|
NCGS 14-34.1 Discharging a Firearm Into Occupied Property
a. It is a felony to willfully or wantonly discharge, or attempt to discharge, a firearm into an occupied building, structure, vehicle, aircraft, watercraft, or other conveyance or enclosure.
b. It is a felony to willfully or wantonly discharge a firearm into an occupied dwelling.
b. If the conveyance described in paragraph (a) above “is in operation” when fired into, the felony grade penalty is more severe.
c. A person violating this section who causes serious bodily injury to any person is guilty of a more severe grade of felony.
Caselaw. Standing outside an enclosure or vehicle, and reaching into the enclosure with the firearm, and then discharging the firearm, violates this statute. State v. Mancuso, 364 S.E.2d 359 (NC 1988). The firearm itself may actually be inside of the building, vehicle, etc., when fired. State v. Alexander, 568 S.E.2d 317 (NC App 2002).
To violate this statute, the shooter must know, or reasonably believe, that the building or other enclosure is occupied when shooting into the enclosure. State v. Jones, 409 S.E.2d 322 (NC App 1991). The Supreme Court stated that “this Court interpreted the statute so as to add a knowledge requirement, as follows: We hold that a person is guilty of the felony created by NCGS 14-34.1 if he intentionally, without legal justification or excuse, discharges a firearm into an occupied building with knowledge that the building is then occupied by one or more persons or when he has reasonable grounds to believe that the building might be occupied by one or more persons.” State v. James, 466 S.E.2d 710 (NC 1996) (italics added).
Each of multiple shots can constitute multiple violations of this statute. State v. Nobles, 515 S.E.2d 885 (NC 1999). State v. Rambert, 459 S.E.2d 510 (NC 1995).
Interpretation of this statute by the courts used to be that it was not a violation of this statute to unlawfully fire a bullet at an occupied automobile, but miss the car, and have the bullet strike an occupied house. State v. Watson, 311 S.E.2d 381 (NC App 1984). However, subsequent courts have held that under the “doctrine of transferred intent” an unlawful shooting which results in a stray bullet impacting into a dwelling could be a violation of this statute. State v. Hughes, 2002 App. Lexis 2482 (NC App 2002). In State v. Fletcher, 481 S.E.2d 418 (NC App 1997), rev.den., 487 S.E.2d 560 (NC 1997), cert.den., 139 L.Ed.2d 299 (U.S. 1997), the Defendant was chasing a woman he had just raped, shooting at her, and while shooting at the woman, hit a man’s house several times. The Defendant was found guilty of shooting into an occupied dwelling. Fletcher does not mean that a bullet which was not fired illegally which goes astray and strikes a house is a violation of this statute.
It is enough to violate this statute that the Defendant intended to fire at the building, and it need not be shown that the Defendant intended to fire into the building. State v. Byrd, 510 S.E.2d 410 (NC App 1999).
Discharging a firearm from one apartment through a common wall into the adjoining apartment can be a violation of this statute. State v. Cockerham, 574 S.E.2d 694 (NC App 2003), rev.den., 580 S.E.2d 702 (NC 2003).
Discharging a firearm from the outside into two separate apartments located within the same apartment building is two separate violations of this statute. It is not “double jeopardy” to be charged twice for the same offense, once for each apartment. State v. Ray, 389 S.E.2d 422 (NC App 1990). State v. Rambert, 459 S.E.2d 510 (NC 1995).
Comments. There are many cases under this statute, illustrating many situations. A reader should take care to survey the entire body of caselaw on this statute to determine the law in a particular situation.
This statute was amended in late 2005 to make penalties more severe and to broaden the acts needed to violate the statute. The strengthened statute, informally called “Rachel’s Law,” is a legislative response to the shooting of Rachel Sanchez, a young girl shot while traveling along a Catawba County road in 2003.
|
