Do a case briefing on the case of STATE V. FIELDS, 376 S.E.2D 740 (N.C. 1989). Include the issue at hand (what was being tried), the facts (names, ages, crimes, anything important, etc), the ruling (the decision of the case, who won, what the court is ordering), the holding (the new precedent that the court is setting, a rule or interpretation of the existing rule that can be applied to similar cases after that), and the rule (might be the rule that already exists or applied, the holding would further interpret it), and what does this mean for the defendant or conviction.

Case

Facts

The State's evidence, in pertinent summary, showed the following: Connie Williams, defendant's half-sister, testified that she had been dating Isaiah

Barnes, the victim, for two years at the time of his death. On September 18, 1986, the couple was drinking liquor at Robert Cobb's house. . . .

Cobb testified that defendant and his girl friend were at his house when Williams and Barnes arrived. Defendant offered Williams a drink and left soon thereafter. Before leaving, defendant "played some numbers" with Cobb. Williams and Barnes also left Cobb's house, but returned later that evening. Williams and Barnes were sitting on a trunk in Cobb's bed- room, drinking and talking. Cobb and his friend, Joyce Ann Pettaway, also were talking in the bedroom. Defendant entered the bedroom about midnight. He called Cobb by a nick- name, "Snow." Defendant asked Cobb to keep the ticket for the numbers he had played, saying, "If I hit, I want you to get the money and keep it until you see me." Cobb asked why defendant could not keep it himself, and defendant answered, "You'll see."

Defendant and Barnes had not spoken to one another. Defendant then walked around the foot of the bed, pulled a gun out of his belt, and shot Barnes. Barnes fell on the floor. Pettaway cried, "Oh, Lord have mercy. Please don't shoot that man anymore." Defendant

Chapter 4Actus Reus123

turned toward her and said, "Shut up," then shot Barnes again as he lay on the floor gasp- ing for breath. Cobb told defendant to get out of his house because he was calling "the law." Defendant said, "Okay, Snow," and walked out.

Wallace Fields, defendant's brother, testified on defendant's behalf. He recounted the difficult circumstances of their childhood. Their stepfather, called "Dump," drank regularly and beat the children and their mother. They had little money and were often hungry. When Dump was on a rampage, the mother and children would often sleep outside to avoid him.

One night when defendant was fourteen, Dump held a knife to defendant's mother's throat and threatened to kill her. Defendant grabbed a gun and shot Dump, killing him. Wallace Fields testified that up to the time of this incident, defendant was a normal boy who liked to play and go to school. After the shooting, defendant had nightmares and became "a different person," acting as if he were "in his own world." Defendant was extremely devoted to his mother, helping her cook and clean and giving her money.

Wallace Fields further testified that his sister, Connie Williams, had become a differ- ent person since beginning her relationship with Barnes. She often appeared bruised and beaten and cared little for her appearance.

Willard Mills, defendant's stepbrother, also testified regarding defendant's devotion to his mother. Mills stated that Connie Williams became dependent on alcohol or drugs and lost all interest in her family and appearance after she became involved with Barnes. Defendant and his brothers were worried about Connie and frequently discussed how to help her.

Mills reported that defendant had become very morose after the childhood shooting inci- dent. As defendant grew older, Mills advised him to put it all behind him and join the service. While in service, another soldier performed a trick in which the soldier put lighter fluid in his mouth, lit it, and blew out the flames. Defendant saw his stepfather's face in the flames and ran away. He was hospitalized for several months following this episode.

Mills testified that defendant was concerned about Barnes's drinking and tried to persuade him to stop, but that defendant bore Barnes no malice. Ten days after shooting Barnes, defendant called Mills. Mills picked up defendant at the bus station and took him to the Tarboro police station to turn himself in.

Agnes Williams, defendant's mother, testified that defendant's nerves had been bad ever since the incident with Dump. Defendant had a nervous breakdown in the service and was never the same afterward. Defendant's nerves were "just racked all to pieces" over Connie Williams's problems.

Dr. Evans Harrell, a psychologist, testified on defendant's behalf. . . . He stated that after defendant killed Dump he felt very protective toward his mother and sisters. Defendant felt guilty about the family being left without a father figure, and he tried to assume that role. Defendant suffered from frequent nightmares featuring Dump and often felt Dump's pres- ence even when awake. In Dr. Harrell's opinion, defendant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, and certain of his behavior was characteristic of a disassociative state. Dr. Harrell described a disassociative state as a sudden temporary alteration in the state of consciousness, during which defendant would not remember what happened and did not intend to do anything, "like his mind and his body weren't connected."

Dr. Harrell recounted what defendant related to him about the killing of Isaiah Barnes. Defendant told Dr. Harrell he had tried to get his sister Connie to leave Cobb's house that night because he was worried about her drinking. Connie's arm was bandaged from a burn which she attributed to an accident but which defendant and the family suspected Barnes inflicted. Defendant saw Barnes reach out and grab Connie, and Connie grimaced in pain. At

124Contemporary Criminal Law

this point defendant pulled out the gun and shot Barnes. Defendant told Dr. Harrell he had not planned to kill Barnes, had not thought of killing Barnes, and even as he shot him, was not thinking of killing Barnes. Defendant denied any memory of firing a second shot. Instead, defendant was seeing Dump and his mother "and all of these things flashing before [him] in a blur." . . .

Dr. Harrell testified that defendant perceived Barnes to be treating Connie the same way Dump had treated defendant's mother. . . . In Dr. Harrell's opinion, defendant did not plan or intend to shoot Barnes and was unable to exercise conscious control of his physical actions at that moment. Dr. Harrell concluded, "I think he was acting sort of like a robot. He was acting like an automaton."

Dr. Harrell testified that defendant told him he had been drinking on the night of the shooting but did not tell him how much he had had to drink.

Issue

Defendant assigns error to the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the defense of unconsciousness. This defense, also called automatism, has been defined as

connoting the state of a person who, though capable of action, is not conscious of what he is doing. It is to be equated with unconsciousness, involuntary action [and] implies that there must be some attendant disturbance of conscious awareness. Undoubtedly automatic states exist, and medically they may be defined as conditions in which the patient may perform simple or complex actions in a more or less skilled or uncoordinated fashion without having full awareness of what he is doing.

Reasoning

Defendant's evidence tended to show that immediately preceding and during the killing of his victim, he was unconscious. Family members testified to a substantial history going back to defendant's childhood of defendant's acting as if he were "in his own world." In the context of this testimony, and on the basis of a personal and family history obtained from defen- dant and members of his family, Dr. Harrell testified that in his opinion defendant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and was prone to experiencing disassociative states. In Dr. Harrell's opinion, defendant was in a disassociative state when he shot the victim. Dr. Harrell testified . . . [that the defendant] "was acting sort of like a robot. He was acting like an automaton." . . . "When Isaiah reached out and grabs Connie's arm and Connie grimaces, and his whole past life and material that is so similar in his mind to what he's seen, flashes before him, then he engages in a motor action. . . ."

This testimony, if believed, permits a jury finding that defendant was unable to exercise conscious control of his physical actions when he shot the victim. . . . Defendant thus was entitled to the unconsciousness or automatism jury instruction . . . stating that the defense of unconsciousness does not apply to a case in which the mental state of the person in question is due to insanity, mental defect or voluntary intoxication resulting from the use of drugs or intoxicating liquor, but applies only to cases of the unconsciousness of persons of sound mind as, for example, sleepwalkers or persons suffering from the delirium of fever, epilepsy, a blow on the head or the involuntary taking of drugs or intoxicating liquor, and other cases in which there is no functioning of the conscious mind and the person's acts are controlled solely by the subconscious mind.

Holding

[The] defendant's evidence . . . merited the requested instruction on unconsciousness or automatism. . . . As noted above, family members testified to a substantial history going back to defendant's childhood of defendant's acting as if he were "in his own world." . . . Dr. Harrell clearly testified that in his opinion defendant was unable to exercise conscious control of his physical actions at the moment of the fatal shooting. He stated further: "I think he was acting sort of like a robot. He was acting like an automaton. . . . [W]hen he goes into the altered state of consciousness, . . . then he engages in a motor action." This testimony, combined with the family members' testimony, if accepted by the jury, "exclude[d] the possibility of a voluntary act without which there can be no criminal liability." . . . Therefore, an instruction on the legal principles applicable to the unconsciousness or automatism defense was required.