The North Carolina Court of Appeals has upheld the first-degree murder conviction of Lesselle Cornelius Spencer. The court ruled on September 2, 2026, that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or in its handling of evidence during Spencer's trial. This decision affects Spencer, who was sentenced for the murder of Kevin Chambers, and highlights the legal standards surrounding jury instructions in murder cases.
Spencer's case began in April 2022 when he was indicted for the murder of Chambers, an employee at Big Lots. The incident occurred shortly after Spencer's girlfriend, Holly Mangus, was terminated from her job at the store. The court's decision is significant as it clarifies the legal interpretations of first-degree murder, particularly regarding jury instructions on lesser charges and the concept of lying in wait.
The dispute arose after Spencer was found guilty by a jury in January 2025. His defense argued that the trial court made several errors, particularly by not instructing the jury on the possibility of second-degree murder and by including instructions on lying in wait and flight. Spencer's legal team maintained that these errors impacted the fairness of the trial.
The evidence presented during the trial indicated that on the night of the murder, Spencer and Mangus, along with a friend, had been drinking and using marijuana before returning to their apartment. After leaving the apartment, Spencer was seen near the Big Lots parking lot where the shooting occurred. Witnesses described a confrontation between Chambers and Spencer, which ended in Chambers being shot.
Following the shooting, Spencer was arrested and made several incriminating statements to fellow inmates, detailing his actions and intentions that night. The jury ultimately found him guilty of first-degree murder, which requires proof of premeditation and deliberation.
The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Allegra Collins, reviewed Spencer's arguments and found no merit in his claims. The court stated, "The evidence indicates that Defendant formed and executed a plan to conceal his identity and deceive Holly about his whereabouts on the night of the murder." The court concluded that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on second-degree murder because the evidence supported the first-degree murder charge.
Additionally, the court ruled that the instructions on lying in wait were appropriate. Judge Collins noted that Spencer had sufficient knowledge of the area and the timing of the employees leaving the store, which supported the theory that he was lying in wait for his victim. The court stated, "This evidence supports a reasonable inference that Defendant stationed himself to make a private attack because he knew employees would be leaving the store at the time of the murder."
Furthermore, the court found that the trial court correctly instructed the jury on the concept of flight, as there was evidence that Spencer took steps to avoid apprehension after the crime. The court affirmed that the trial court's jury instructions were appropriate and did not constitute plain error.
This ruling has significant implications for Spencer, who will continue to serve his sentence for the murder of Chambers. The decision underscores the importance of jury instructions in murder trials and clarifies the standards for what constitutes sufficient evidence for various charges.
The ruling also sets a precedent for future cases involving similar legal questions about jury instructions and the definitions of murder. It highlights the need for clear evidence when arguing for lesser charges in murder cases, as well as the importance of understanding the nuances of legal definitions like lying in wait and flight.
Looking ahead, Spencer's legal team may consider further appeals, although the court's ruling appears to solidify the conviction. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any pending related cases or further legal actions by Spencer.