Case Summaries: N.C. Court of Appeals (April 16, 2025) – North Carolina Criminal Law

This publish summarizes the revealed prison opinions from the North Carolina Courtroom of Appeals launched on April 16, 2025. These summaries will probably be added to Smith’s Prison Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the current.

Circumstances surrounding arrest and discovery of pipe supported conclusion that defendant supposed to make use of the pipe for managed substances aside from marijuana.

State v. Bryant, COA24-436, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Apr. 16, 2025). On this Union County case, defendant appealed his conviction for misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia, arguing inadequate proof that he supposed to make use of the paraphernalia, a pipe, for a managed substance aside from marijuana. The Courtroom of Appeals disagreed, discovering no error.

Defendant was arrested after an encounter in September 2021 the place law enforcement officials thought defendant and his two acquaintances had been shoplifting from a neighborhood Belk. The officers didn’t discover any retailer merchandise, however whereas looking one of many acquaintances, the officers discovered a drugs bottle with small baggies stuffed with a brown powder. Defendant ran from the officers, throwing a bottle that additionally contained the brown powdery substance. When defendant was detained, officers discovered a glass pipe, purple straw, and plastic baggies containing energy on his individual. The brown substance was confirmed to be heroin after testing. Defendant got here to trial on prices of felony trafficking in heroin by possession and transporting, in addition to the misdemeanor cost. Defendant moved to dismiss the misdemeanor, however the trial courtroom denied the movement, and defendant was subsequently convicted.

On attraction, defendant pointed to G.S. 90-113.22, which makes it a misdemeanor offense to “knowingly use, or to own with intent to make use of, drug paraphernalia to . . . inject, ingest, inhale, or in any other case introduce into the physique a managed substance aside from marijuana which it might be illegal to own.” Slip Op. at 5. Defendant argued inadequate proof to point out he supposed to make use of the pipe for a managed substance aside from marijuana. The Courtroom of Appeals famous a scarcity of controlling authority, however regarded to State v. Gamble, 218 N.C. App. 456, 2012 WL 380251 (2012) (unpublished), and State v. Harlee, 180 N.C. App. 692, 2006 WL 3718084 (2006) (unpublished), for steering relating to circumstances that supported intent with paraphernalia like crack pipes. The courtroom discovered comparable assist right here, because the pipe was present in the identical pocket of defendant’s pants because the baggies of heroin, and the pipe was visibly charred, displaying earlier use.

Trial courtroom’s discovering that defendant consented to the search of her automobile didn’t clearly lengthen to go looking of her pockets outdoors the automobile, justifying remand.

State v. Peters, COA24-475, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Apr. 16, 2025). On this McDowell County case, defendant appealed after pleading responsible to possession of methamphetamine, arguing error in denying her movement to suppress the proof discovered throughout a warrantless search. The Courtroom of Appeals agreed, vacating and remanding for consideration of whether or not defendant clearly and unequivocally consented to the search of her pockets.

In July of 2022, defendant and a person had been dwelling in a camp close to Pisgah Nationwide Forest once they had been approached by Wildlife Useful resource Fee officers. The officers requested for proof that defendant owned the automobile within the camp, and he or she offered proof of title. The officers then requested if they may take a look at the automobile, to which the person residing with defendant stated sure; this man had been the motive force of the automobile as defendant didn’t have a sound license. Because of circumstances unknown, defendant’s pockets ended up on the roof of the automobile and the officers searched her pockets whereas wanting by the automobile, discovering a bag of methamphetamine. Nothing legally vital was discovered contained in the automobile, and defendant got here to trial on a cost of possession based mostly on the methamphetamine present in her pockets. At trial, defendant moved to suppress, arguing that the search of her pockets was unconstitutional, however the trial courtroom denied the movement. Defendant pleaded responsible, reserving her proper to attraction the problem.

The Courtroom of Appeals first established that defendant impliedly consented to the search of her automobile, based mostly on her failure to object to the search when a 3rd social gathering gave consent, and her actions trying to facilitate the search by cleansing an space of the automobile. Nonetheless, the courtroom famous the excellence between consent to go looking the within of the automobile and consent to go looking defendant’s pockets, as “[t]he pockets was neither inside nor in any other case hooked up to the automobile.” Slip Op. at 6. As a result of the trial courtroom didn’t make a dedication as as to if defendant consented to the search of her pockets, “the trial courtroom’s findings can’t assist its order denying Defendant’s movement to suppress.” Id. at 7. The courtroom then reasoned by the suitable treatment, concluding that the trial courtroom should decide based mostly on the proof whether or not the officer objectively believed that defendant inserting her pockets on the roof represented “giving her clear and unequivocal consent to the officer’s search of her pockets.” Id. at 9.

Trial courtroom was not required to carry a listening to or make findings of reality when contemplating the document and making a suggestion on life with out parole sentence below G.S. 15A-1380.5.

State v. Walker, COA 24-615, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Apr. 16, 2025). On this Wake County case, defendant appealed the order figuring out that his sentence of life with out parole shouldn’t be altered below G.S. 15A-1380.5. The Courtroom of Appeals discovered no abuse of discretion or error and affirmed the trial courtroom’s order.

Defendant was discovered responsible of first-degree homicide in 1999 and obtained the sentence of life with out the potential of parole. In September of 2023, defendant requested evaluate of his sentence below G.S. 15A-1380.5. After the trial courtroom reviewed the trial document, defendant’s document from the Division of Corrections, the diploma of threat posed to society, and different points, the trial courtroom decided defendant’s sentence shouldn’t be altered. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for writ of certiorari to attraction this determination, and the Courtroom of Appeals granted certiorari in April 2024.

Defendant argued three points on attraction: (1) abuse of discretion in failing to make findings of reality to assist the denial, (2) error in failing to contemplate the trial document, and (3) abuse of discretion by not holding a listening to. The Courtroom of Appeals regarded to the textual content of G.S. 15A-1380.5 and caselaw deciphering it to find out the relevant necessities. The courtroom first allotted with the listening to difficulty (3), explaining “[o]ur Supreme Courtroom has held that [G.S.] 15A-1380.5 ‘ensures no listening to, no discover, and no procedural rights.’” Slip Op. at 5 (quoting State v. Younger, 369 N.C. 118, 124 (2016)). Subsequent the courtroom moved to (1), noting the construction of G.S. 15A-1380.5 didn’t name for an “order” with findings of reality and conclusions of regulation, however as an alternative referred to as for a “suggestion,” and “[h]advert the legislature supposed for findings of reality and conclusions of regulation to be required it might have chosen to require the reviewing choose to difficulty orders, somewhat than suggestions.” Id. at 6. Lastly, the courtroom famous in (2) that the trial courtroom clearly acknowledged it had thought of the document, and the courtroom decided the document supported the trial courtroom’s conclusion.

Assault with a lethal weapon inflicting severe damage might function the predicate for felony homicide when defendant acted with precise intent to commit the act forming the idea of the homicide cost; G.S. 20-166 is ambiguous relating to the unit of prosecution, main the courtroom to use the rule of lenity and conclude the unit is per crash, not per sufferer.

State v. Watlington, COA23-1106, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Apr. 16, 2025). On this Guilford County case, two defendants, Watlington and Felton, each appealed from judgments entered after a trial the place the defendants had been tried collectively. Watlington was convicted of first-degree homicide and extra felonies associated to her makes an attempt to run over a number of folks at a fuel station after a combat. Felton was convicted of 11 counts of accent after the very fact to Watlington’s convictions. The Courtroom of Appeals arrested judgment on three of Watlington’s convictions for hit and run and three of Felton’s convictions for accent after the very fact to hit and run, however discovered no error with the opposite convictions, remanding for resentencing.

One early morning in October of 2019, Felton drove an SUV to a fuel station in Greensboro, with Watlington as a passenger. After hitting a parked automobile, a confrontation ensued between Watlington, Felton, and the automobile’s proprietor. The argument escalated right into a brawl involving a number of folks over the course of twenty-five minutes, and testimony confirmed Felton was the first aggressor. Round thirty minutes after the confrontation started, Watlington acquired into the motive force’s seat of the SUV and backed over a gaggle of individuals; it took her roughly ten seconds to utterly run over the victims. After stopping utterly away from the victims and sitting for eight seconds, Watlington drove ahead, working over the identical group of individuals at full pace. Felton watched your entire incident with out stopping Watlington, then stood over the victims yelling at them. One sufferer died on the scene, and several other others sustained severe accidents. The 2 defendants drove away within the SUV however had been apprehended close by a short while later.

The Courtroom of Appeals took up Watlington’s arguments first, starting along with her argument that it was error for assault with a lethal weapon inflicting severe damage to be the predicate felony for her first-degree homicide conviction. In State v. Jones, 353 N.C. 159 (1994), the Supreme Courtroom held that “[f]or assault with a lethal weapon inflicting severe damage to function the predicate felony for a felony homicide conviction . . . the person will need to have acted with a ‘degree of intent larger than culpable negligence.’” Slip Op. at 11 (quoting Jones at 167). Right here, Watlington argued that Jones represented a “bright-line rule” that assault with a lethal weapon inflicting severe damage might by no means be a predicate felony, an argument the courtroom rejected. Id. As a substitute, the courtroom defined that “assault with a lethal weapon inflicting severe damage, as a matter of regulation, can function the predicate felony for a felony homicide conviction when the defendant acts with the ‘precise intent to commit the act that types the idea of [the] first-degree homicide cost.’” Id. at 13 (quoting Jones at 166). The trial courtroom correctly instructed the jury on this case, and the courtroom famous that enough proof supported the conclusion that Watlington acted deliberately when driving over the victims with the SUV. The courtroom additionally rejected Watlington’s problem to the jury instruction for felony homicide and the dearth of an instruction on voluntary manslaughter, discovering no errors within the instruction given and no proof to assist a further voluntary manslaughter instruction.

The courtroom subsequent thought of Watlington’s argument relating to her a number of hit and run counts, and agreed that the construction of the statute didn’t assist all of the convictions. G.S. 20-166 “doesn’t make clear whether or not its unit of prosecution is the conduct of leaving the scene of a crash or the variety of victims injured because of the crash,” leading to an ambiguity for the courtroom to resolve. Id. at 18. Right here the courtroom utilized the rule of lenity, deciphering the anomaly in Watlington’s favor. The courtroom defined that there have been 5 victims, however solely two crashes, one when Watlington backed over the victims and the second when Watlington drove ahead over the victims. Consequently, Watlington might solely be convicted twice, “one conviction for Watlington’s conduct of leaving the scene of every crash,” and the courtroom arrested judgment on the opposite three hit and run convictions. Id. at 21.

Arriving at Felton’s arguments, the courtroom first allotted along with her argument that there was inadequate proof to assist her convictions for accent after the very fact. Right here, proof confirmed that Felton watched Watlington hit the victims with the SUV, then left the scene along with her and took the keys to the SUV, concealing the id of Watlington as the motive force. The courtroom discovered this proof enough to assist Felton’s convictions. The courtroom additionally rejected Felton’s problem to the language of her indictments, discovering no deadly variance from the proof at trial.

Felton argued that she shouldn’t be topic to a number of convictions for accent after the very fact; the courtroom rejected this, explaining “the context of [G.S.] 14-7 clearly signifies that the legislature supposed the allowable unit of prosecution to be every felony for which the principal dedicated and the accent assisted after the very fact.” Id. at 27. The courtroom then thought of Felton’s argument that she was convicted as accent after the very fact to hit and run for merely leaving the scene. Rejecting this argument, the courtroom pointed to the various different points of Felton’s culpability after the crashes, together with taking the SUV’s keys and concealing Watlington’s id as the motive force. Nonetheless, the courtroom arrested judgment on three of Felton’s convictions, because it had performed for Watlington’s hit and run convictions mentioned above.

Felton then challenged the jury directions, arguing they offered a concept of guilt not alleged within the indictments, particularly that she assisted Watlington in trying to flee. The courtroom famous the circumstantial proof of Felton possessing the SUV keys and that this didn’t characterize a stand-alone concept of guilt, rejecting Felton’s argument. Lastly, the courtroom rejected Felton’s problem to the closing argument, noting that regulation enforcement physique cam footage supported the inference that Felton and Watlington had been collectively when apprehended.