Opinion ID: 1202647
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: appeal of the defendant christopher ingold

Text: By an assignment of error, the defendant Ingold contends that the trial court erred in refusing to give the jury his requested instructions on the law of acting in concert. The defendant requested the following instructions: For example, if defendants A and B formed a common plan to kill a particular person X, and defendant A shoots and kills that person, then Defendant B, if he is present, is also guilty of the killing. Similarly, if pursuant to the common plan to kill X, defendant A attempts to shoot and kill X but accidentally kills another person Y, then defendant B is also guilty of the killing since it was a natural or probable consequence of the common plan to kill X. If, however, defendants A and B form a common plan to kill X, but defendant A, acting independently and not in pursuance of the common plan to kill X, shoots and kills person Y, then defendant B, even if he is present, is not guilty of the killing, since the killing of Y was not in pursuance of the common plan to kill X, nor was it a natural or probable consequence of the common plan to kill X. Accordingly, even if you find that Chris Ingold and Barry Harvell joined in a common plan to assault or kill any of the particular persons they had argued with at the picnic area, yet you cannot convict him for the killing of the victim since that killing was an independent act and was not in pursuance of the common plan or a natural or probable consequence thereof. You may only convict Chris Ingold if you find that he and Barry Harvell joined in a common plan to kill the victim or his girlfriend. The trial court denied the defendant's request and, instead, gave the pattern jury instruction on acting in concert. N.C.P.I. Crim. 202.10 (1971). If a request is made for a jury instruction which is correct in itself and supported by evidence, the trial court must give the instruction at least in substance. State v. Lamb, 321 N.C. 633, 644, 365 S.E.2d 600, 606 (1988); State v. Hooker, 243 N.C. 429, 431, 90 S.E.2d 690, 691 (1956). It has long been established that if two persons join in a purpose to commit a crime, each of them, if actually or constructively present, is not only guilty as a principal if the other commits that particular crime, but he is also guilty of any other crime committed by the other in pursuance of the common purpose ... or as a natural or probable consequence thereof. State v. Erlewine, 328 N.C. 626, 637, 403 S.E.2d 280, 286 (1991) (quoting State v. Westbrook, 279 N.C. 18, 41-42, 181 S.E.2d 572, 586 (1971), death sentence vacated, 408 U.S. 939, 92 S.Ct. 2873, 33 L.Ed.2d 761 (1972)). Accord State v. Joyner, 297 N.C. 349, 255 S.E.2d 390 (1979). But see State v. Reese, 319 N.C. 110, 141-42, 353 S.E.2d 352, 370 (1987). However, even if it is assumed arguendo that the requested instruction here contained no misstatements of law, we conclude that it was not supported by the evidence. The evidence in this case tended to show that after arriving at Badin Lake, Gary Hamilton and the defendants Harvell and Ingold drank beer and began socializing with a group at a nearby picnic table. Shortly thereafter, an argument started between Harvell and members of the group at the other picnic table. Someone at the other picnic table indicated that he had a gun, so Hamilton and the defendant Ingold left the lake and went to Tony Laton's home for a gun. Laton gave the two men his twelve-gauge shotgun and they returned to the lake. Shortly after their return, a fight started between the defendant Harvell and one of the men in the group at the other picnic table. During the fight, Harvell was cut on the leg with a knife. Another man from the other group approached Hamilton and punched him in the face. After this altercation ended, the men in the other group drove away in their vehicles. Hamilton got into his truck and picked up Harvell and Ingold who had started walking in the direction that the other men had gone. Harvell was carrying a shotgun and Ingold was carrying a wooden post. Hamilton had driven around the pier area at the lake several times when Harvell ordered him to stop. Harvell and Ingold got out of the truck and walked toward a group of people engaged in recreational activities in the pier area near the lake. Harvell was still carrying the shotgun, but Ingold was now carrying a steel pipe. When asked what was going on, the defendant Ingold told Jimmy Love that they started it and we're going to finish it. The defendant Harvell made similar statements. After the two armed defendants walked together into the crowd, Harvell aimed the shotgun at Dena Durham, but her boyfriend, Dean Russell, pushed her aside. Harvell fired the shotgun blowing off the top of Dean Russell's head. Harvell fired two more shots which struck no one. Throughout the time during which Harvell shot Dean Russell and fired the two additional shots, the defendant Ingold was standing close to Harvell and holding the steel pipe in a raised position. The defendant Ingold contends that the evidence in this case would support a reasonable finding that the killing of Dean Russell was the independent act of Harvell and unrelated to any common purpose shared by Ingold. We do not agree. Instead, the evidence, if believed, would only support a determination that the killing of Dean Russell was done pursuant to a common purpose. All of the evidence, if believed, tended to show that after the initial confrontation at the picnic tables, Harvell and the defendant Ingold armed themselves with deadly weapons and went together to the pier area. In Ingold's presence, Harvell told the security guard who tried to stop him from going armed with the shotgun into the group of people in the pier area that he did not care that she had called the sheriff. As he held the shotgun, he stated that the bitch started it and I'm going to finish it. When Jimmy Love asked the defendant Ingold what was going on, he stated that they started it and we're going to finish it. Harvell, closely followed by Ingold who was armed with the steel pipe, then entered the crowd and told Dena Durham, the victim's girlfriend, that he was going to finish it. The victim, Dean Russell, pushed Durham aside, and Harvell shot and killed him. The strikingly similar statements of the two defendants that they were going to finish it and the concerted actions that they undertook while together immediately prior to and after the killing tended to show unequivocally that the defendants Ingold and Harvell had formed a joint purpose to commit the very crime committed. The evidence was to the effect that as the defendant Harvell exited Hamilton's truck and walked into the crowd with the shotgun and killed the victim, the defendant Ingold stayed close behind him armed with a steel pipe and ready to assist Harvell if necessary. If the defendant Ingold did not intend to participate in the shooting Harvell was about to engage in, Ingold could have stayed in the truck or left the scene as Harvell entered the crowd. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the evidence introduced in the trial court would not support a reasonable finding that the killing of Dean Russell was an independent act by Harvell not done pursuant to a common purpose shared with the defendant Ingold. The trial court did not err in refusing to give the requested jury instructions. Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit. By another assignment of error, the defendant Ingold contends that the trial court erred in refusing to give the jury his requested instruction pertaining to mere presence. The defendant requested the following instruction: Under the theory known as acting in concert, if two persons join in a common purpose to commit a particular crime, each of them, if actually or constructively present, is not only guilty as a principal if the other commits that particular crime, but he is also guilty of any other crime committed by the other in pursuance of the common plan, that is, the common plan to commit a particular crime, or as a natural or probable consequence thereof. However, the mere presence of a person at the scene of a crime at the time of its commission does not make him guilty of the offense; nor does the mere knowledge that an offense is about to be committed or is being committed or has been committed; nor does the failure to give an alarm. (Emphasis added). Instead, the trial court gave the jury the appropriate pattern jury instruction concerning the principle of acting in concert. N.C.P.I.Crim. 202.10 (1971). The defendant Ingold contends that the trial court erred by failing to include an instruction on mere presence because the evidence fully supported such an instruction. We conclude, for reasons more fully discussed under the preceding assignment of error, that the trial court did not err because the evidence did not support an instruction on mere presence. The evidence in the present case was that when Jimmy Love asked the defendant Ingold what was going on, Ingold stated that we're going to finish it. As the defendant Harvell walked into the group near the lake with a shotgun in his hand, the defendant Ingold followed close behind him armed with a steel pipe. Such evidence tended to show that as Harvell approached and shot the victim, Ingold made it known to Harvell that Ingold was standing by willing to lend any assistance necessary. No evidence tended to show that the defendant Ingold was merely present at the scene of the killing. Therefore, the trial court correctly declined to instruct the jury on mere presence. Accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled. By another assignment of error, the defendant Ingold contends that the trial court erred in refusing to give the jury a requested instruction pertaining to the defense of voluntary intoxication. Here, the defendant was charged with first-degree murder. The evidence before the trial court was sufficient to require an instruction on voluntary intoxication, and the trial court gave such an instruction. See generally State v. Mash, 323 N.C. 339, 372 S.E.2d 532 (1988) (clarifying rule to be applied in determining whether trial court must instruct on voluntary intoxication). While voluntary intoxication does not relieve a defendant altogether from criminal responsibility, it may negate the element of specific intent in those crimes in which such an element must be proved. State v. Silvers, 323 N.C. 646, 374 S.E.2d 858 (1989). If by reason of voluntary intoxication a defendant did not form a specific intent to kill after premeditation and deliberation, an essential element of first-degree murder is absent and the offense is reduced to second-degree murder. State v. McLaughlin, 286 N.C. 597, 213 S.E.2d 238, vacated in part on other grounds, 428 U.S. 903, 96 S.Ct. 3206, 49 L.Ed.2d 1208 (1976); State v. Bunn, 283 N.C. 444, 196 S.E.2d 777 (1973). However, the law does not require any specific intent for a defendant to be guilty of second-degree murder, and a defendant's voluntary intoxication does not negate that crime. State v. Snyder, 311 N.C. 391, 317 S.E.2d 394 (1984); State v. Caudle, 58 N.C.App. 89, 293 S.E.2d 205 (1982), cert. denied, 308 N.C. 545, 304 S.E.2d 239 (1983). The jury in the present case, having first been properly instructed as to the foregoing principles, declined to convict the defendant of first-degree murder and convicted him of the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder. This is precisely the verdict to which the defendant Ingold was entitled, if the jury determined that due to his voluntary intoxication he did not form a specific intent to kill after premeditation and deliberation. The defendant Ingold argues, however, that the trial court should have instructed the jury that it must find the defendant not guilty of any crime if it found that due to his voluntary intoxication he did not join in a common purpose with his co-defendant Harvell. Ingold argues that he could not be guilty of any crime on the theory of acting in concert unless he could join his co-defendant in such a common purpose. This argument is without merit. The defense of voluntary intoxication applies, at most, only to negate the specific intent element of a crime which includes such an element. State v. Jones, 300 N.C. 363, 365, 266 S.E.2d 586, 587 (1980). The acting in concert principle merely provides one among the several alternative theories upon which a defendant may be found guilty of any criminal act; it is not a crime in and of itself. See State v. Thomas, 325 N.C. 583, 593, 386 S.E.2d 555, 560-61 (1989). Therefore, a defendant's voluntary intoxication, even if established, will not prevent a determination that he acted in concert with another. For the foregoing reasons, this assignment of error is without merit. Having considered all of the assignments of both defendants, we conclude that the defendants received a fair trial free of prejudicial error. No error.