Case Title: State v. Leaks

Citation: 

Docket Number: 149PA20

State: north-carolina

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Date: 2021-10-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
2021-NCSC-123 
No. 149PA20 
Filed 29 October 2021 
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 
v. 
JAMES EDWARD LEAKS 
 
On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision 
of the Court of Appeals, 270 N.C. App. 317 (2020), finding no error after appeal from 
a judgment entered on 8 August 2018 by Judge Carla Archie in Superior Court, 
Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 1 September 2021. 
 
Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Mary Carla Babb, Special Deputy 
Attorney General, for the State-appellee. 
 
William D. Spence for defendant-appellant. 
 
 
BARRINGER, Justice. 
 
¶ 1 
 
In this case, we review the Court of Appeals’ holding that the trial court 
committed no error by declining to give defendant’s requested modified self-defense 
instruction at trial. State v. Leaks, 270 N.C. App. 317, 324 (2020). Regardless of 
whether an error occurred, a party challenging jury instructions as erroneous must 
demonstrate on appeal that the error was prejudicial. Since defendant cannot meet 
this burden, we modify and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. 
STATE V. LEAKS 
2021-NCSC-123 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
I. 
Factual and Procedural Background 
¶ 2 
 
On 16 August 2016, Darrell Cureton was helping his girlfriend, Sylvia Moore, 
with yardwork at her house. Ms. Moore’s brother, Eric Moore, was also outside with 
them. As they were working, defendant and his friend, Calvin Mackin, walked down 
a side street adjoining the house. Witness testimony differed on what happened next. 
¶ 3 
 
According to Mr. Moore, defendant and Mr. Mackin were walking across the 
street from Ms. Moore’s home when they asked Mr. Moore for a cigarette. Defendant 
and Mr. Mackin crossed the street and entered Ms. Moore’s yard, Mr. Moore gave 
them a cigarette, and then they walked back across the street. Hearing the men 
talking, Mr. Cureton walked over toward Mr. Moore. Defendant, who at that point 
was back across the street, started staring at Mr. Cureton and patting the knife he 
carried on his hip. Defendant was around six feet tall and weighed about two hundred 
pounds. Mr. Cureton was around five-foot-five and weighed approximately 150 to 160 
pounds. 
¶ 4 
 
Mr. Cureton walked over to his pickup truck, which was parked on the street 
in front of Ms. Moore’s home, and picked up a two-by-four board from the truck bed. 
Mr. Cureton then said, “[Defendant], go on, I don’t want no trouble” and started 
walking away from defendant, back toward Ms. Moore’s house. According to Mr. 
Moore, Mr. Cureton held the two-by-four straight across in front of himself, with one 
hand on either end. Mr. Cureton never held the two-by-four like a baseball bat and 
STATE V. LEAKS 
2021-NCSC-123 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
never swung it at defendant. When Mr. Cureton backed away, defendant sprinted 
across the street toward Mr. Cureton, holding the knife and exclaiming, “[T]hat will 
give me an excuse to kill [you].” 
¶ 5 
 
Mr. Moore further testified that as defendant drew close, Mr. Cureton dropped 
the two-by-four and tried to run away, but he ran into the wall of the house and fell. 
Defendant caught up to Mr. Cureton and stabbed him in the chest. After stabbing 
Mr. Cureton, defendant rejoined Mr. Mackin, and the two men slowly walked away. 
¶ 6 
 
Ms. Moore also testified at trial. According to Ms. Moore, Mr. Cureton was 
standing in the yard when defendant sprinted through the bushes in her yard and 
bumped Mr. Cureton. As defendant moved away, Ms. Moore saw that defendant was 
holding a knife and Mr. Cureton was clutching his hands to his chest while blood 
started to appear. Ms. Moore further testified that before dating Mr. Cureton, she 
had dated defendant for five years. 
¶ 7 
 
Next, Veronique Streeter, a social worker with no relationship to any of the 
individuals directly involved in this case, testified. At the time of the incident, Ms. 
Streeter was leaving a building that was a block over from Ms. Moore’s house. Ms. 
Streeter testified that upon hearing a commotion, she looked over and saw Mr. 
Cureton with his back to the house holding up a piece of wood, with a hand on each 
end, to protect himself from being hit. Ms. Streeter never saw Mr. Cureton swing the 
piece of wood at defendant or take offensive action. Instead, as Ms. Streeter watched, 
STATE V. LEAKS 
2021-NCSC-123 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
she saw defendant come toward Mr. Cureton, jabbing at him. After making the 
jabbing motions, defendant walked away, and Ms. Streeter saw a red patch start to 
appear on the front of Mr. Cureton’s white shirt. 
¶ 8 
 
Accompanying Ms. Streeter that day was Theresa McCormick-Dunlap, who 
also had no relation to any of the individuals directly involved in this case. Ms. 
McCormick-Dunlap testified that when she looked towards Ms. Moore’s house, she 
saw Mr. Cureton retreating as defendant pursued him. Mr. Cureton was holding a 
long piece of wood defensively in front of himself like a shield and blocking 
defendant’s swings. Ms. McCormick-Dunlap never saw Mr. Cureton use the two-by-
four like a club, swing it offensively, or even move towards defendant. However, Ms. 
McCormick-Dunlap did observe defendant making jabbing motions while he chased 
Mr. Cureton. Ms. McCormick-Dunlap testified that defendant was “pretty 
determined to get at [Mr. Cureton],” while Mr. Cureton, in contrast, was retreating 
and not even trying to fight back. Eventually, Ms. McCormick-Dunlap saw defendant 
land a good blow and then “swagger[ ] off” looking satisfied. When she approached 
Mr. Cureton, Ms. McCormick-Dunlap saw blood on his shirt. 
¶ 9 
 
Defendant testified to an alternative version of events. According to defendant, 
he and Mr. Mackin were walking down the sidewalk across the street from Ms. 
Moore’s house when they saw Mr. Moore. Mr. Mackin asked Mr. Moore for a cigarette. 
While Mr. Mackin walked over to retrieve the cigarette, defendant stayed across the 
STATE V. LEAKS 
2021-NCSC-123 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
street on the sidewalk. Mr. Cureton then walked to the edge of the lawn and told him 
to, “[G]o ahead on” and, “[K]eep it moving.” In the meantime, Mr. Mackin had 
obtained a cigarette and started back across the street to defendant. Mr. Mackin then 
said, “[L]ook out,” and defendant heard some “pitter-patter.” When he turned around, 
defendant saw Mr. Cureton swinging at him with a two-by-four held like a baseball 
bat. 
¶ 10 
 
Defendant further testified that Mr. Cureton struck defendant on his back and 
then continued hitting defendant with the two-by-four. Defendant tried to block the 
blows with his hands and grab the two-by-four but was unsuccessful. According to 
defendant, he started to fear for his life because he could not get to his knife—a large 
Gerber the size of a machete. Mr. Cureton kept landing blows, striking defendant on 
his head, neck, forearms, knee, and shoulder. Defendant began to feel dizzy and see 
stars. After a couple more hits, defendant fell down, unstrapped his knife, and 
stabbed Mr. Cureton in the chest one time. Mr. Cureton stopped hitting defendant 
and ran back to the house. Defendant asserted that his only intent when he stabbed 
Mr. Cureton was to try to stop Mr. Cureton from beating him. 
¶ 11 
 
Mr. Mackin also testified during defendant’s case-in-chief. Mr. Mackin testified 
that he and defendant were so close that they called each other cousins. According to 
Mr. Mackin, he and defendant were walking by Ms. Moore’s house when Mr. Mackin 
heard some “hollering.” Mr. Cureton then walked quickly toward defendant, holding 
STATE V. LEAKS 
2021-NCSC-123 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
a stick in the air like he was going to hit defendant on the head. Mr. Cureton swung 
the stick at defendant, but defendant dodged it. However, Mr. Mackin testified that 
he did not see anything that happened afterwards between defendant and Mr. 
Cureton. 
¶ 12 
 
Shortly after being stabbed by defendant, Mr. Cureton died. Dr. Jonathan 
David Privette, who examined Mr. Cureton’s body, testified that he had suffered from 
two knife wounds. First, Mr. Cureton had sustained a laceration to his left shoulder. 
Second, Mr. Cureton had been stabbed in his left chest by a knife that was thrust in, 
partially removed, and then thrust in again one to two more times. The stab to the 
chest was severe enough to fracture a rib, perforate Mr. Cureton’s lung at three 
separate locations, and pierce his heart, causing Mr. Cureton’s death. 
¶ 13 
 
Additionally, two police officers and a medical professional who responded to 
the incident testified about defendant’s appearance shortly after the stabbing 
occurred. According to the officers, the only injuries they observed were on 
defendant’s arms, and they were minor. Additionally, the officers stated that 
defendant had no difficulties standing or walking. As for the medic who attended to 
defendant, she testified that though defendant complained of head pain, the medic 
could not find any injury to his head. The only injuries the medic observed were the 
minor injuries to defendant’s arms and a swollen knee. 
¶ 14 
 
After both parties rested their case at trial, defendant requested the trial court 
STATE V. LEAKS 
2021-NCSC-123 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
give a modified version of North Carolina Pattern Jury Instruction 206.10, which 
outlines the elements of self-defense. The first element of Pattern Jury Instruction 
206.10 states that a defendant must believe it necessary “to kill” the victim. N.C.P.I.–
Crim 206.10. Defendant requested that the trial court modify the instruction to 
instead state that a defendant must believe it necessary “to use deadly force against 
the victim.”1 The State opposed defendant’s proposed modification. After listening to 
both sides’ arguments, the trial court denied defendant’s request and instructed the 
jury using Pattern Jury Instruction 206.10 without modification. Immediately after 
the trial court finished instructing the jury, defendant renewed his objection to the 
unmodified self-defense instruction. On 8 August 2018, the jury returned a verdict of 
guilty of second-degree murder. Defendant appealed. 
¶ 15 
 
Before the Court of Appeals, defendant argued that the trial court (1) abused 
its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for jury view, (2) erred by instructing the 
jury that defendant needed to have believed it was necessary “to kill” the victim in 
order to have acted in self-defense, and (3) erred in determining that defendant had 
a prior record level of IV. Leaks, 270 N.C. App. at 320–21. In a unanimous decision, 
the Court of Appeals found no error by the trial court. Id. at 321, 324, 326. 
                                            
1 We note that defendant’s request that the trial court substitute the words “to use 
deadly force” for the words “to kill” was based on footnote four in Pattern Jury Instruction 
206.10. Given the confusion that this footnote caused during trial in this case, it is 
recommended that the North Carolina Pattern Jury Instruction Committee review N.C.P.I.–
Crim 206.10. 
STATE V. LEAKS 
2021-NCSC-123 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
¶ 16 
 
Defendant requested review by this Court pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 to 
address the Court of Appeals’ decision that the trial court did not err in giving Pattern 
Jury Instruction 206.10 without defendant’s requested modification. We allowed 
defendant’s petition. 
II. 
Standard of Review 
¶ 17 
 
In criminal cases, appellate courts review challenges to jury instructions 
differently depending on whether the challenge was properly preserved at trial. When 
a party properly preserves an objection to a jury instruction, appellate courts review 
the instruction for harmless error pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a). State v. 
Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 512 (2012). Unpreserved objections, on the other hand, are 
reviewed only for plain error. Id. To properly preserve an objection to a jury 
instruction, the appellate rules require that a party object before the jury retires to 
consider its verdict and state “distinctly that to which objection is made and the 
grounds of the objection.” N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(2). Here, defendant properly preserved 
his objection. Thus, we review for harmless error under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a). 
Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 512. 
¶ 18 
 
“ ‘The harmless-error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose 
of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or 
innocence’ and ‘promote[ ] public respect for the criminal process by focusing on the 
underlying fairness of the trial rather than on the virtually inevitable presence of 
STATE V. LEAKS 
2021-NCSC-123 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
immaterial error.’ ” State v. Malachi, 371 N.C. 719, 734 (2018) (quoting Rose v. Clark, 
478 U.S. 570, 577 (1986)). Accordingly, harmless-error review requires a defendant 
show that “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,” unless the error relates to a constitutional right. N.C.G.S. § 15A-
1443(a) (2019). At no point in this case has defendant alleged that the unmodified 
jury instruction violated a constitutional right. Therefore, the burden of showing 
prejudice is upon defendant. Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 513. 
III. 
Analysis 
¶ 19 
 
Defendant has not shown a reasonable possibility that had the modified self-
defense instruction been given, a different result would have been reached at trial. 
While the trial court instructed the jury that to have acted in self-defense defendant 
needed to believe it necessary to kill the victim, the trial court further instructed the 
jury that this belief must be reasonable given “the fierceness of the assault, if any, 
upon [defendant]” as perceived by “a person of ordinary firmness.” Defendant did not 
object to the reasonableness portion of the instruction at trial and does not challenge 
it on appeal. Accordingly, even if the trial court had instructed the jury that defendant 
needed to believe only that deadly force was necessary, as opposed to believing he 
needed to kill the victim, the jury would still need to have found that this belief was 
reasonable. Further, the trial court instructed the jury that, as a separate 
STATE V. LEAKS 
2021-NCSC-123 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
requirement of self-defense, defendant must not have used “excessive force,” 
meaning, “more force than reasonably appeared to the [d]efendant to be necessary at 
the time of the killing.” 
¶ 20 
 
At trial, the medical testimony revealed that, at most, defendant had suffered 
minor arm injuries and a swollen knee that were treated with a bandage and ice pack. 
In contrast, defendant admitted that he stabbed Mr. Cureton in the chest with his 
Gerber knife—a knife so large that it looked like a machete. As testified to by the 
doctor who examined Mr. Cureton’s body, this one stab wound to Mr. Cureton’s chest 
was a highly lethal wound. The wound reflected that the knife was thrust in, partially 
removed, and then thrust in again one to two more times, causing a fractured rib, a 
perforated lung at three separate locations, a pierced heart, and ultimately Mr. 
Cureton’s death. Defendant tendered no medical evidence to contradict this 
testimony. 
¶ 21 
 
Accordingly, defendant has not shown a reasonable possibility that even if the 
trial court had modified the self-defense instruction as requested, the jury would have 
found that defendant acted in self-defense. The uncontradicted medical evidence 
strongly suggests that defendant’s use of deadly force was not reasonable under the 
circumstances but rather that it was excessive. Defendant’s requested self-defense 
instruction, if given, would not have changed the trial court’s charge to the jury that 
defendant’s use of force must be reasonable and not excessive. As a result, defendant 
STATE V. LEAKS 
2021-NCSC-123 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
cannot show a reasonable possibility that a different result would have occurred at 
trial. 
IV. 
Conclusion 
¶ 22 
 
Since defendant has not shown a reasonable possibility that a different result 
would have occurred at trial if the alleged error had not occurred, he cannot meet his 
burden of showing prejudice under harmless-error review. Therefore, we modify and 
affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. 
MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED.