State of North Carolina v. Gary Earl Jenkins (COA25-131) is a Wake County case murder case in which Mr. Jenkins raised three issues on appeal. He argued that the trial court erred by denying his request for a jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter. Next he argued that the trial court should not have instructed the jury on flight. Finally, he argued that the trial court did not exercise its discretion when it denied the jury’s request to review the transcript of his trial testimony. We will look at how the North Carolina Court of Appeals addressed each of this issues below.
In January of 2022, Mr. Jenkins gave the victim $10 for the victim to buy the two of them drugs. About an hour later, the two men met in the parking lot of a convenience store where they discussed the money. The victim informed Mr. Jenkins that he did not have the money. Mr. Jenkins responded, “[d]on’t mess…with me no more.” Mr. Jenkins then walked away. The victim approached Mr. Jenkins again. Security footage from the convenience store captured a tussle between the two men. At some point, the victim was out of the frame of the security camera.
According to Mr. Jenkins, while the victim was out of the frame of the security camera, the victim pulled out a “razor” or “box cutter” style knife and threatened to cut Mr. Jenkins’ head off. Mr. Jenkins respond to the victim, “I ain’t scared of you” and “I’ll kill you, man.” Mr. Jenkins then pulled out his own knife but reports that he was not “planning on” killing the victim. Next, Mr. Jenkins recounts, he and the victim grabbed each other by the collar; the victim cut Mr. Jenkins across his finger; and Mr. Jenkins stabbed the victim in self-defense. Mr. Jenkins stated that he knew the victim was hurt because the victim let go of Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins “looked down” at the victim and then “just walked away.” Mr. Jenkins later returned when he realized that he dropped his glasses. Afterward, he discarded the knife.
The convenience store clerk saw the “fight break out” and called 911 after bystanders told him that the victim was lying in the parking lot. Officers from the Raleigh Police Department arrived on the scene. They did not recover a knife from the victim. The victim was transported to the hospital where he later died. The medical examiner testified at trial that the victim was stabbed once in the “left back side” of his abdomen. As a result, his large intestine and left kidney were perforated. His abdominal aorta was “completely severed” which caused his death. Mr. Jenkins turned himself into law enforcement more than a month after the victim’s death. He knew there was a warrant and felt that he “…might as well get it over with…” He believed that he had acted in self-defense and he thought that the convenience store “had the whole thing on camera.”
In April of 2022, Mr. Jenkins was indicted by a Wake County grand jury on one count of first-degree murder. His trial took place in October of 2023. Mr. Jenkins testified on his own behalf. During the charge conference, Mr. Jenkins requested an instruction on involuntary manslaughter which was denied by the trial court. The State requested an instruction on flight which was objected to by Mr. Jenkins but ultimately granted by the trial court. During its deliberations, the jury requested to view three pieces of evidence: two portions of the security camera footage and the transcript of Mr. Jenkins’ testimony. The trial court granted the request to view the two portions of view footage but denied the request to view portions of Mr. Jenkins’ testimony. Outside of the presence of the jury, the trial court explained that the court reporter “expressed some concern that transcribing [Defendant’s] testimony would take longer than transcribing the testimony of most witnesses because of his speech patterns and the way in which he spoke while on the stand.” Mr. Jenkins objected to the trial court’s denial of the jury’s request to review the transcript of his testimony. In the presence of the jury, the trial court explained the challenges presented by preparing the transcript of Mr. Jenkins’ testimony. Furthermore, the trial court informed the jury of the following: “So in the exercise of the Court’s discretion, I’m going to have to deny that request. I would remind you that it is your duty to recall the evidence in the case whether it was called to your attention or not by the attorneys during their arguments.”
The jury found Mr. Jenkins guilty of second-degree murder and the trial court imposed a sentence in the mitigated range. Mr. Jenkins gave oral notice of appeal. On appeal, Mr. Jenkins raised the following errors by the trial court: denying his request for an instruction on involuntary manslaughter; instructing the jury on flight; and denying the jury’s request to review the transcript of his testimony.
Mr. Jenkins properly preserved the issue of the trial court’s denial of his request for a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter. Therefore, the appellate Court conducted its review of this issue de novo. In it’s review, the Court considered whether any evidence presented at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, would permit a rational jury to acquit on the greater offense and convict on the lesser. Second-degree murder is “the (1) unlawful killing (2) of a human being (3) with malice, but without premeditation and deliberation.” State v. Vassey, 154 N.C. App.. 384, 390, 572 S.E. 2d 248, 252 (2002). A conviction of involuntary manslaughter can be supported by “[E]vidence tending to show the occurrence of a killing caused by the negligent or reckless use of a deadly weapon without any intent to inflict death or serious injury…” State v. Debiase, 211 N.C. App. 287, 289, 360 S.E.2d 470, 471 (1987). In Debiase, the Court held that the evidence tended to show that the defendant “inadvertently” stabbed the victim “while not attempting or intending to do so” thus supporting an instruction on involuntary manslaughter.
Mr. Jenkins contended that he “unintentionally, instinctively or reflexively stabbed…” the victim. However, the Court noted that the evidence showed that Mr. Jenkins told the victim “I’ll kill you” just prior to engaging with him with the knife. Mr. Jankins also argued that he stabbed the victim in self-defense after he was cut across his finger by the victim. However, self-defense is an intentional act performed as a result of a belief to defend against death or serious bodily injury. The Court concluded that when viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. Jankins, the evidence does not tend to show that he stabbed the victim unintentionally. Therefore, the trial court did not err by denying Mr. Jenkins’ request for an instruction on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter.
Mr. Jenkins argued that he did not take steps to flee and therefore the trial court should not have instructed the jury on flight. Again, because this issue was properly preserved for appellate review, the appellate Court conducted its review of this issue de novo. In State v. Levan, 326 N.C. 155, 164-65, 388 S.E.2d 429, 433-34, we learn “[A] trial court may not instruct a jury on defendant’s flight unless there is some evidence in the record reasonably supporting the theory that defendant fled after commission of the crime charged.” The relevant question in terms of instructing the jury on flight is “…whether the evidence shows that defendant left the scene of the crime and took steps to avoid apprehension.” State v. Grooms, 353 N.C. 50, 80, 540 S.E.2d 713, 732 (2000). The evidence showed that Mr. Jenkins stabbed the victim and rendered no aide. Mr. Jenkins walked away even though he knew that the victim was hurt. Mr. Jenkins also admitted to discarding the knife. Finally, even though he knew there was a warrant out for him, Mr. Jenkins waited over a month after the victim’s death before turning himself into law enforcement. The Court concluded that there was evidence that Mr. Jenkins fled the scene and took steps to avoid apprehension. Therefore, the trial court did not err by instructing the jury on flight.
The appellate Court then turned its attention to the final issue that Mr. Jenkins raised on appeal. Mr. Jenkins argued that the trial court did not exercise its discretion because it denied the jury’s request to review the transcript of his testimony. The State argued that the trial court “clearly and explicitly” stated that it was exercising its discretion when it denied the jury this request. Appellate review of a trial court’s ruling on a request of a jury is typically done for an abuse of discretion. State v. Vann, 386 N.C. 244, 250, 900 S.E. 2d 638, 643 (2024). The trial court has two duties when deliberating a jury’s request to review evidence. First, it must bring all jurors into the courtroom. Next, “the trial court must exercise its discretion in determining whether to permit requested evidence to be read or examined by the jury.” State v. Ashe, 314 N.C. 28, 34, 331 S.E.2d 652, 656 (1985). These requirements are also covered under N.C.G.S. §15A-1233. In ruling on the jury’s request to review the transcript of the trial testimony of Mr. Jenkins, the trial court began by stating, “…in the exercise of the Court’s discretion.” The appellate Court views this statement by the trial court as a presumptive of compliance with N.C.G.S. §15A-1233. Furthermore, the trial court considered “the time, practicality, and difficulty involved with granting the [jury’s] request.” State v. Perez, 135 N.C. App. 543, 555, 522 S.E.2d 102, 110 (1999). By granting two of the requests of the jury, the trial court demonstrated that it was acting in its discretion. The appellate Court concluded that the trial court understood its discretion in considering the jury’s request; exercised such discretion; and did not abuse its discretion. Therefore, the trial court exercised its discretion in denying the jury’s request to review the transcript of Mr. Jenkins’ testimony. After reviewing the issues raised on appeal, The North Carolina Court of Appeals found no error in Mr. Jenkins’ trial.
Recent Comments