defendant\u2019s trial.\nDefendant was indicted on 9 April 2002 for attempted murder and on 13 May 2003 for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. Following several days of trial, on 29 August 2003 a jury found defendant guilty of both crimes.\nI.\nThe events giving rise to these convictions occurred on 22 November 2001, which was Thanksgiving Day. Defendant was living in a house located on a large family farm in rural Caswell County. Other members of defendant\u2019s family lived in separate houses on the farm, including the victim, Walter Bigelow (Bigelow), who was defendant\u2019s uncle. On Thanksgiving morning, defendant, Bigelow, and two other friends met at Bigelow\u2019s house and began drinking gin, beer, and other liquor. After drinking for several hours, the men went to the home of a friend to see his new puppies. Defendant was bitten by the mother dog after he took off his shirt and attacked the dog.\nFollowing defendant and Bigelow\u2019s return to Bigelow\u2019s house, defendant wanted to continue drinking and entered the house against Bigelow\u2019s wishes. While he was inside, defendant stumbled into Bigelow\u2019s television and broke the screen. During the scuffle that followed, defendant pulled out a knife. Bigelow kicked the knife out of defendant\u2019s hand and threatened to call the police. Defendant then walked out into Bigelow\u2019s yard and eventually left in his truck after backing into Bigelow\u2019s fence.\nAt about 2:30 p.m. the same day, Bigelow and his brother, Huston Bigelow (Huston), were walking near their mother\u2019s house when Bigelow was struck in the shoulder by two gunshots. As he fell to the ground, he heard defendant yell, \u201cI got one of the SOBs.\u201d Huston testified that after additional shots were fired, he heard defendant yell, \u201cI got one now and I got one more to go.\u201d\nOfficer Clayton Myers of the Caswell County Sheriff\u2019s Department arrived shortly after the shooting and interviewed Donita Riley (Riley), defendant\u2019s girlfriend. Officer Myers testified that during their conversation, Riley said defendant had left his home earlier with a scoped rifle to go hunting. As part of his investigation, Officer Myers called in a bloodhound to search the area where the shots had likely been fired. The bloodhound led the officers to a piece of camouflage cloth hanging from a barbed wire fence. From there, the bloodhound followed a trail to defendant\u2019s house.\nDuring the investigation, officers asked Riley, who lived in defendant\u2019s house, for permission to enter a shop building located near the house. Riley initially refused, but she gave officers a key to the shed after they told her they would get a warrant and tear down the door. At that time, Riley also signed a form stating that she consented to the search. Inside the building, officers found a vehicle that defendant was working on, along with a .22 rifle and bullets on the floorboard. In addition, when officers asked Riley for defendant\u2019s camouflage pants, she provided a pair with a missing swatch of cloth. Officers determined that the swatch of cloth recovered from the barbed wire fence perfectly matched the hole in defendant\u2019s pants.\nfl.\nIn his first assignment of error, defendant contends that the indictment for \u201cattempted murder\u201d is defective since it lacks allegations that defendant acted with the specific intent to kill, premeditation, or deliberation. In light of our Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Jones, which held that \u201cthe indictment in the instant case comports with both statutory and constitutional requirements,\u201d this assignment of error is without merit. 359 N.C. at 839, 616 S.E.2d at 500.\nIII.\nDefendant next argues that the search of the shop outside of his house was unconstitutional, and the evidence obtained therein should have been suppressed. Specifically, defendant argues that Riley did not have the apparent authority to authorize the search and did not provide valid consent for the search. When reviewing a trial court\u2019s ruling on a motion to suppress, the trial court\u2019s findings of fact \u201care conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting.\u201d State v. Brewington, 352 N.C. 489, 498, 532 S.E.2d 496, 501 (2000) (internal quotations omitted), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1165, 148 L. Ed. 2d 992 (2001); see also State v. Barnett, 307 N.C. 608, 613, 300 S.E.2d 340, 343 (1983).\nResolving any conflict within the evidence, the trial court found that Riley had been defendant\u2019s girlfriend for 13 years and had resided in defendant\u2019s home for the entire time. Further, the trial court found that the officers seeking permission had known for approximately three to four years of Riley\u2019s status as a resident of the home, and that officers had no reason to suspect she did not have control over the premises, including the shop that was determined to be located within the curtilage of the home. Notably, the trial court found that Riley\u2019s consent was voluntary and without hesitation. Despite some evidence to the contrary, we see no reason to determine that these findings were not supported by the evidence.\n\u201cOnce this Court concludes that the trial court\u2019s findings of fact are supported by the evidence, then this Court\u2019s next task \u2018is to determine whether the trial court\u2019s conclusion[s] of law [are] supported by the findings.\u2019 \u201d Brewington, 352 N.C. at 498-99, 532 S.E.2d at 502 (quoting State v. Hyde, 352 N.C. 37, 45, 530 S.E.2d 281, 288 (2000)). This Court has previously determined that officers may rely on the consent of third parties who have apparent. control over the area requested to be searched. See State v. Jones, 161 N.C. App. 615, 620, 589 S.E.2d 374, 377 (2003) (\u201cOne who shares a house or room or auto with another understands that the partner, may invite strangers[, and that his] privacy is not absolute, but contingent in large measure on the decisions of another. Decisions of either person define the extent of the privacy involved . . -.\u201d); see also State v. Garner, 340 N.C. 573, 592, 459 S.E.2d 718, 728 (1995) (\u201cA third party may give permission to search where the third party possesses common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected.\u201d) (internal quotations omitted). Based on its findings, the trial court did not err in determining that the search and subsequent seizure of property did not offend the Constitution.\nIV.\nDefendant\u2019s next three assignments of error all deal with the alleged erroneous admission of evidence. Since defendant did not object to any of these admissions, we review them for plain error. Under this standard of review, \u201ca defendant has the burden of showing: (i) that a different result probably would have been reached but for the error; or (ii) that the error was so fundamental as to result in a miscarriage of justice or denial of a fair trial.\u201d State v. Jones, 358 N.C. 330, 346, 595 S.E.2d 124, 135 (2004) (quoting State v. Bishop, 346 N.C. 365, 385, 488 S.E.2d 769, 779 (1997)).\nDefendant first contends that the trial court erred by admitting statements by Riley through the testimony of Officer Myers and Officer Eugene Riddick, another officer with the Caswell County Sheriffs Office investigating the shooting. The officers testified that Riley told them on 22 November 2001 that defendant came home to get a long gun with a scope, telling her that he was going hunting. Reporting from their notes, they further testified that she told them defendant was drunk, irate, bleeding from the face, and that he fell out the door. The officers also noted that Riley had told them that defendant and Bigelow did not get along and that defendant was becoming more uncontrollable.\nThe State argues that Riley\u2019s statements were corroborative of her earlier testimony where she described for the jury a substantially similar course of events. While we may be inclined to find that Riley\u2019s statements were corroborative of her earlier testimony, and thus admissible, we are convinced that the absence of these statements would not have changed the jury\u2019s verdict. See State v. Howard, 320 N.C. 718, 724, 360 S.E.2d 790, 793-94 (1987) (discussing corroborative testimony). The jury heard evidence of an earlier fight between defendant and Bigelow; positive voice identification of defendant as the shooter by two people who had known him his whole life; the fact that police had tracked defendant from the scene of the shooting and were able to connect the pants he was wearing to cloth found at the scene; and that defendant had a long rifle in his truck. Thus, this assignment of error is overruled.\nNext, defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting testimony that at various times he declined to make a statement to investigators. We disagree. At trial, Officer Myers testified about his interaction with defendant during defendant\u2019s arrest. He said that defendant had been drinking, was found hiding in a shower, and charged at an officer once he was discovered. The State then asked Officer Myers questions regarding defendant\u2019s demeanor following his arrest. It was while answering these questions that Officer Myers described instances in which defendant refused to make a statement.\nA defendant has the right to remain silent, and the State cannot use his exercise of that right as evidence that he is guilty. State v. Ladd, 308 N.C. 272, 283, 302 S.E.2d 164, 171 (1983) (\u201cWe have consistently held that the State may not introduce evidence that a defendant exercised his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.\u201d). Nonetheless, when reviewed for plain error, a witness\u2019s incidental testimony that a defendant exercised his right to silence may be a de minimis violation and not prejudicial. See State v. Bishop, 346 N.C. 365, 385, 488 S.E.2d 769, 779 (1997).\nUnder these circumstances, Officer Myers\u2019s testimony regarding defendant\u2019s exercise of his right to silence was incidental to Myers\u2019s testimony in its entirety. It is doubtful that the jury assigned heavy weight to defendant\u2019s exercise of his right to silence in light of the evidence against him. Accordingly, we find that no error occurred at trial.\nConcluding our plain error review, defendant states that the trial court erred by admitting Bigelow\u2019s testimony that it was defendant who shot him. We disagree. Rule 602 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence does provide that \u201ca witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that he has personal knowledge of the matter.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 602 (2003). Yet, the Rule\u2019s official commentary states that \u201c[p]ersonal knowledge is not an absolute but may consist of what the witness thinks he knows from personal perception.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 602 (2003); see also State v. Poag, 159 N.C. App. 312, 323, 583 S.E.2d 661, 669 (2003). Although Bigelow did not see defendant shoot him, his testimony was based on what he perceived as the shooting occurred. In particular, Bigelow testified that he heard defendant shout, \u201cI got one of the SOBs\u201d while he was falling. Bigelow, as defendant\u2019s uncle, was certain it was defendant\u2019s voice because he heard defendant\u2019s voice- \u201call the time.\u201d As confirmation of Bigelow\u2019s testimony, Huston, Bigelow\u2019s brother, testified that he also heard defendant\u2019s voice shortly after the shooting and that he had known defendant \u201csince the day he was bom.\u201d As a result, we conclude that Walter Bigelow had sufficient personal knowledge to identify defendant and that his opinion was rationally based on his perception of the shooting. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 701 (2003) (opinion testimony is \u201climited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.\u201d).\nVI.\nIn defendant\u2019s final two assignments of error, he asserts that the State presented insufficient evidence to (I) identify him as the shooter, and (2) establish premeditation and deliberation.\nWhen a defendant moves for dismissal, \u201cthe trial court [must] determine only whether there is substantial evidence of each essential element of the offense charged and of the defendant being the perpetrator of the offense.\u201d State v. Vause, 328 N.C. 231, 236, 400 S.E.2d 57, 61 (1991). Substantial evidence is that evidence which \u201c \u2018a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.\u2019 \u201d Id. (quoting State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 78-79, 265 S.E.2d 164, 169 (1980)). In determining whether the State\u2019s evidence is substantial, the trial court must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, and the State is entitled to every reasonable inference and intendment that can be drawn therefrom. Id. (citing State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 99, 261 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1980)).\nIn the light most favorable to the State, we conclude that there was ample evidence for the jury to determine that defendant was the one that shot Walter Bigelow. In particular, the evidence showed that defendant and Bigelow fought with each other before the shooting and that defendant pulled a knife on Bigelow. The State also showed that after the fight, defendant sat in his truck and pointed a gun toward Bigelow\u2019s house. Both Bigelow and Huston identified defendant\u2019s voice as the voice they heard when the shooting occurred. In addition, Riley testified that she saw defendant leave shortly after 2:00 p.m. in his track. Finally, when officers searched defendant\u2019s shop building, they found a .22 rifle and bullets. Based on this evidence, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nDefendant also argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish premeditation or deliberation. Our Supreme Court has stated that premeditation \u201cmeans that the act is thought out beforehand for some length of time, however short, but no particular amount of time is necessary for the mental process of premeditation.\u201d State v. Jones, 342 N.C. 628, 630, 467 S.E.2d 233, 234 (1996). The Court has also defined deliberation as \u201can intention to kill, executed by the defendant in a cool state of the blood, in furtherance of a fixed design to gratify a feeling of revenge, or to accomplish some unlawful purpose . .\" State v. Wise, 225 N.C. 746, 749, 36 S.E.2d 230, 232 (1945) (internal quotations omitted).\nTo determine whether evidence shows premeditation and deliberation, a court should consider the following factors: \u201c(1) lack of provocation by the deceased; (2) conduct and statements of the defendant before and after the killing; and (3) \u2018ill-will or previous difficulty between the parties.\u2019 \u201d State v. Hood, 332 N.C. 611, 622, 422 S.E.2d 679, 685 (1992) (quoting State v. Williams, 308 N.C. 47, 69, 301 S.E.2d 335, 349 (1983)).\nTaken in the light most favorable to the State, evidence at trial tended to show that defendant entered Bigelow\u2019s house without his permission, a fight resulted when defendant broke Bigelow\u2019s television, and defendant pulled a knife on Bigelow. Riley testified that ill will had developed between defendant and Bigelow. Defendant left his house with a gun in his truck and after shooting Bigelow in the shoulder yelled out, \u201cI got one now and I got one more to go.\u201d There is more than ample evidence that a jury could determine deliberation and premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, defendant\u2019s final assignment of error is overruled.\nV.\nFor the foregoing reasons, we conclude that there was no error regarding defendant\u2019s trial.\nNo error.\nJudges WYNN and HUDSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ELMORE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Philip A. Lehman, for the State.", "Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Daniel R. Pollitt, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PERCELL WATKINS, JR., Defendant\nNo. COA04-295-2\n(Filed 6 February 2007)\n1. Homicide\u2014 attempted murder \u2014 indictment\u2014sufficiency\nAn indictment for \u201cattempted murder\u201d without allegations of specific intent, premeditation, or deliberation was not defective.\n2. Search and Seizure\u2014 search of shop within curtilage \u2014 permission from woman living with defendant\nThe trial court did not err by concluding that a search of a shop outside of defendant\u2019s house was constitutional where the court\u2019s findings, supported by the evidence, were that the woman who gave permission for the search had lived with defendant for 13 years, officers seeking her permission had known of her status as a resident of the house for about three or four years and had no reason to suspect that she lacked control over the premises, and her consent was voluntary and without hesitation.\n3. Evidence\u2014 defendant\u2019s drunkenness and state of mind \u2014 no plain error\nThere was no plain error in an attempted murder and assault prosecution in admitting statements by the woman who lived with defendant concerning his drunkenness, state of mind, condition, and actions on the Thanksgiving Day on which the shooting occurred. Although the statements may have been admissible as corroborative of her earlier testimony, their absence would not have changed the jury\u2019s verdict.\n4. Constitutional Law\u2014 right to remain silent \u2014 exercise by defendant \u2014 officer\u2019s testimony \u2014 not plain error\nThere was no plain error in a prosecution for attempted murder and assault in the admission of testimony from the arresting officer about defendant\u2019s exercise of his right to remain silent. The testimony was incidental to the officer\u2019s overall testimony and it is doubtful that the jury assigned it heavy weight.\n5. Evidence\u2014 witness to shooting \u2014 defendant heard, not seen \u2014 testimony rationally related to perception of event\nThere was no error in allowing the victim of an assault and attempted murder to testify that he was shot by defendant, even though he did not see defendant shoot him. The victim, defendant\u2019s uncle, heard defendant\u2019s voice during the shooting and had sufficient personal knowledge to identify him.\n6. Homicide\u2014 attempted murder \u2014 defendant as perpetrator \u2014 evidence sufficient\nThere was sufficient evidence, in the light most favorable to the State, that defendant was the perpetrator of a shooting, and \u2022 the court did not err by denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss a charge of attempted murder.\n7. Homicide\u2014 attempted murder \u2014 premeditation and deliberation \u2014 evidence sufficient\nThe evidence was sufficient to establish premeditation and deliberation in a prosecution for attempted murder, taken in the light most favorable to the State.\nOn remand by order of the Supreme Court of North Carolina filed 3 November 2005 to reconsider the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, State v. Watkins, 169 N.C. App. 518, 610 S.E.2d 746 (2005), in light of the decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court in State v. Jones, 359 N.C. 832, 616 S.E.2d 496 (2005). Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 29 August 2003 by Judge W. Osmond Smith, III, in Caswell County Superior Court. Originally heard in the Court of Appeals 16 November 2004. Heard on remand 1 November 2006.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Philip A. Lehman, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Daniel R. Pollitt, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0502-01", "first_page_order": 534, "last_page_order": 542 }