State of North Carolina v. Aaron Lamont Little Jr. (COA25-1097) is an unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals from a case out of Guilford County. Here, the Court addresses the legal punishment of one continuous act that results in two victims and the evidence presented to show premeditation and deliberation.
In June of 2020, a dispute over a purse occurred in the parking lot of a motel in Greensboro. The people involved in the dispute eventually left the area in separate vehicles. Mr. Little, who was seated in the front passenger seat of one of the vehicles, fired five shots from a semiautomatic firearm into the vehicle that was directly behind him. Three people were in that vehicle, a male driver and two female backseat passengers. There was also a third vehicle traveling behind the other two in which others involved in the parking lot dispute were riding in. Surveillance video from the area showed that the five shots were fired within a period of seven seconds. One of the shots struck one of the backseat passengers of the second car in the head killing her within minutes. Officers responding to the scene discovered bullet holes in the right rear door and window of the vehicle that was shot at. The surveillance video did not indicate any gunfire coming from either of the vehicles that Mr. Little was not riding in.
Mr. Little initially denied having a firearm to law enforcement or shooting one, but after being shown the surveillance footage, he admitted to the shooting. He said that he shot because he believed that the because of the parking lot dispute, the people in the vehicle behind him would shoot first. He also stated that he did not intend to kill anyone and that he did not know a person was in the backseat of the vehicle that he shot at. He informed law enforcement that he did not know anyone had been killed in the shooting until the next day. He also stated that he had sold the firearm.
Mr. Little was indicted by the grand jury for first-degree murder, discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle inflicting serious bodily injury, and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. At the close of the State’s evidence, Mr. Little made a motion to dismiss which was denied. Mr. Little presented no evidence. The jury found Mr. Little guilty on all counts. Of note, the jury found Mr. Little guilty of first-degree murder on the grounds of premeditation and deliberation and under the felony murder rule. He gave notice of appeal.
On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court’s denial of Mr. Little’s motion to dismiss. The Court reviewed this issue de novo. When viewed in the light most favorable to the State and giving the State the benefit of all possible inferences, in denying Mr. Little’s motion to dismiss, the trial court must have concluded that there was substantial evidence of each essential element of the charged offense and of the identity of Mr. Little as the perpetrator. In this context, substantial evidence is relevant evidence such that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion. If there are any contradictions in the evidence, those contradictions are to be resolved by the jury. Whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or both, discrepancies in the evidence are to be resolved by the jury. The Court examined the trial court's denial of Mr. Little’s motion to dismiss with respect to each charge.
Mr. Little argued that the trial court should have dismissed one of the two charges of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. The basis for his argument is that firing five shots within seven seconds from a semiautomatic weapon at a single vehicle should constitute one single assault. It was Mr. Little’s contention that the evidence presented at trial supported one assault and not two. In making this argument, Mr. Little cited a case in which an individual using a semiautomatic handgun fired in rapid succession at one victim. The court noted that the distinct between this case and the cited case is important. Here, the firing was directed at two people whereas in the case cited by Mr. Little, the firing was directed at one person. Regardless that there was no interruption between the shots, there were two victims in this case which supports two assault charges. For the purpose of this case, the two assault victims of these charges are the driver and the backseat passenger who was not killed. The Court determined that based on the evidence presented at trial and taken in the light most favorable to the State, a jury could reasonably infer that Mr. Little intended to kill the occupants of the vehicle that he fired upon. Therefore, the trial court did not err by denying Mr. Little’s motion to dismiss one of the charges of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill.
Mr. Little argued that the trial court erred by not granting his motion to dismiss the first-degree murder charge because the State did not present substantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation. It is important that the Court notes that Mr. Little was found guilty of first-degree murder on the basis of premeditation and deliberation and under the felony murder rule. Mr. Little contended that if the premeditation and deliberation basis had been dismissed, then his murder conviction would be based solely on the felony murder rule with the felony being the discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle. Consequently, by dismissing premeditation and deliberation as a basis for the murder conviction, the discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle would merge into the murder conviction and judgement on the discharging conviction would have to be arrested.
First-degree murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice and premeditation and deliberation. Premeditation means that the defendant formed the specific intent to kill regardless of how long it took to form that intent. A defendant does not have to be calm or tranquil at the time, but any anger or emotion that the defendant has must not overcome his reason. Premeditation and deliberation may be shown by circumstantial evidence. Some of the circumstances that may show premeditation and deliberation include: a lack of provocation by the victim, the statements and conduct of the defendant after the killing, the nature and number of the victim’s wounds, whether the defendant disposed of the murder weapon, and whether the defendant lied about what occurred. The Court concluded that when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, evidence presented of premeditation and deliberation was sufficient to submit to the jury. There was no evidence that anyone in the targeted vehicle fired upon Mr. Little, but Mr. Little fired five shots at that vehicle. The placement of the bullet holes indicated that Mr. Little did not fire the shots wildly. There was no evidence that anyone in either of the other vehicles displayed a weapon. The deceased victim suffered a fatal shot to a vital area of her body. After the shooting and when Mr. Little was first interviewed by law enforcement, he denied having a gun or shooting one. He admitted to both after being shown the surveillance video. He also later admitted to selling the firearm. The Court found that these circumstances were substantial evidence from which a jury could find premeditation and deliberation.
Mr. Little’s statement that he shot because he feared being shot at first, is not enough to grant his motion to dismiss. The Court determined that this is a matter for the jury to resolve. It was for the jury to decide if Mr. Little fired the shots based on a desire to kill or because he was genuinely in fear for his safety.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not err by denying Mr. Little’s motion to dismiss the charge of first-degree murder. Mr. Little’s first-degree murder conviction did not rest on felony murder alone. Therefore, the felony discharging a weapon into an occupied vehicle did not merge into the murder and the judgment entered on the discharging a weapon into an occupied vehicle conviction should not be arrested.
This is another case that illustrates the important role that surveillance footage plays in criminal investigations and prosecutions. Once Mr. Little was shown the surveillance footage, much of his version of the events changed significantly. It was this change in his story that contributed to the circumstance evidence supporting premeditation and deliberation.
Recent Comments