Just a little rant.....

[MyHatred]

I was sitting here thinking about my buddy who got murdered some time ago when I was in high school today and I decided to punch his name into google to see if I could find any old stories about him. I came across this bullshit...It is a conviction appeal by one of the shitheads who helped murder my friend. I don't know...There is no real reason for this thread other than I am pissed to even think that this asshole thinks he deserves to be released...The other thing that pisses me off is that they paint a picture that my buddy was some hard core dealer or something. Yeah, he smoked weed but he wasn't dealing pounds and shit like they say in the report, he was a user not a dealer...Big difference..You can read the report if ya want or not...This tells what happened to my friend in more detail then what I knew..The really sad thing is when this happend his girlfriend found out she was pregnant a month earlier. The really fucked up thing is my high school was such hick town and they made it sound like it was straight up gang territory. :Smug: Shit, it was hillbillies with pickups and confederate flags more like it.
Here is the link to full report if ya want to read it all.

http://www.eatoncounty.org/prosecutor/Rosenbrook215007-opn.pdf
-1-
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
UNPUBLISHED
November 16, 2001
v No. 215007
Eaton Circuit Court
SHAWN GALE ROSENBROOK,
LC No. 97-020404-FC
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: K. F. Kelly, P.J., and White and Talbot, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his convictions of second-degree murder, MCL 750.317,
and conspiracy to commit larceny, MCL 750.157(a) and MCL 750.357, following a jury trial.
We affirm.
Defendant’s convictions arise from the shooting death of Chuck Hadley, a marijuana
dealer in the Charlotte area, at defendant’s father’s house in Bellevue on November 25, 1997,
two days before Thanksgiving. Originally, defendant, then eighteen years old, and his friend
Matthew Harton, seventeen years old, planned to "gank" Hadley (i.e., steal or rob him of his
drugs or money), but they eventually decided to kill him to take over his drug territory. Harton
was a member of a gang in Charlotte called the Jungle People Vice Lords, which is affiliated
with the Vice Lords and nationally affiliated with the "People Nation." Tim Rodriguez, the selfstyled
leader of the gang, appointed Harton as the enforcer of gang discipline and encouraged
him to recruit new members. Defendant was not a member of the gang, but Harton sought to
recruit him with Rodriguez’s approval. Although defendant and Rodriguez never discussed the
plan to kill Hadley, Rodriguez approved of Harton’s and defendant’s plan to kill Hadley.
Rodriguez provided the weapon, a .22 caliber handgun.
On the evening of the Tuesday before Thanksgiving 1997, defendant lured Hadley to his
father’s house under the pretext of "hooking" Hadley up with marijuana. Meanwhile, Harton
drove from Charlotte to Bellevue and waited for defendant to arrive with Hadley. Harton then
emerged from the darkness and shot Hadley to death. After the shooting, Harton gave defendant
the gun to hide, and then helped defendant move the body to a gravel pit area behind the house.
Defendant picked up the shell casings, and Harton washed the blood from the driveway.
Defendant and Harton split the money that was taken from Hadley’s wallet. On the following
evening, defendant and his friend, Michael Rahe, moved the body to some tall grass next to a
pond on Mr. Handricks’ farm, a neighbor of defendant’s father.
On the following day, defendant told his father of his involvement in Hadley’s shooting
death. Defendant’s father contacted Detective Benden of the Charlotte Police Department and
informed him that defendant had been an eyewitness to Hadley’s murder. Later that day,
Detectives Benden and Kellogg tape-recorded an interview with defendant in which defendant
denied that he knew that Harton was going to shoot Hadley, claiming only that he and Harton had
discussed "ganking" Hadley for his money or drugs. As a result of defendant’s interview, the
police arrested Harton, Rodriguez and the other gang members. On the following day, the
detectives continued their investigation and re-interviewed defendant to focus on why Harton
happened to be present at defendant’s father’s house. After the second interview, defendant was
arrested and charged with open murder, conspiracy to commit open murder, and felony-firearm.
Subsequently, defendant was interviewed by Michigan State Police Sergeant John
Palmatier for the purpose of a polygraph examination on December 4 and 11, 1997. In the first
statement to Palmatier, defendant claimed that he and Harton planned only to "gank" Hadley, and
that he was surprised when Harton shot him. However, in the second statement to Palmatier,
defendant admitted that before the murder, he, Harton and Joshua Hansen, another member of the
gang, had talked about killing Hadley to take over his drug territory. The prosecutor then
charged defendant with first-degree premeditated murder, conspiracy to murder, and felonyfirearm.
After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of the lesser included offenses of seconddegree
murder and conspiracy to commit larceny from a person, but acquitted of the felonyfirearm
charge.
I
On appeal, defendant first claims that he was denied a fair trial when Sergeant Palmatier
testified that he believed that Harton was telling the truth. We disagree. Our review of the trial
transcript reveals that the testimony in question falls within the "invited error" rule.​

People v
Collins, 63 Mich App 376, 381-382; 234 NW2d 531 (1975). Specifically, defense counsel, while
questioning Sergeant Palmatier about how he used Harton’s statement in his interrogation of
defendant, elicited Palmatier’s testimony that he believed that Harton was telling the truth. The
record indicates that defense counsel plainly expected Palmatier’s response to his line of
questioning. As the prosecution notes, defense counsel’s questions and Palmatier’s responses
were consistent with their previous exchange during the Walker1 hearing. Thus, defense counsel
clearly anticipated Palmatier’s responses to his questions. In addition, defense counsel,
immediately after eliciting Palmatier’s testimony that he believed that Harton was telling the
truth, attempted to call into question Palmatier’s basis for believing Harton. In the context of his
cross-examination, it is evident that defense counsel purposely elicited Palmatier’s testimony that
he believed that Harton was telling the truth in order to show that Palmatier improperly
prejudged defendant’s guilt. As "invited error," defendant waived the issue, and thus there is no
"error" to review.​

 

[IAN442]

My Hatred - when you think about what happened to your friend your screen name must hit right home....

 

[IAN442]

This is about someone i went through Boot camp with he was from Maryland like myself so we had a lot in common.

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

NO. COA02-1743



NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS



Filed: 18 November 2003



STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA


v. Johnston County
No. 96 CRS 12315
TEDDY DANIEL HARMON,
Defendant.




On writ of certiorari to review the judgment entered 28 August 1997 by Judge Robert F. Floyd, Jr., in Johnston County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 October 2003.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Jonathan P. Babb, for the State.

Russell J. Hollers, III, for defendant-appellant.



GEER, Judge.


Defendant Teddy Daniel Harmon, who was convicted of second degree murder, contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for a voluntary manslaughter instruction. Because the record does not contain evidence from which a jury could conclude that defendant acted with adequate provocation, the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury as to voluntary manslaughter.
In the early morning on 17 August 1996, defendant and his friends Steve Gustafson and William Pope were at the Coastal gas station in Benson, North Carolina. James Dormio was standing near his car at the gas pumps. After seeing Dormio, Pope stated to defendant and Gustafson that "he was going to kick [his] a--." Pope was angry with Dormio because he had heard that Dormio washarassing a former girlfriend of Gustafson.
Eyewitnesses testified that Pope, Gustafson, and defendant approached Dormio at his car. Pope pushed Dormio, asking him if he had a problem. While the four men were arguing and shoving, Douglas Johnson came up from "out of nowhere." He said "Don't f--k with my friends," and hit Dormio in the face with his fist.
Dormio, who was wearing a cast on his leg, stumbled and fell face first to the pavement. The eyewitnesses testified that while Dormio was lying on the ground, Johnson and defendant kicked Dormio repeatedly in Dormio's ribs, back, neck, and head. No one had seen Dormio with a weapon and no one testified that Dormio struck anyone.
Officer Ashley McLamb arrived at the gas station in response to a call that a fight was in progress. Officer McLamb found Dormio's unconscious body near the gas pumps, with bruises on his face and blood coming from his mouth and nose. A rescue squad transported Dormio to a hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival.
The Chief Medical Examiner for North Carolina concluded that Dormio died from bleeding around the base of his brain that was the result of blunt force trauma tearing a major artery to the brain. The Medical Examiner testified that one or more violent blows, including a kick, causing a wrenching of the neck or twisting of the head could have led to the tearing.
On 23 September 1996, defendant was indicted for murder pursuant to a short-form indictment. Defendant was ultimatelyconvicted of second degree murder and sentenced to a term of 157 to 198 months imprisonment. Defendant failed to perfect his appeal in a timely manner, but this Court granted defendant's petition for writ of certiorari on 10 April 2002.
Defendant first argues that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. Defendant contends that there was a conflict in the evidence regarding provocation, and thus he was entitled to have the jury consider voluntary manslaughter as a possible verdict. We find no error.
"[A] defendant is entitled to have a lesser-included offense submitted to the jury only when there is evidence to support it." State v. Johnson, 317 N.C. 193, 205, 344 S.E.2d 775, 782 (1986). A trial court need not instruct on a lesser included offense when the "State's evidence is positive as to each element of the offense charged and there is no contradictory evidence relating to any element . . . ." State v. Millsaps, 356 N.C. 556, 562, 572 S.E.2d 767, 772 (2002).
Voluntary manslaughter is "the killing of another human being without malice and without premeditation and deliberation under the influence of some passion or heat of blood produced by adequate provocation." State v. Watson, 338 N.C. 168, 176, 449 S.E.2d 694, 699 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1071, 131 L. Ed. 2d 569, overruled on other grounds, State v. Richardson, 341 N.C. 585, 461 S.E.2d 724 (1995). Defendant was entitled to an instruction on voluntary manslaughter only if there was evidence tending to show(1) defendant assaulted Dormio in the heat of passion; (2) defendant's passion was provoked by acts of the victim which the law regards as adequate provocation; and (3) the assault took place immediately after the provocation. State v. Tidwell, 323 N.C. 668, 673, 374 S.E.2d 577, 580 (1989). In order to constitute "adequate provocation," the victim's conduct ordinarily must have been either an actual physical assault or a threatened assault on the defendant. State v. Rogers, 323 N.C. 658, 667, 374 S.E.2d 852, 858 (1989). See also Watson, 338 N.C. at 176, 449 S.E.2d at 700 ("Mere words, however abusive or insulting are not sufficient provocation to negate malice and reduce the homicide to manslaughter.").
The evidence in this case is not sufficient to permit a jury to find that the victim Dormio assaulted or threatened to assault defendant. Defendant points to testimony that Dormio took a step towards Gustafson, that Pope pushed Dormio into Harmon, and that Dormio "clenched his fist and puffed up" at Pope. Although defendant contends that Dormio "appeared threatening," the undisputed evidence indicates that any possible "threat" was directed towards Pope and Gustafson and not defendant. The evidence is also undisputed that Pope, Gustafson, and defendant initiated the confrontation; that Pope made the first physical contact by shoving Dormio; that the three men shoved Dormio; and that the blows that likely killed Dormio occurred when he was lying on the ground. These circumstances do not present the level of provocation that would "render the mind incapable of cool reflection" and, therefore, did not warrant the submission of aninstruction on involuntary manslaughter. State v. Huggins, 338 N.C. 494, 499, 450 S.E.2d 479, 482 (1994). This assignment of error is overruled.
Defendant next argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss based on the State's use of the short-form murder indictment. This argument was recently rejected by our Supreme Court in State v. Hunt, 357 N.C. 257, 582 S.E.2d 593 (2003). Accordingly, the assignment of error is overruled.

No error.
Judges McGEE and HUDSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).

 

[schenkadere]

I had a friend murdered in high school as well. Billy knew him too. I typed in his name since you made me think of him, but nothing. The whole thing was hushed. It was believed he was killed by a train, but the reality is he was beat up and left on the tracks...horrifying. The conductor supposedly saw him waving, but it was too late. Fucked up. That was like 23 years ago.