Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina; November 3, 1994; North Carolina; State Supreme Court
In the case of State of North Carolina v. John Earl Exxum, the defendant was tried and convicted of first-degree murder for the shooting death of Bobby Simmons. The incident occurred on August 17, 1992, outside a halfway house in Raleigh, where the victim was shot four times in various parts of his body. Witnesses testified that the defendant shot the victim both standing and while the victim was on the ground, and that an argument had preceded the shooting, instigated by the victim's threat towards the defendant.
The jury was instructed on the possible verdicts of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or acquittal, as well as on the concept of self-defense. Ultimately, the jury found the defendant guilty of first-degree murder based on premeditation and deliberation. The defendant argued that the trial court made a plain error by not instructing the jury on voluntary manslaughter, which could apply under the law of imperfect self-defense if the defendant had a reasonable belief that lethal force was necessary, but was the aggressor or used excessive force. The court found no error in the trial proceedings or the jury instructions.
A trial judge must declare and explain the law based on the evidence, instructing the jury accordingly. However, they are not obligated to instruct on lesser-included offenses if no supporting evidence exists. In this case, the defendant was not entitled to a voluntary manslaughter instruction based on imperfect self-defense, as the evidence showed he shot the victim in the back while the victim was unarmed and walking away, indicating no imminent threat to the defendant. Even if the evidence warranted such an instruction, the jury's verdict of first-degree murder based on premeditation and deliberation rendered any error harmless, as established in precedent. The jury's choice of first-degree murder over second-degree murder demonstrates their certainty about the defendant's guilt. The absence of a voluntary manslaughter instruction could not have harmed the defendant, and he failed to demonstrate that any instructional error constituted "plain error," which requires exceptional circumstances. Given the uncontroverted evidence of the defendant's actions, it was unlikely that the jury would have reached a different verdict had they been instructed on voluntary manslaughter. Therefore, there was no error.
