State of North Carolina v. Willie Earl Williams, Jr. (COA25-752), is an unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals arising out of Rowan County that presents an interesting set of facts and raises an equally interesting set of issues on appeal. In this case, the North Carolina Court of Appeals has the daunting tasks of addressing a motion to compel, a jury instruction, an ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim, and a petition for writ of certiorari.
In August of 2018, Mr. Williams and two of his friends went to a park for a cookout. When a young man arrived at the park Mr. Williams and one of his friends purportedly took the young man’s phone and beat him in the head with beer bottles. The young man left the park, and his mother and her boyfriend learned what happened. The boyfriend called 911 and he and the mother proceeded to the park. Once there they exited their vehicle with the mother carrying a pistol and pepper spray. Mr. Williams got into a physical altercation with the boyfriend. The mother fired a shot which struck one of Mr. Williams’ friends. She fired another shot which struck Mr. Williams in the neck. Mr. Williams then took the pistol from her and shot both her and her boyfriend. They both died at the scene.
In late August of 2018, Mr. Williams was indicted on two counts of first-degree murder. A scheduling order was later entered that directed Mr. Williams to provide the State with notice of any affirmative defenses, including self-defense, by early August of 2024. Mr. Williams timely responded to this directive through a filing that stated, “The Defendant NOTICES his reservation of the right to present evidence in support of the defense of self defense.” The state then filed a Motion to Compel seeking that Mr. Williams provide more specificity regarding his position on his intent to assert self-defense. The Motion to Compel was granted and Mr. Williams was ordered to disclose whether he intended to raise the defense of self-defense. Mr. Williams responded that he would not assert self-defense.
Mr. Williams was tried in mid-September of 2024, and he did not testify or put on any evidence. During the charge conference, Mr. Williams’ attorney informed the court that he would not be arguing self-defense. The trial court suggested an instruction on second-degree murder or manslaughter. Mr. Williams initially resisted instructions on either of those offense, insisting on just an instruction on first-degree murder. However, after consulting further with his attorney, Mr. Williams requested instructions on the lesser included offenses of second-degree murder and manslaughter. The jury convicted Mr. Williams on both counts of first-degree murder, and he gave notice of appeal.
On appeal, Mr. Williams raised the following issues: 1. the trial court erred by granting the State’s Motion to Compel; 2. the trial court committed plain error by not instructing the jury on self-defense; and 3. Mr. Williams’ trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to raise a self-defense claim.
In his argument concerning the trial court’s granting the State’s Motion to Compel, Mr. Williams asserted that by ordering him to make a “final decision,” before trial, on whether he would raise self-defense, his constitutional rights under the 5th and 6th amendments were violated. Because Mr. Williams raised constitutional issues, the appellate Court reviewed this appellate claim de novo. Mr. Williams argued that his pretrial notice was sufficient, which made the State’s Motion to Compel and the resulting order on the motion unnecessary. However, the appellate Court determined that Mr. Williams did not raise this point during the hearing on the State’s Motion to Compel. The appellate Court also disagreed with Mr. Williams’ position that he was required to make a “final decision” regarding self-defense prior to trial. A defendant is only required to give notice of their “intent” to present evidence that supports an affirmative defense. Mr. Williams was not prejudiced at trial by giving the statutorily required notice. The Court also noted that it was clear from the record that Mr. Williams chose not to assert self-defense, so he was not prejudiced by the State’s Motion to Compel. After consulting with his trial attorney and after extensive colloquies with the trial court, it was clear to the appellate Court that Mr. Williams chose not to offer evidence of self-defense because his trial strategy was to rely on reasonable doubt that he was the shooter.
Similarly, the appellate Court was not persuaded by Mr. Williams’ argument that the trial court committed plain error by not instructing the jury on self-defense. Mr. Williams did not object to the trial court’s jury instructions and he did not ask for an instruction on self-defense. In fact, the record showed that Mr. Williams initially wanted an instruction on first-degree murder only. During closing argument, the prosecutor stated, “this is not a self-defense case.” and Mr. Williams did not object to that statement. Because the record repeatedly showed that Mr. Williams did not want an instruction on self-defense, the appellate Court determined that this is an error that he cannot now choose to assert.
The Court then addressed Mr. Williams’s remaining claim of IAC and his petition for writ of certiorari on the grounds that the trial court erred by imposing a civil judgment against him for attorney’s fees without providing adequate prior notice. As for Mr. Williams’s IAC claim, the Court did not find that the record demonstrated his defense counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The Court dismissed this claim without prejudice which allows Mr. Williams to purse this issue through a Motion for Appropriate Relief (MAR) should he choose to do so. With regards to the petition for wit of certiorari, such petitions are allowed when a defendant has demonstrated the existence of substantial harm, a considerable waste of judicial resources, or wide-reaching issues of liberty and justice at stake. In its discretion, the Court found that Mr. Williams had demonstrated none of these therefore the petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari was denied.
Recent Comments