{ "id": 4220811, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHAWN ANTONIO HORSKINS, Dependant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Horskins", "decision_date": "2013-07-02", "docket_number": "No. COA12-1489", "first_page": "217", "last_page": "228", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "228 N.C. App. 217" } ], "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": "670 S.E.2d 566", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12642390, 12642391 ], "year": 2008, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/670/0566-01", "/se2d/670/0566-02" ] }, { "cite": "660 S.E.2d 123", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12640838 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "127" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/660/0123-01" ] }, { "cite": "661 S.E.2d 899", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12641229 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "902", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/661/0899-01" ] }, { "cite": "467 S.E.2d 906", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "342 N.C. 896", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 796000, 795975, 796076, 796028, 795997 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/342/0896-04", "/nc/342/0896-01", "/nc/342/0896-03", "/nc/342/0896-05", "/nc/342/0896-02" ] }, { "cite": "462 S.E.2d 655", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "656", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "656" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "120 N.C. App. 276", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11915392 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "277-78", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "277-78" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/120/0276-01" ] }, { "cite": "492 S.E.2d 354", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "347 N.C. 348", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 551150 ], "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/347/0348-01" ] }, { "cite": "482 S.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "5" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "125 N.C. App. 530", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11869217 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "536" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/125/0530-01" ] }, { "cite": "689 S.E.2d 859", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "865-66", "parenthetical": "citations and quotation marks omitted" }, { "page": "865-66" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "363 N.C. 815", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4151228 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "825", "parenthetical": "citations and quotation marks omitted" }, { "page": "825" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/363/0815-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 L.Ed. 2d 43", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "522 U.S. 825", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11489369, 11488674, 11489412, 11488711, 11489160, 11488843, 11488750, 11489262, 11488977, 11489309, 11488916, 11489111, 11489209, 11489053, 11488798 ], "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/522/0825-14", "/us/522/0825-01", "/us/522/0825-15", "/us/522/0825-02", "/us/522/0825-10", "/us/522/0825-05", "/us/522/0825-03", "/us/522/0825-12", "/us/522/0825-07", "/us/522/0825-13", "/us/522/0825-06", "/us/522/0825-09", "/us/522/0825-11", "/us/522/0825-08", "/us/522/0825-04" ] }, { "cite": "478 S.E.2d 146", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "157", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 N.C. 73", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 54177 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "95", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/345/0073-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 S.E. 308", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1925, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "312", "parenthetical": "citations and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "190 N.C. 506", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8608391 ], "year": 1925, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "511-12", "parenthetical": "citations and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/190/0506-01" ] }, { "cite": "467 S.E.2d 233", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "234", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "342 N.C. 628", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 795913 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "630", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/342/0628-01" ] }, { "cite": "467 S.E.2d 395", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "398" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "342 N.C. 875", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 795920 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "879" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/342/0875-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 N.C. 683", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 2008, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "190 N.C. App. 339", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4158652 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "345" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/190/0339-01" ] }, { "cite": "559 S.E.2d 787", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 N.C. 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 220116 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/355/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "548 S.E.2d 802", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 8, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "803" }, { "page": "804" }, { "page": "805-06" }, { "page": "805" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "144 N.C. App. 526", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11435500 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "527" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/144/0526-01" ] }, { "cite": "191 N.C. App. 86", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4159911 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "89", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/191/0086-01" ] }, { "cite": "410 S.E.2d 478", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "481" }, { "page": "481" }, { "page": "481" }, { "page": "481" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "330 N.C. 425", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2512574 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "428-29" }, { "page": "428" }, { "page": "428-29" }, { "page": "429" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/330/0425-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 L.Ed. 2d 49", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "107" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "368 U.S. 851", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6239458, 6239078, 6237688, 6238379, 6238738, 6238037, 6236789, 6237080 ], "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/368/0851-08", "/us/368/0851-07", "/us/368/0851-03", "/us/368/0851-05", "/us/368/0851-06", "/us/368/0851-04", "/us/368/0851-01", "/us/368/0851-02" ] }, { "cite": "118 S.E.2d 769", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "772" }, { "page": "773", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "773" }, { "page": "773" }, { "page": "773" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 101", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624570 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "107" }, { "page": "107" }, { "page": "107" }, { "page": "107" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/254/0101-01" ] }, { "cite": "204 S.E.2d 817", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "822", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 256", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563941 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "262", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0256-01" ] }, { "cite": "278 S.E.2d 221", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 10, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "223", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "224" }, { "page": "223-24" }, { "page": "295" }, { "page": "222" }, { "page": "298" }, { "page": "224" }, { "page": "295" }, { "page": "222" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "303 N.C. 293", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572874 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "297", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "298" }, { "page": "297-98" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/303/0293-01" ] }, { "cite": "161 S.E.2d 560", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "567", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "274 N.C. 62", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559380 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "71", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/274/0062-01" ] }, { "cite": "169 S.E.2d 858", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "861" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 537", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559179 ], "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "542" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0537-01" ] }, { "cite": "677 S.E.2d 444", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "449", "parenthetical": "citations and quotation marks omitted" }, { "page": "449" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "363 N.C. 322", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4151610 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "328", "parenthetical": "citations and quotation marks omitted" }, { "page": "328" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/363/0322-01" ] }, { "cite": "720 S.E.2d 684", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2012, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "715 S.E.2d 919", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2011, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "923" }, { "page": "923" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1062, "char_count": 25656, "ocr_confidence": 0.727, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08, "percentile": 0.37835352563025876 }, "sha256": "59ac0de56b6c43cec60c9b06042cd13b490a0319ba42a4bc4ba821bcb766afb5", "simhash": "1:1320543205ee4458", "word_count": 4260 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:18:27.138557+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges HUNTER, Robert C. and ERVIN concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHAWN ANTONIO HORSKINS, Dependant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "STROUD, Judge.\nShawn Antonio Horskins (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals from the judgment entered on 18 May 2012 after a jury found him guilty of first-degree murder. Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge of first-degree murder at the close of all the evidence because there was insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation. Defendant further argues the trial court erred in excluding testimony that defendant had been told Antoine Williams, the decedent, was a gang member. For the following reasons, we conclude that there was no prejudicial error at his trial.\nI. Background\nOn 19 January 2010, defendant was indicted for first-degree murder. Defendant pled not guilty on a theory of self-defense and proceeded to trial by jury in Superior Court, Pasquotank County.\nThe State\u2019s evidence at trial tended to show that Mr. Williams was killed in the parking lot of the Trios nightclub in Elizabeth City during the early morning hours of 1 January 2010. Defendant was an enlisted soldier in the United States Army stationed at Fort Lee, Virginia. Defendant met Everett \u201cBooty\u201d Bynum and Dominique Blunt while in training and associated with them while they were stationed at Fort Lee. On 30 December 2009, defendant, Mr. Bynum, and Mr. Blunt drove to Elizabeth City, Mr. Bynum\u2019s hometown.\nOn the evening of 31 December 2009, defendant and his friends were drinking and visiting local nightclubs. After leaving a club called \u201cthe Hut,\u201d Mr. Bynum drove defendant and Mr. Blunt to another nightclub called \u201cTrios.\u201d On the way to Trios, Mr. Bynum handed defendant, who was riding in the front passenger seat, a nine millimeter pistol, which defendant kept by his feet.\nMr. Williams was celebrating the New Year that night with his sister, Triquita Williams, and her then-boyfriend Zarius Bohler. Ms. Williams drove the three of them to Trios, but they decided not to go in. As they were leaving the Trios parking lot, around 1 a.m., the car being driven by Mr. Bynum pulled in, blocking their way. Mr. Bynum immediately got out of his car and began yelling for his brother. Ms. Williams, who knew Mr. Bynum, yelled at him to move his car. He ignored her and continued yelling for his brother. Defendant got out of the passenger seat as Mr. Bynum was yelling.\nAt that point, Mr. Williams got out of his sister\u2019s car, walked toward Mr. Bynum\u2019s car, and yelled something to the effect of \u201cYou-all got to go, we trying to go home ...\u201d In response, defendant drew his pistol and fired one shot, after which Mr. Williams fell to the ground. Defendant then shot Mr. Williams six more times before he, Mr. Bynum, and Mr. Blunt got back in their car and left the scene.\nAs they were leaving the scene, defendant said \u201cI think I just caught a body.\u201d Defendant, Mr. Bynum, and Mr. Blunt then went back to the house of Mr. Bynum\u2019s mother, retrieved their clothes, and started driving back to Fort Lee. They called a friend from Fort Lee to meet them in Petersburg, Virginia, to switch-vehicles. On the way from Petersburg to Fort Lee, defendant used Mr. Blunt\u2019s jacket to wipe off the gun and then asked Mr. Blunt to throw the gun out of the window, which he did when they passed over the James River Bridge, near Fort Lee.\nAfter the State rested its case-in-chief, defendant presented evidence to support his claim that he only shot Mr. Williams in self-defense. Defendant testified that when they got to Trios, Mr. Williams got out of his sister\u2019s car and said, \u201cWhat\u2019s cracking?\u201d to Mr. Bynum. In response, Mr. Bynum said, \u201cWhat\u2019s popping?\u201d Mr. Williams then said, \u201c[Y]our slop ass needs to move this car out the way.\u201d Defendant testified that he recognized this exchange as gang-related. Officer Ervin Rodriguez, the gang coordinator for the Elizabeth City Police Department, testified that these phrases identified the speakers as members of the \u201cCrips\u201d gang and \u201cBloods\u201d gang respectively and that a Crip calling a Blood \u201cslop\u201d was a grave insult.\nAfter this exchange, Mr. Bynum told Mr. Williams they had a handgun with them. Mr. Williams responded, \u201c[Y]ou not the only one with a forty\u201d and then made a motion that looked to defendant like reaching for a gun. Defendant testified that he only fired at Mr. Williams when he saw that motion. He also testified that he did not shoot Mr. Williams after he fell.\nAt the close of all evidence, defendant moved to dismiss the charge of first-degree murder. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The charge of first-degree murder was submitted to the jury along with the lesser-included offenses of second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as to first-degree murder. The trial court accordingly sentenced defendant to life imprisonment without parole. Defendant gave oral notice of appeal in open court.\nII. Sufficiency of the Evidence\nDefendant first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge of first-degree murder at the close of all evidence when there was insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation. We disagree.\nA. Standard of Review\nThe standard of review for a motion to dismiss is well known. A defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss should be denied if there is substantial evidence of: (1) each essential element of the offense charged, and (2) of defendant\u2019s being the perpetrator of the charged offense. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The Court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and the State is entitled to every reasonable inference to be drawn from that evidence. Contradictions and discrepancies do not warrant dismissal of the case but are for the jury to resolve.\nState v. Teague,_N.C. App._,_, 715 S.E.2d 919, 923 (2011), app. dismissed and disc. rev. denied,_N.C._, 720 S.E.2d 684 (2012). \u201cThe defendant\u2019s evidence, unless favorable to the State, is not to be taken into consideration, except when it is consistent with the State\u2019s evidence, the defendant\u2019s evidence may be used to explain or clarify that offered by the State.\u201d State v. Abshire, 363 N.C. 322, 328, 677 S.E.2d 444, 449 (2009) (citations and quotation marks omitted).\nB. Analysis\nHere, it is uncontested that defendant shot Mr. Williams. The only question is whether there was substantial evidence of \u201ceach essential element of the offense charged\u201d. Teague,_N.C. App. at_, 715 S.E.2d at 923.\n\u201cMurder in the first degree is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice and with premeditation and deliberation.\u201d State v. Robbins, 275 N.C. 537, 542, 169 S.E.2d 858, 861 (1969). The elements of murder have been well established by the courts of this state. If the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant unlawfully killed another with malice,\n[n]othing else appearing, the defendant would be guilty of murder in the second degree. ... The additional elements of premeditation and deliberation, necessary to constitute murder in the first degree, must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, and found by the jury, before the verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree can be returned; and the burden of so establishing these additional elements of premeditation and deliberation rests and remains on the State.\nState v. Propst, 274 N.C. 62, 71, 161 S.E.2d 560, 567 (1968) (citations omitted).\nPremeditation has been defined... as thought beforehand for some length of time, however short. No particular length of time is required; it is sufficient if the process of premeditation occurred at any point prior to the killing. An unlawful killing is committed with deliberation if it is done in a \u201ccool state of blood,\u201d without legal provocation, and in furtherance of a fixed design to gratify a feeling of revenge, or to accomplish some unlawful purpose. The intent to kill must arise from a fixed determination previously formed after weighing the matter.\nState v. Corn, 303 N.C. 293, 297, 278 S.E.2d 221, 223 (1981) (citations omitted).\n\u201cCool state of blood\u201d does not mean the absence of passion and emotion, but an unlawful killing is deliberate and premeditated if done pursuant to a fixed design to kill, notwithstanding that defendant was angry or in an emotional state at the time unless such anger or emotion was such as to disturb the faculties and reason.\nState v. Britt, 285 N.C. 256, 262, 204 S.E.2d 817, 822 (1974) (citations omitted).\nAs with other mental states,\npremeditation and deliberation are not usually susceptible of direct proof and are therefore, susceptible of proof by circumstances from which the facts sought to be proven may be inferred. That these essential elements of murder in the first degree may be proven by circumstantial evidence has been repeatedly held by this court.\nState v. Faust, 254 N.C. 101, 107, 118 S.E.2d 769, 772 (citations and quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 851, 7 L.Ed. 2d 49 (1961).\nOur Supreme Court has outlined several factors relevant to the determination of whether the defendant acted with premeditation and deliberation:\nAmong the circumstances to be considered in determining whether a killing was with premeditation and deliberation are: Want of provocation on the part of deceased. The conduct of defendant before and after the killing. Threats and declarations of defendant before and during the course of the occurrence giving rise to the death of deceased. The dealing of lethal blows after deceased has been felled and rendered helpless.\nId. at 107, 118 S.E.2d at 773 (citations omitted). Additional factors include \u201cthe nature and number of the victim\u2019s wounds,\u201d whether the defendant \u201cleft the deceased to die without attempting to obtain assistance for the deceased,\u201d whether he \u201cdisposed of the murder weapon,\u201d and whether the defendant later lied about what happened. State v. Hunt, 330 N.C. 425, 428-29, 410 S.E.2d 478, 481 (1991).\nHere, the State\u2019s evidence showed that Mr. Bynum pulled his car into the Trios parking lot, preventing Ms. Williams\u2019 car from leaving. Ms. Williams yelled at Mr. Bynum and defendant to move their car, but they ignored her. Mr. Williams then got out of the car and yelled at Mr. Bynum and defendant to move their car. According to Ms. Williams and her ex-boyfriend, all her brother said was something to the effect of \u201cYou-all got to go, we trying to go home ...\u201d before defendant shot him. Mr. Williams was unarmed and he did not reach for anything, engage defendant in a fight, or otherwise provoke a violent response.\nAccording to several witnesses, Mr. Williams hit the ground after . defendant\u2019s first shot, but defendant kept firing. The medical examiner found that Mr. Williams had seven gunshot wounds in total, including some that entered from his back. After shooting Mr. Williams, defendant and his friends got back into Mr. Bynum\u2019s car and drove away. They stopped at the house of Mr. Bynum\u2019s mother, picked up their clothes, and drove back toward Fort Lee, Virginia. On the way back, defendant said, \u201cI think I just caught a body.\u201d\nBefore reaching Fort Lee, they met up with a friend in Petersburg, Virginia and switched cars. Defendant said that they had to get rid of the gun, so he wiped the gun off with Mr. Bynum\u2019s red coat, handed it to Mr. Blunt, and told him to throw it off the James River Bridge. When they reached the bridge, Mr. Blunt rolled down the window and tossed the gun into the river below.\nWhen they got back to Fort Lee, defendant asked his friends to make up an alibi and lie to investigators about his whereabouts on the night of the shooting. When one of the detectives from Elizabeth City called defendant later on 1 January 2010, defendant lied and told him that he had not been to Elizabeth City on the night of the shooting. Before he was arrested, defendant told his First Sergeant that he had been involved in a shooting, but did not tell him any details.\nDefendant contends that there was uncontroverted evidence that Mr. Williams had said to defendant \u201cYou ain\u2019t the only one with a gim,\u201d used well-known gang insults, and reached behind him as if to grab a gun. Defendant further argues that his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and Army training undermine any inference of premeditation and deliberation to be drawn from the nature and number of the wounds he inflicted on Mr. Williams. We disagree.\nFirst, we note that the evidence of any gang-related statements made by Mr. Williams came only from defendant. Athough the State\u2019s evidence was contradictory concerning what Mr. Williams said to defendant before defendant started firing, there was some evidence that he only told defendant and Mr. Bynum to move their car. Thus, any evidence that Mr. Williams said \u201cYou ain\u2019t the only one with a gun,\u201d reached behind him, or used the word \u201cslop\u201d contradicts some of the State\u2019s evidence and is properly disregarded in deciding a motion to dismiss. See Abshire, 363 N.C. at 328, 677 S.E.2d at 449. Second, although a reasonable person could infer that defendant\u2019s reaction may have been influenced by his Army training and PTSD, the jury was not required to believe defendant\u2019s evidence or assign it the weight he deems appropriate. Moreover, the State\u2019s evidence does not need to \u201cexclude [] every reasonable hypothesis of innocence\u201d to withstand a motion to dismiss. State v. Riffe, 191 N.C. App. 86, 89, 661 S.E.2d 899, 902 (2008) (citation and quotation marks omitted).\nDefendant relies mostly on State v. Corn, 303 N.C. 293, 278 S.E.2d 221 (1981), and State v. Williams, 144 N.C. App. 526, 548 S.E.2d 802 (2001), aff\u2019d per curiam, 355 N.C. 272, 559 S.E.2d 787 (2002), to support his arguments.\nIn Corn, our Supreme Court ordered a new trial because the State failed to present sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation to support the charge of first-degree murder. 303 N.C. at 298, 278 S.E.2d at 224. The shooting in Corn was\nbrought on by some provocation on the part of the deceased. The evidence [was] uncontroverted that [the deceased] entered defendant\u2019s home in a highly intoxicated state, approached the sofa on which defendant was lying, and insulted defendant by a statement which caused defendant to reply \u201cyou son-of-a-bitch, don\u2019t accuse me of that.\u201d Defendant immediately jumped from the sofa, grabbing the .22 caliber rifle which he normally kept near the sofa, and shot Melton several times in the chest. The entire incident lasted only a few moments.\n303 N.C. at 297-98, 278 S.E.2d at 223-24.\nThe decedent in Corn did not merely insult the defendant. There was also evidence that he also went \u201cover to the couch on which defendant was lying, grabbed defendant, and began slinging him around and attempting to hit him.\u201d Id. at 295, 278 S.E.2d at 222. Although there was no history of threats or ill will between the decedent and the defendant, there was also \u201cno evidence that any shots were fired after he fell or that defendant dealt any blows to the body once the shooting ended.\u201d Id. at 298, 278 S.E.2d at 224. Additionally, \u201c[a]fter the shooting defendant walked across the street to his sister\u2019s house and called the Brevard Police Department. He then returned to his home and waited for law enforcement officers to arrive. Several officers testified that defendant was calm and cooperative during their investigation of the incident.\u201d Id. at 295, 278 S.E.2d at 222.\nIn Williams, two men began fighting in a nightclub. 144 N.C. App. at 527, 548 S.E.2d at 803. Defendant helped hold back the crowd to allow the two men to fight. Id. One man he was holding back punched defendant in the face. Id. at 527, 548 S.E.2d at 804. Defendant then drew his handgun and fatally shot the man in the neck. Id. Defendant fled the scene, but turned himself in the next day. Id. We concluded that the evidence did not support a charge of first-degree murder because there was insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation. Id. at 531, 548 S.E.2d at 805-06. We reasoned that there was no evidence the defendant knew the deceased before the shooting, the deceased had provoked defendant by punching him, and his actions before and after the shooting failed to show any \u201cforethought.\u201d Id. at 530-31, 548 S.E.2d at 805.\nCorn and Williams are distinguishable from this case because the State\u2019s evidence here showed no provocation on the part of Mr. Williams, there was evidence that defendant kept shooting after Mr. Williams fell, and he attempted to hide evidence from the shooting. Although defendant contends that he was provoked, in both Williams and Com the provocation included a physical altercation. See State v. Bass, 190 N.C. App. 339, 345, 660 S.E.2d 123, 127 (noting that an argument between the deceased and the defendant \u201c[did] not rise to the level of provocation such as the physical altercations that provoked the defendants in Williams and Com.\u201d), app. dismissed, 362 N.C. 683, 670 S.E.2d 566 (2008). There was no such evidence here.\nThe State\u2019s evidence showed that Mr. Williams did nothing to provoke defendant. There was no fight. Mr. Williams did not attack or threaten defendant. According Mr. Williams\u2019 sister, all he did was tell defendant and Mr. Bynum to move their car. The State presented evidence that there was no \u201cprovocation by the deceased sufficient to disturb the defendant\u2019s ability to reason.\u201d Hunt, 330 N.C. at 428, 410 S.E.2d at 481.\nDelivering \u201clethal blows after deceased has been felled and rendered helpless\u201d also supports a finding of premeditation and deliberation. Faust, 254 N.C. at 107, 118 S.E.2d at 773. Here, there was substantial evidence that defendant felled Mr. Williams with one shot and then shot him another six times.\nFurther, although evidence of flight \u201cmay not be considered as tending to show premeditation and deliberation,\u201d State v. Brewton, 342 N.C. 875, 879, 467 S.E.2d 395, 398 (1996), a defendant\u2019s other actions after the shooting may be so considered, Faust, 254 N.C. at 107, 118 S.E.2d at 773. After the shooting, defendant did nothing to help Mr. Williams and simply left him lying in the Trios parking lot. Indeed, after leaving the scene, defendant attempted to hide or destroy evidence, including the gun used. All of these factors support an inference of premeditation and deliberation. See Hunt, 330 N.C. at 428-29, 410 S.E.2d at 481; Faust, 254 N.C. at 107, 118 S.E.2d at 773.\nAlthough the entire incident took place within a matter of minutes and the shooting within a matter of seconds, \u201cno 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) (citation and quotation marks omitted). \u201cThese mental processes must be prior to the killing, not simultaneous; but a moment of thought may be sufficient to form a fixed design to kill.\u201d State v. Steele, 190 N.C. 506, 511-12, 130 S.E. 308, 312 (1925) (citations and quotation marks omitted). The jury could have reasonably concluded that \u201cthere was sufficient time for the defendant to weigh the consequences of his act .\u2019\u2019Hunt, 330 N.C. at 429, 410 S.E.2d at 481.\nBecause there was sufficient evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State, for a reasonable mind to find that defendant killed Mr. Williams, with premeditation and deliberation, the trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the charge of murder in the first degree.\nIII. Gang Evidence\nDefendant next argues the trial court erred in excluding evidence Mr. Bynum told defendant that Mr. Williams was a gang member. While defendant was testifying, he had the following exchange with his trial counsel:\n[Defense Counsel]: Did Everett [Bynum] ever tell you that he and Antoine didn\u2019t get along?\n[Defendant]: Yes.\n[Defense Counsel]: Did he ever tell you Antoine Williams was in a gang?\n[Prosecutor]: Objection.\nTHE COURT: Sustained.\n[Defense Counsel]: Did he ever tell you that Antoine Williams carried a gun?\n[Prosecutor]: Objection.\nTHE COURT: Sustained.\n\u201cTo prevail on a contention that evidence was improperly excluded, either a defendant must make an offer of proof as to what the evidence would have shown or the relevance and content of the answer must be obvious from the context of the questioning.\u201d State v. Geddie, 345 N.C. 73, 95, 478 S.E.2d 146, 157 (1996) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 825, 139 L.Ed. 2d 43 (1997). Although he made no offer of proof, defendant contends that it is obvious he would have said yes and that this evidence was relevant to his self-defense claim.\nEven assuming arguendo that the content and relevance of the answer is obvious, defendant cannot show prejudicial error.\n[E]videntiary error does not necessitate a new trial unless the erroneous admission was prejudicial. The same rule applies to exclusion of evidence. Evidentiary error is prejudicial when there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial out of which the appeal arises. Defendant bears the burden of showing prejudice.\nState v. Jacobs, 363 N.C. 815, 825, 689 S.E.2d 859, 865-66 (2010) (citations and quotation marks omitted).\nDefendant contends that this evidence is admissible as a pertinent character trait of the deceased. \u201cCharacter is a generalized description of a person\u2019s disposition, or of the disposition in respect to a general trait, such as honesty, temperance or peacefulness.\u201d State v. Baldwin, 125 N.C. App. 530, 536, 482 S.E.2d 1, 5 (citation and quotation marks omitted)), disc. rev. dismissed as improvidently allowed, 347 N.C. 348, 492 S.E.2d 354 (1997). We fail to see how membership in a gang meets that definition. Further, defendant did not attempt to introduce this supposed \u201ccharacter evidence\u201d as reputation or opinion testimony or as testimony regarding specific instances of conduct. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 404(a)(1); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 405 (2011).\nInstead, it appears defendant was attempting to introduce the fact that he believed Mr. Williams to be in a gang as non-character evidence relevant to \u201cthe reasonableness of defendant\u2019s apprehension and use of force, which are essential elements of self-defense.\u201d State v. Brown, 120 N.C. App. 276, 277-78, 462 S.E.2d 655, 656 (1995) (citation omitted), disc. rev. denied, 342 N.C. 896, 467 S.E.2d 906 (1996).\nEven assuming it would be otherwise relevant to defendant\u2019s self-defense claim, the fact that defendant thought Mr. Williams was in a gang would be entirely irrelevant unless he knew that the man yelling at him to move the car was Mr. Williams. The evidence showed that defendant had never met Mr. Williams and there was no evidence that defendant could otherwise recognize decedent as Antoine Williams on the day in question. If defendant did not know the man yelling at him was Antoine Williams, then anything he knew about Antoine Williams\u2019 gang membership would be irrelevant to \u201cthe reasonableness of defendant\u2019s apprehension and use of force.\u201d Brown, 120 N.C. App. at 277-78, 462 S.E.2d at 656.\nAdditionally, defendant has failed to show that the jury would have reached a different result had they been informed that defendant thought Mr. Williams was in a gang. Both Mr. Blunt and defendant testified that Mr. Williams said something to the effect of \u201cYou ain\u2019t the only one with a gun.\u201d Defendant testified that he thought Mr. Williams was reaching for a gun when he shot him. Defendant also testified that Mr. Williams used a gang greeting when he and Mr. Bynum confronted each other. Officer Rodriguez, the Elizabeth City gang coordinator, confirmed that the phrase \u201cWhat\u2019s cracking?\u201d would identify the speaker, in this case Mr. Williams, as a member of the Crips gang. Given this testimony, we think it is unlikely that the jury would have come to a different conclusion on the basis of defendant\u2019s testimony that Mr. Bynum told him that Mr. Williams was in a gang. Therefore, defendant cannot show that exclusion of this evidence constituted prejudicial error. See Jacobs, 363 N.C. at 825, 689 S.E.2d at 865-66.\nIV. Conclusion\nThe State introduced sufficient evidence to show that defendant acted with premeditation and deliberation. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss. Additionally, defendant has failed to show that the exclusion of testimony that Mr. Williams was in a gang constituted prejudicial error.\nNO ERROR; NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR.\nJudges HUNTER, Robert C. and ERVIN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "STROUD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy A. Cooper III by Assistant Attorney General C. Norman Young Jr., for the State.", "Law Offices of John R. Mills NPC by John R. Mills, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHAWN ANTONIO HORSKINS, Dependant\nNo. COA12-1489\nFiled 2 July 2013\n1. Homicide \u2014 first-degree murder \u2014 motion to dismiss \u2014 sufficiency of evidence \u2014 premeditation and deliberation\nThe trial court did not err by denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the charge of first-degree murder at the close of all evidence. There was sufficient evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State, for a reasonable mind to find that defendant killed the victim with premeditation and deliberation.\n2. Evidence \u2014 exclusion\u2014victim a gang member \u2014 no prejudicial error\nThe trial court did not err in a first-degree murder case by excluding evidence that defendant was told the victim was a gang member. Defendant could not show that exclusion of this evidence constituted prejudicial error.\nAppeal by defendant from Judgment entered on or about 18 May 2012 by Judge Walter H. Godwin Jr. in Superior Court, Pasquotank County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 May 2013.\nAttorney General Roy A. Cooper III by Assistant Attorney General C. Norman Young Jr., for the State.\nLaw Offices of John R. Mills NPC by John R. Mills, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0217-01", "first_page_order": 227, "last_page_order": 238 }