State v. Davis

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
2023-NCCOA-4
No. COA22-222
Filed 17 January 2023
New Hanover County, Nos. 15 CRS 50037-50042
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
HARRY LEVERT DAVIS
Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 26 March 2021 by Judge Phyllis
M. Gorham in New Hanover County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals
29 November 2022.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Teresa
M. Postell, for the State.
Widenhouse Law, by M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., for defendant-appellant.
TYSON, Judge.
¶1 Harry Levert Davis (“Defendant”) appeals from judgments entered upon a
jury’s verdicts finding him guilty of two first-degree murders and of three attempted
first-degree murders. Our review of Defendant’s arguments shows no error.
I. Background
¶2 Pamela Pickett, Beverly Pickett, Makayla Pickett, Jasmine Sumpter, Shatara
Pickett, and William Pickett lived in a house located at 1901 Lingo Street in
STATE V. DAVIS
2023-NCCOA-4
Opinion of the Court
Wilmington (“House”). Makayla and Sumpter were sisters. After their mother
passed away in 2012, both moved into the House with their aunt, Pamela. Beverly,
Pamela’s mother and Makayla and Sumpter’s grandmother, moved into the House as
well. Makayla and Sumpter’s other sister, Deseree, moved in with their other aunt,
Tina Pickett, in Raleigh. Deseree spent holidays with her sisters at the House in
Wilmington.
¶3 Shatara, who is another niece of Pamela, also moved into the House. Shatara’s
boyfriend, Lamarcus Davis, also occasionally stayed at the House. In 2013, William,
Pamela’s brother and Makayla and Sumpter’s uncle, also moved into the House.
William worked a twelve-hour overnight shift from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
¶4 In 2014, Pamela was fifty-one years old, suffered from an abnormal heartbeat,
and required an oxygen tank to provide supplemental oxygen. Makayla was fourteen
years old, diagnosed with autism, and completely blind. Beverly, the mother and
grandmother, had been confined to a bed or wheelchair for thirty years due to
multiple sclerosis.
¶5 Nicole Thrower, a certified nursing assistant, came to the House to assist
Beverly several times every day. Thrower and Shatara were friends from high school
and had renewed their friendship when Thrower began assisting Beverly. Thrower
had also dated Defendant since high school. Thrower would stay and visit with
Shatara when she was not working. Shatara’s boyfriend, Lamarcus, was also friends
STATE V. DAVIS
2023-NCCOA-4
Opinion of the Court
with Defendant. Defendant came to the House to visit Lamarcus and Thrower.
¶6 On 7 August 2014 at 7:24 p.m., Defendant broke into the home of Doris Saadeh
at 622 Jennings Drive in Wilmington. Doris is the mother of Linda Saadeh, a
romantic partner of Defendant. Defendant caused property damage and assaulted
Linda. A short time later Defendant was arrested, taken into custody, and
transported to the New Hanover County Jail. Defendant’s mother posted bond at
11:35 p.m. on 7 August 2014, and Defendant was released.
¶7 Early the next morning at 1:06 a.m., Doris called 911 to report her car, parked
in front of her home, was on fire. Police officers determined the fire had been
intentionally set. Police recovered several items from the scene: a butane disposable
lighter, a can of aerosol spray, and balled-up tin foil. Wilmington Police officers
located Defendant at a Scotchman convenience store at 1:13 a.m. The drive from 627
Jennings Drive to the Scotchman convenience store located at Third Street and
Dawson Street is approximately nine minutes. Doris sought and was granted a
protective order against Defendant on behalf of her minor daughter, Linda, on 11
August 2014.
¶8 On 30 August 2014, Defendant also assaulted Thrower and was charged. On
8 December 2014, Thrower sought and was granted a protective order against
Defendant. She alleged Defendant had been released from jail the night before and
was making threats against her.
STATE V. DAVIS
2023-NCCOA-4
Opinion of the Court
¶9 Defendant attempted to reconcile with Thrower on 22 December 2014.
Thrower rebuffed Defendant’s advances and asked to stay with Shatara for her own
protection. While Shatara and Thrower were driving, Defendant spotted the women
and followed the vehicle until Shatara drove to the Wilmington Police Department.
Upon arrival, Defendant quit following their vehicle and drove away.
¶ 10 Defendant called Robert Hale at 3:51 a.m. on 23 December 2014 and asked him
for a gun. Hale told Defendant he did not have a gun, hung up the phone, and went
back to sleep. Defendant purchased a gas container at the Wilmington Scotchman
convenience store and filled it with gas at 4:12 a.m. on 23 December 2014. A security
video camera recorded Defendant driving away from the Wilmington Scotchman,
holding the gas container outside of the driver’s window of the vehicle. At 5:04 a.m.
that same morning, a 911 call was made reporting the House was on fire.
¶ 11 Wilmington Police Corporal Brandon McInerney was the first to arrive upon
the scene at 5:06 a.m. Corporal McInerney was familiar with the residents of the
House and had previously responded to medical issues reported at the House.
Corporal McInerney observed power lines were down in the front of the House and
laying across the road. After exiting his vehicle, Corporal McInerney saw two women
attempting to climb out of a window. He rushed to assist them and identified them
as Deseree and Jasmine.
¶ 12 Tina, the aunt from Raleigh, had driven and dropped Deseree off at the House
STATE V. DAVIS
2023-NCCOA-4
Opinion of the Court
to spend the upcoming Christmas holiday with her sisters, Makayla and Sumpter.
After sending Deseree and Jasmine across the road to safety, he turned the corner to
the east side of the House and saw a female screaming and unable to get out. He
later identified that person as Pamela, hanging halfway out of a side window.
Corporal McInerney and Officer Clark helped get Pamela out through the window.
Pamela said two more individuals remained inside the House, including one person
laying by that window, who had begun to crawl away from the window. Corporal
McInerney and Officer Clark leaned inside the window, found Beverly’s leg, and
pulled her out of the window and passed her to other first responders to get her to
safety and receive medical attention.
¶ 13 Pamela struggled to breathe and became unresponsive. First responders
began cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Emergency Medical Services officials
attempted additional, but unsuccessful, lifesaving procedures. Pamela was
pronounced dead at the scene.
¶ 14 Corporal McInerney, who also served as a volunteer firefighter, attempted to
look for Makayla inside the House. He reported seeing “heavy smoke, again, coming
from every crack. There was a back door, but again with the amount of smoke coming
out, I didn’t think it was advisable to try to get in through the door.”
¶ 15 Wilmington Fire Department had dispatched two firetrucks to the House, but
with the live power lines down in the front yard and street, the firemen had to enter
STATE V. DAVIS
2023-NCCOA-4
Opinion of the Court
the House without water to locate Makayla. The first vent entry into the House was
unsuccessful. Wilmington Fire Department Captain Michael Browning ordered
every firefighter to perform another vent entry into the House into all four bedrooms
and in the kitchen to find Makayla.
¶ 16 Captain Shannon Provencher used a thermal imaging camera and located
Makayla unconscious, wedged between a living room wall and bags of adult diapers.
Captain Provencher carried Makayla out to EMS personnel, who were unable to
revive her. Makayla was also pronounced dead from smoke inhalation on the scene.
¶ 17 Fire investigators determined two separate fires had been intentionally set at
the House. One fire had been set on the front porch, the site of one entrance, and
another at the rear entrance. Outside of the House, investigators located a blue
butane disposable lighter and a gas can spout. Investigators also located the presence
of gasoline in the fire debris.
¶ 18 Defendant was indicted for one count of first-degree arson, two counts of first-
degree murder, and three counts of attempted first-degree murder on 30 March 2015.
The jury found Defendant guilty of all charges, including both first-degree murders
on two bases of malice, premeditation, and deliberation, and also under the felony-
murder rule.
¶ 19 Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole
for the first-degree murder convictions and 207 to 261 months for each of the
STATE V. DAVIS
2023-NCCOA-4
Opinion of the Court
attempted first-degree murders, all sentences to run concurrently. The trial court
arrested judgment on the first-degree arson conviction. Defendant appeals.
II. Jurisdiction
¶ 20 Jurisdiction lies in this Court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7A-27(b)(1) and
15A-1444(a) (2021).
III. Issues
¶ 21 Defendant argues the trial court: (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
charges of attempted first-degree murder because the indictments did not allege an
essential element of the offense; (2) erred by refusing to dismiss the charge of
attempted first-degree murder of Deseree Pickett; and, (3) erred by admitting
evidence of prior incidents of violence and abuse.
IV. Sufficiency of Indictments of Attempted First-Degree Murder
¶ 22 Defendant argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment because
his indictments for attempted first-degree murder failed to allege an essential
element of the crime. He asserts the indictment failed to include “with malice
aforethought.”
¶ 23 Defendant failed to challenge the sufficiency of the indictment at trial. It is
well established that “when an indictment is alleged to be facially invalid, thereby
depriving the trial court of its jurisdiction, it may be challenged at any time,
notwithstanding a defendant’s failure to contest its validity in the trial court.” State
STATE V. DAVIS
2023-NCCOA-4
Opinion of the Court
v. Call, 353 N.C. 400, 429, 545 S.E.2d 190, 208 (2008) (citation omitted). This
jurisdictional challenge is properly before us.
A. Standard of Review
¶ 24 This Court reviews the jurisdictional sufficiency of an indictment de novo.
State v. Marshall, 188 N.C. App. 744, 748, 656 S.E.2d 709, 712 (2008) (citation
omitted).
B. Analysis
¶ 25 The purpose of an indictment is “to identify clearly the crime being charged,
thereby putting the accused on reasonable notice to defend against it and prepare for
trial, and to protect the accused from being jeopardized by the State more than once
for the same crime.” State v. Creason, 313 N.C. 122, 130, 326 S.E.2d 24, 29 (1985)
(citations omitted).
¶ 26 Under the North Carolina Constitution, an indictment is sufficient to confer
jurisdiction if it alleges every element of the offense. See State v. Greer, 238 N.C. 325,
327, 77 S.E.2d 917, 919 (1953). “An indictment need not conform to any technical
rules of pleading, but instead, must satisfy both the statutory strictures of N.C.G.S.
§ 15A-924 and the constitutional purposes which indictments are designed to
satisfy[.]” State v. Oldroyd, 380 N.C. 613, 617, 2022-NCSC-27, ¶8, 869 S.E.2d 193,
196-97 (2022) (internal citation omitted). “[I]ndictments need only allege the
ultimate facts constituting each element of the criminal offense.” State v. Rambert,
STATE V. DAVIS
2023-NCCOA-4
Opinion of the Court
341 N.C. 173, 176, 459 S.E.2d 510, 512 (1995) (citation omitted).
¶ 27 Our Supreme Court has recently held: “[A]n indictment is sufficient if it asserts
facts plainly, concisely, and in a non-evidentiary manner which supports each of the
elements of the charged crime with the exactitude necessary to allow the defendant
to prepare a defense and to protect the defendant from double jeopardy.” Oldroyd,
380 N.C. at 617-18, 2022-NCSC-27, ¶8, 869 S.E.2d at 197.
¶ 28 Defendant’s purported reliance on this Court’s decisions in State v. Wilson, 236
N.C. App. 472, 474-75, 762 S.E.2d 894, 895-96 (2014); State v. Bullock, 154 N.C. App.
234, 243-44, 574 S.E.2d 17, 23 (2002); and State v. Wilson, 128 N.C App. 688, 691-92,
497 S.E.2d 416, 419 (1998) is both misplaced and unavailing. Defendant maintains
the indictment on its face failed to include the essential element of “malice
aforethought,” and the judgment must be arrested. Bullock, 154 N.C. App. at 244,
574 S.E.2d at 24.
¶ 29 Defendant’s indictments for attempted first-degree murder alleged “the
defendant named above unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously did ATTEMPT TO
KILL AND MURDER [NAMED VICTIM] BY SETTING THE RESIDENCE
OCCUPIED BY THE VICTIM ON FIRE.” In Bullock, the indictment for attempted
first-degree murder stated: “[t]he jurors for the State upon their oath present that on
or about the date of the offense shown and in the county named above unlawfully,
willfully, and feloniously did attempt to kill and murder [victim’s name].” Id. at 244,
STATE V. DAVIS
2023-NCCOA-4
Opinion of the Court
574 S.E.2d at 23. This Court arrested judgment in Bullock. This Court also arrested
judgment in the separate cases of Wilson and Wilson, which excluded “malice
aforethought.” Wilson, 236 N.C. App. at 474-75, 762 S.E.2d 895-96; Wilson, 128 N.C.
App. at 691-92, 497 S.E.2d at 419.
¶ 30 The indictments, Defendant challenges, includes the specific facts from which
malice is shown, by “unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously . . . setting the residence
occupied by the victim(s) on fire.” The indictments allege “the ultimate facts
constituting each element of the criminal offense.” Rambert, 341 N.C. at 176, 459
S.E.2d at 512 (citation omitted). Defendant’s argument is overruled.
V. Attempted First-Degree Murder – Transferred Intent
¶ 31 Defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the
attempted first-degree murder charge of Deseree Pickett.
A. Standard of Review
¶ 32 Our Supreme Court has held: “Upon defendant’s motion for dismissal, the
question for the Court is whether there is substantial evidence (1) of each essential
element of the offense charged, or of a lesser offense included therein, and (2) of
defendant’s being the perpetrator of such offense. If so, the motion is properly
denied.” State v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373, 378, 526 S.E.2d 451, 455 (2000) (citation
omitted).
¶ 33 “In making its determination, the trial court must consider all evidence
STATE V. DAVIS
2023-NCCOA-4
Opinion of the Court
admitted, whether competent or incompetent, in the light most favorable to the State,
giving the State the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving any
contradictions in its favor.” State Rose, 339 N.C. 172, 192, 451 S.E.2d 211, 223 (1994)
(citation omitted). “The denial of a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence is a
question of law which this Court reviews de novo.” State v. Bagley, 183 N.C. App.
514, 523, 644 S.E.2d 615, 621 (2007) (citations omitted).
B. Analysis
¶ 34 Defendant asserts the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the
attempted first-degree murder charge of Deseree Pickett. He argues insufficient
evidence tends to show a specific intent to kill her because he did not know she would
be inside the House.
¶ 35 The elements of attempted first-degree murder are: (1) specific intent to kill
another person unlawfully, (2) an overt act calculated to carry out that intent, going
beyond mere preparation, (3) the existence of malice, premeditation, and deliberation
accompanying the act; and (4) a failure to complete the intended killing. See State v.
Gartlan, 132 N.C. App. 272, 275, 512 S.E.2d 74, 77 (1999). Defendant argues he was
unaware Deseree was present inside the House at the time he set the fires, and he
could and did not form the specific intent to attempt to kill her. Defendant’s
argument is misplaced and ignores long-standing precedents.
¶ 36 The doctrine of transferred intent applies where one engages in an action
STATE V. DAVIS
2023-NCCOA-4
Opinion of the Court
against another and unintentionally attempts to or kills a third person. See State v.
Locklear, 331 N.C. 239, 245, 415 S.E.2d 726, 730 (1992). The actor’s conduct toward
the victim is “interpreted with reference to his intent and conduct towards his
adversary[,]” and criminal liability for the third party’s death is determined “as [if]
the fatal act had caused the death of [the intended victim].” Id. (citation and
quotation marks omitted).
¶ 37 “[I]t is immaterial whether the defendant intended injury to the person
actually harmed; if he in fact acted with the required or elemental intent toward
someone[,] that intent suffices as the intent element of the crime charged as a matter
of substantive law.” State v. Andrews, 154 N.C. App. 553, 559, 572 S.E.2d 798, 802
(2002) (citation omitted).
¶ 38 Here, the State’s evidence tended to establish Defendant was involved in a
domestic dispute with Thrower. Defendant set two fires at both points of natural
entry, ingress, and egress in a house, which he believed contained Thrower, his
intended victim. Defendant acted with the requisite intent to injure or kill towards
a specific person, which intent transferred to another. The true identify of that
individual is immaterial. The evidence tends to show and is sufficient for the jury to
find Defendant in fact acted, and with the necessary transferred intent to attempt to
kill, Deseree. Defendant’s argument is without merit and overruled.
VI. Prior Acts
STATE V. DAVIS
2023-NCCOA-4
Opinion of the Court
¶ 39 Defendant argues the admission of various prior acts of violence and abuse
against Linda and Thrower, his setting Linda’s mother’s vehicle on fire, and
attempting to burn Thrower’s father’s car were improperly admitted over his
objections.
A. Rules 401 and 402
1. Standard of Review
¶ 40 “Although a trial court’s rulings on relevancy are not discretionary and we do
not review them for an abuse of discretion, we give them great deference on appeal.”
State v. Grant, 178 N.C. App. 565, 573, 632 S.E.2d 258, 265 (2006) (citation omitted),
disc rev. denied, 361 N.C. 223, 642 S.E.2d 712 (2007).
2. Analysis
¶ 41 Defendant argues the admission of this evidence was irrelevant under North
Carolina Rules of Evidence 401 and 402. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rules 401, 402
(2021).
¶ 42 Rule of Evidence 401 defines relevant evidence as “evidence having any
tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination
of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401. Irrelevant evidence is evidence “having no tendency to prove
a fact at issue in the case.” State v. Hart, 105 N.C. App. 542, 548, 414 S.E.2d 364,
368 (1992). Under Rule of Evidence 402, relevant evidence is generally admissible at
STATE V. DAVIS
2023-NCCOA-4
Opinion of the Court
trial, while irrelevant evidence is not admissible. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule
402.
¶ 43 The challenged testimony was clearly relevant under Rules 401 and 402. This
evidence was probative to issues of Defendant’s identity, Defendant’s common scheme
or plan, Defendant’s intent, Defendant’s motive, Defendant’s knowledge, and
Defendant’s modus operandi. The testimony at issue is relevant and admissible
under Rules 401 and 402. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rules 401, 402. Defendant’s
argument is without merit.
B. Rule 404(b)
¶ 44 Defendant also challenges the admission of prior bad acts under Rules of
Evidence 404(b) and 403.
1. Standard of Review
¶ 45 “We review de novo the legal conclusion that the evidence is, or is not, within
the coverage of Rule 404(b).” State v. Beckelheimer, 366 N.C. 127, 130, 726 S.E.2d
156, 159 (2012).
2. Analysis
¶ 46 Under North Carolina Rules of Evidence 404(b), evidence may be admissible
to show “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or
absence of mistake, entrapment, or accident.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b)
(2021). Evidence of prior criminal activity must be: (1) relevant to the crime charged;
STATE V. DAVIS
2023-NCCOA-4
Opinion of the Court
and, (2) sufficiently similar and temporally proximate to the crime charged. State v.
Carpenter, 361 N.C. 382, 388, 646 S.E.2d 105, 110 (2007).
¶ 47 Our Supreme Court has held:
Rule 404(b) state[s] a clear general rule of inclusion of
relevant evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by a
defendant, subject to but one exception requiring its
exclusion if its only probative value is to show that the
defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an
offense of the nature of the crime charged.
State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 278-79, 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990).
¶ 48 The State argues the relevant evidence of Defendant’s prior actions is properly
admitted under Rule 404(b) and tends to show his intent, motive, malice,
premeditation, and deliberation. We agree. Defendant’s argument is overruled.
C. Rule 403
1. Standard of Review
¶ 49 “Rulings under North Carolina Rule of Evidence 403 are discretionary, and a
trial court’s decisions on motions made pursuant to Rule 403 are binding on appeal,
unless the dissatisfied party shows that the trial court abused its discretion.” State
v. Chapman, 359 N.C. 328, 348, 611 S.E.2d 794, 811 (2005) (citation omitted). “A
trial court may be reversed for abuse of discretion only upon a showing that its ruling
was manifestly unsupported by reason and could not have been the result of a
reasoned decision.” State v. Riddick, 315 N.C. 749, 756, 340 S.E.2d 55, 59 (1986)
(citations omitted).
STATE V. DAVIS
2023-NCCOA-4
Opinion of the Court
2. Analysis
¶ 50 Even relevant evidence, under Rule 403 “may be excluded if its probative value
is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues,
or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless
presentation of cumulative evidence.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403 (2021).
Defendant argues the probative value of admitting this evidence is outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice, because the prior acts are too remote to have probative
value and are a needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
¶ 51 “When prior incidents are offered for a proper purpose, the ultimate test of
admissibility is whether they are sufficiently similar and not so remote as to run afoul
of the balancing test between probative value and prejudicial effect set out in Rule
403.” State v. West, 103 N.C. App. 1, 9, 404 S.E.2d 191, 197 (1991). “[E]very
circumstance that is calculated to throw any light upon the supposed crime is
admissible. The weight of such evidence is for the jury.” State v. Whiteside, 325 N.C.
389, 397, 383 S.E.2d 911, 915 (1989) (citation omitted).
¶ 52 The alleged incident where Defendant set Doris Saadeh’s car on fire with
gasoline occurred approximately five months prior to the incidents on 24 December.
The incident where Defendant had threatened to damage Thrower’s father’s vehicle
occurred the same day of the murders and events charged. Defendant’s physical
assaults of Thrower and Linda also occurred not too temporally remote from the
STATE V. DAVIS
2023-NCCOA-4
Opinion of the Court
crimes to warrant exclusion under Rule 403. Defendant has failed to show these
incidents are so cumulative or likely to mislead the jury for their admission to
constitute an abuse of discretion. See State v. Stevenson, 169 N.C. App. 797, 801-02,
611 S.E.2d 206, 210 (2005). Defendant has failed to show the trial court abused its
discretion in allowing the admission of testimony regarding Defendant’s prior bad
actions under Rules 404(b) and 403. His arguments are overruled.
VII. Conclusion
¶ 53 Defendant’s jurisdictional challenges to the sufficiency of his indictments for
attempted first-degree murder are without merit. The trial court did not err in
refusing to dismiss the charge of attempted first-degree murder of Deseree.
Defendant’s prior acts were properly admitted under North Carolina Rules of
Evidence 401, 402, 403, and 404(b).
¶ 54 Defendant received a fair trial free from prejudicial errors he preserved and
argued. We find no error in the jury’s verdicts or in the judgments entered thereon.
It is so ordered.
NO ERROR.
Judges CARPENTER and GRIFFIN concur.