Case Summaries: N.C. Court of Appeals (August 6, 2025) – North Carolina Criminal Law

This submit summarizes the printed felony opinions from the North Carolina Court docket of Appeals launched on August 6, 2025.

The State offered enough proof to determine {that a} hammer was used as a harmful weapon to help conviction for theft with a harmful weapon.

State v. Blackburn, No. COA24-1016 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2025). The sufferer was sleeping in his Mazda as he did each evening when he was woke up by banging on the skin of his automotive. Two males pulled the sufferer from the automotive and held a gun to his head. Three males threatened to shoot him if he didn’t hand over his cash, and when the sufferer said he didn’t have any cash, the boys pushed him in opposition to the automotive going through the car, and one of many males hit the sufferer with a hammer. The defendant said he hit the sufferer with a hammer on the again of the sufferer’s shoulder, whereas the sufferer testified that he was hit on the again of the pinnacle and neck, fell to the bottom, and misplaced consciousness for a brief interval. When he got here to, he noticed the boys driving away within the Mazda. The defendant was apprehended close to the stolen car later that evening. The defendant was convicted of theft with a harmful weapon and conspiracy to commit theft with a harmful weapon after a jury trial.

On attraction, the defendant challenged the trial courtroom’s ruling on his movement to dismiss, claiming that the proof was inadequate to determine that the defendant’s use of a hammer “endangered or threatened the life” of the sufferer. The Court docket of Appeals disagreed, noting {that a} harmful weapon is any instrument prone to produce dying or nice bodily hurt. The sufferer needn’t obtain severe bodily damage, however fairly the State should solely present that the weapon was utilized in a way prone to trigger dying or severe bodily damage.

The Court docket seemed to State v. Jackson, 85 N.C. App. 531, 532 (1987), which particularly handled the query of whether or not a hammer was a harmful weapon, in explaining that “in figuring out whether or not a hammer was harmful to [a] life…, you’d take into account the character of the hammer, the style through which the defendant used it or threatened to make use of it, and the dimensions and power of the defendant as in comparison with [the victim].” The Court docket reasoned that within the gentle most favorable to the State, contemplating that the sufferer was in his mid-sixties and the Defendant was a nineteen-year-old younger man, the blow to the again of the sufferer’s head and neck inflicting the sufferer to lose consciousness was enough proof from which a jury might conclude the hammer was used as a harmful weapon.

(1) Any error in giving self-defense instruction was dismissed as invited error; (2) no discovery violation the place in-court identification of defendant was not considerably totally different from prior statements made by sufferer; (3) proof was enough for conviction of discharging a firearm inside an enclosure to incite worry beneath G.S. 14-34.10 the place statute requires solely that the defendant discharge a weapon from inside any occupied enclosure; (4) trial courtroom erred by imposing sentence for conviction beneath G.S. 14-34.10 the place defendant was convicted of different crimes carrying larger punishment.

State v. Jenkins, No. COA24-889 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2025). The sufferer was driving when the defendant pulled up alongside her and fired a bullet into her automotive, shattering the sufferer’s window. The bullet entered the sufferer’s left arm and was lodged in her again. Within the aftermath of the drive-by taking pictures, the sufferer recognized the defendant because the shooter on a number of events. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of a number of prices, together with discharging a weapon from inside an enclosure to incite worry beneath G.S. 14-34.10. The defendant raised a number of claims on attraction.

As to an alleged error within the self-defense instruction, the Court docket dismissed the defendant’s argument as invited error, noting that the defendant had a number of alternatives to object to the instruction at trial, however trial counsel expressly agreed with the directions and said that he had no proposed modifications.

As to the claimed discovery violations, the Court docket concluded that the trial courtroom didn’t abuse its discretion to find that the State complied with G.S. 15A-903 and that the protection had ample data to organize his protection. The Court docket famous that oral statements to a prosecutor want solely be supplied to the protection if the statements comprise considerably new or totally different data from prior statements. The Court docket didn’t discover that the in-court identification of the defendant was considerably totally different from prior identifications of the defendant because the shooter.

As a 3rd challenge, the defendant contended that the proof was inadequate to help a conviction for G.S. 14-34.10 (discharging a firearm inside an enclosure to incite worry). The defendant argued that the statute required that the defendant and the sufferer be inside the similar occupied car for the time being of discharge, whereas the State argued that the statute required solely that the defendant be inside any occupied car when firing the weapon. As a matter of first impression, the Court docket engaged in a prolonged strategy of statutory interpretation to find out the which means of the phrases “inside” and “occupied” within the context of G.S. 14-34.10. This evaluation of the plain which means of the statute led the Court docket to conclude that the statute requires solely that the defendant be inside any occupied enclosure upon discharge. The Court docket thus held that the proof was enough.

Lastly, the Court docket addressed defendant’s argument that he mustn’t have been punished beneath G.S. 14-34.10 the place categorical language within the statute gives that punishment is correct “except lined beneath another provision of legislation offering larger punishment.” The Court docket held that this language created a statutory mandate that was preserved regardless of the defendant’s failure to object at trial. As defendant’s conduct was punished by a number of different offenses carrying larger punishment, the Court docket concluded that the defendant was prejudiced in receiving a sentence beneath G.S. 14-34.10 and arrested judgment on this conviction, remanding for resentencing.

(1) Admission of out-of-court written assertion to corroborate in-court testimony was not plain error; (2) prosecutor’s questioning of the witness as as to if the witness was being truthful in courtroom was improper however not reversible error.

State v. Jones, No. COA24-503 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2025). The defendant, together with two associates, determined to rob the sufferer, the proprietor of an area grocery retailer and fuel station. The defendant had a dialog in regards to the deliberate theft along with his cousin who labored on the sufferer’s retailer. His cousin subsequently warned the sufferer that he could also be in peril. On the evening of the theft, a codefendant went to the sufferer’s retailer to purchase fuel and returned thrice. The co-defendant then picked up the defendant and the opposite co-defendant, and dropped them off at an intersection the place they anticipated the sufferer to drive by after leaving the shop. When the sufferer arrived, one of many two started taking pictures into the car. The 2 fled the scene with out taking any property from the sufferer. The sufferer later died of accidents from the drive-by taking pictures. The defendant’s cousin made a written assertion to the police in the course of the investigation.

First, the Court docket of Appeals addressed whether or not the trial courtroom dedicated plain error in permitting an officer to learn the cousin’s written assertion after the cousin testified. The defendant contended that the written assertion was inadmissible for corroborative functions and was thus rumour. The defendant additionally asserted that the assertion prejudiced his case in referring to the defendant as a “lowlife” who was a part of a gaggle that robbed individuals. The Court docket of Appeals burdened that plain error ought to solely be utilized within the distinctive case the place the error had a possible influence on the end result of the trial. Noting that the witness’s in-court testimony referred to the defendant’s plans to rob the sufferer and his affiliation with individuals engaged in planning robberies, the Court docket concluded that even when the written assertion was not correctly admitted for corroborative functions, the error didn’t rise to the extent of plain error.

Second, the defendant argued that reversible error occurred when the prosecutor requested a co-defendant if he was telling the reality in courtroom (the place he testified to data inconsistent along with his first assertion to legislation enforcement). The Court docket of Appeals famous that it’s typically improper for counsel to ask a witness whether or not he has been truthful in his testimony (except the truthfulness of the witness has been challenged on cross-examination). Nevertheless, though the query was improper, the Court docket of Appeals concluded that the error was not reversible error, because the defendant failed to indicate an inexpensive chance of a distinct consequence had the error not been dedicated.

The Court docket additionally rejected defendant’s argument that the errors, thought of cumulatively, added as much as reversible error.

(1) Discharging a weapon into occupied property beneath 14-34.1 solely required affordable grounds to imagine that property was occupied fairly than precise data, and thus movement to dismiss was correctly denied; (2) every pull of the set off constituted a separate act ample to help a conviction beneath G.S. 14-34.1, and thus trial courtroom didn’t err in submitting a number of counts to the jury.

State v. Leopard, No. COA24-749 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2025). The defendant made a grievance to 911 that he heard gunshots at his neighbor’s home. Legislation enforcement got here to the scene and located that the neighbor was taking pictures targets in a secure method. About one hour later, the defendant fired a number of bullets into his neighbor’s dwelling. Officers subsequently arrested the defendant and retrieved a pistol and an AR-10 rifle from the defendant’s dwelling. Officers additionally positioned spent shell casings on the defendant’s porch that appeared to come back from the AR-10. The defendant was charged with 4 counts of discharging a firearm into occupied property and convicted of all 4 counts after a jury trial.

On attraction, the defendant argued that the trial courtroom erred in denying his movement to dismiss, contending that the State wanted to show the defendant had precise data that the house was occupied. The Court docket of Appeals rejected this argument, counting on precedent establishing that G.S. 14-34.1 solely requires the State show the defendant had affordable grounds to imagine that the property is occupied. The Court docket discovered ample proof of this aspect the place the sufferer was utilizing his gun vary simply an hour earlier than pictures have been fired into his home and the sunshine was on within the sufferer’s kitchen, which was seen from the defendant’s porch on the time of the taking pictures.

The Court docket additionally rejected the defendant’s argument that the jury directions have been flawed, because the defendant didn’t object to the directions at trial and didn’t allege plain error on attraction. The Court docket deemed the argument deserted provided that plain error have to be particularly and distinctly argued the place defendant doesn’t object at trial.

Lastly, the Court docket rejected defendant’s argument that the trial courtroom violated his Fifth and Sixth Modification rights by participating in judicial truth discovering to find out that a number of pictures have been fired. The defendant particularly objected to the trial courtroom’s resolution to submit 4 prices to the jury as a substitute of 1. The Court docket said that the defendant’s argument was a “artistic however misguided” try to problem the trial courtroom’s denial of the movement to dismiss. The Court docket then addressed the query of whether or not a fast succession of gunshots must be handled as one shot and one crime, or 4 distinct crimes. The Court docket burdened that the weapon at challenge, an AR-10 rifle, was a semi-automatic weapon and that such a weapon required that the defendant make use of his thought processes every time he pulled and launched the set off to shoot. The Court docket relied on precedent offering that every pull of the set off constitutes a separate act supporting a conviction beneath G.S. 14-34.1. Discovering enough proof within the document to help 4 pulls of the set off, the Court docket concluded that the trial courtroom didn’t err by denying the defendant’s movement to dismiss on the grounds of multiplicity.

Movement to suppress was correctly denied the place data in search warrant affidavit was not stale, the data was obtained from dependable, named residents fairly than nameless informants, and officers have been capable of corroborate the data by means of investigation.

State v. Stevens, No. COA24-584 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2025). Charles Mills was spending the evening at his spouse’s residence on February 15, 2022. The 2 have been separated, however he was staying there as a result of she had not too long ago damaged up together with her ex-boyfriend, the defendant. The defendant got here to the door late at evening and banged on the door, demanding entry. Mr. Mills and his spouse refused, and the defendant left. Subsequently, Mr. Mills was driving away from the home and noticed the defendant following him in a white Vary Rover. The defendant shot three bullets at Mr. Mills’s automotive, and a bullet entered the trunk liner. Mr. Mills texted his spouse after the incident.

In the course of the investigation of the crime, Mr. Mills’s spouse supplied surveillance footage of the defendant violently kicking her entrance door simply previous to the taking pictures whereas holding a shotgun.

Officers noticed the defendant leaving his dwelling within the white Vary Rover 9 days later, on February 24, 2022. Defendant’s son was driving the automotive, and officers arrested the defendant after he was dropped off. Officers didn’t discover a gun on the defendant. In the meantime, the son returned to the defendant’s home and pulled into the storage. Officers secured the scene and utilized for a search warrant to look the home, the Vary Rover, and a crimson Corvette parked on the home. Upon execution of the warrant, officers discovered a number of weapons, medication, and drug paraphernalia. The defendant was subsequently charged with a number of gun and drug offenses.

The defendant filed a movement to suppress the search of his dwelling and two autos. After a pretrial listening to, the trial courtroom denied the movement as to the home and the Vary Rover, however granted the movement as to the Corvette. A jury trial then started, however the defendant pled responsible three days later mid-trial. Pursuant to the responsible plea, the defendant gave discover to the State of his intent to attraction the trial courtroom’s ruling on his movement to suppress. The trial courtroom entered judgments and the defendant subsequently filed written discover of attraction

First, the Court docket addressed whether or not the defendant had correctly preserved the denial of his movement to suppress for appellate overview. The State contended he had not, as he didn’t object to the proof when it was offered at trial, nor did he object to the ultimate ruling. Nevertheless, the Court docket concluded that there was no want for the defendant to object at trial, for the reason that case was resolved with a responsible plea. The Court docket discovered that the defendant complied with the requirement beneath State v. Tew that he give discover to the State of his intent to attraction the denial of the movement to suppress by together with language to that impact within the plea settlement. Thus, the problem was correctly preserved.

The Court docket then addressed the deserves of the movement to suppress. The defendant primarily argued that the nine-day delay between the incident and the applying for a search warrant rendered the affidavit stale. The defendant additionally argued that there was an inadequate nexus between the taking pictures incident and the defendant’s home and Vary Rover.

The Court docket disagreed, concluding that the case differed considerably from circumstances cited by the defendant through which a confidential informant supplied data serving as the premise for a search warrant, however the affidavit supporting the search warrant lacked data as to when the CI developed the data. Within the current case, the lead detective was straight concerned within the investigation of the taking pictures that culminated within the arrest and search, and the detective didn’t fail to state the date the data was obtained. The Court docket decided that possible trigger was supported by the affidavit the place (1) the detective was capable of observe the defendant in possession of a firearm on the evening of the taking pictures by means of surveillance footage; (2) Mr. Mills supplied a first-hand account of the defendant taking pictures at him from the white Vary Rover, and (3) the account was corroborated by Mr. Mills’s textual content message to his spouse and the bullet gap in his automotive. Moreover, the Court docket discovered that the data was not stale provided that the taking pictures incident befell 9 days previous to the applying for a search warrant, which was considerably lower than the two- to three-month delay in a case the place the affidavit was deemed stale. The Court docket concluded it was affordable to count on that proof of the crime can be discovered within the defendant’s dwelling or Vary Rover, particularly provided that Mr. Mills’s spouse said that the defendant was identified to commonly carry a gun, and the defendant didn’t have a gun in his possession when he was arrested.

The Court docket additionally rejected the defendant’s argument that the affidavit was insufficient as a result of the data on which it was based mostly didn’t come from identified and dependable informants. The Court docket burdened that the data didn’t come from nameless informants however fairly from named people whose accounts have been corroborated by video footage and bodily proof of the taking pictures. The detective was additionally capable of corroborate the data by means of his investigation.

The place the defendant was convicted of assault with a lethal weapon inflicting severe damage, trial courtroom correctly declined to instruct the jury on lesser-included offense of misdemeanor assault with a lethal weapon as a result of there was no battle within the proof as as to if the damage was severe.

State v. Wagner, No. COA24-852 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2025). Throughout an altercation, the defendant stabbed the sufferer twice within the again, as soon as beneath the arm, and as soon as within the abdomen. The sufferer was hospitalized for about three months and was initially within the ICU with a respiration tube. The defendant was charged and tried for assault with a lethal weapon inflicting severe damage. On the cost convention, the defendant requested a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of misdemeanor assault with a lethal weapon. The trial courtroom declined to present the instruction, as a substitute instructing the jury that the stab wound was a severe damage per se. The defendant was convicted of the charged offense and appealed.

On attraction, the defendant argued that the trial courtroom erred by failing to instruct on the lesser included offense. The Court docket of Appeals rejected the argument, discovering that it was applicable for the trial courtroom to take away the aspect of great damage from consideration the place the proof didn’t battle as to that aspect and the place affordable minds couldn’t differ as to the intense nature of the accidents.

Trial courtroom correctly declined to present instruction on justification for possession of a firearm by a felon the place proof confirmed the defendant possessed the firearm earlier than and after the incident; prosecutor’s statements in closing argument insinuating that defendant lied in courtroom have been improper however not so grossly improper as to represent prejudicial error.

State v. Wright, No. COA24-863 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2025). The defendant was working with a household buddy to rework a service station. Because the defendant walked out of the shop, he and the decedent had an argument. The decedent said he needed to battle the defendant. The household buddy intervened and the 2 males walked away from one another. The decedent began to drive away, however then drove by the entrance of the shop and once more requested to battle the defendant. The defendant went to his van, retrieved a gun, and began taking pictures on the decedent. The decedent was shot from behind a number of occasions, and the defendant chased the decedent, choking him and stabbing him with a big knife. The defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and possession of a firearm by a felon after a jury trial.

On attraction, the defendant first argued that the jury ought to have been instructed on the protection of justification to possession of a firearm by a felon pursuant to State v. Mercer, 373 N.C. 459, 463-64 (2020). The Court docket of Appeals disagreed, reasoning that the defendant was not entitled to the jury instruction on justification as a result of (1) proof displaying {that a} convicted felon possessed a firearm earlier than an altercation precludes the instruction, and (2) a defendant loses entitlement to the instruction by persevering with to own the firearm after the risk has handed. As a result of the proof confirmed that the defendant possessed the firearm earlier than the altercation and continued to own it afterwards, he couldn’t fulfill the primary aspect of Mercer requiring imminent and impending risk of dying or severe bodily damage on the time of possession.

Second, the defendant argued that the prosecutor’s statements throughout closing argument have been grossly improper. The Court docket of Appeals agreed that the feedback relating to the defendant “com[ing] up with a narrative” that was “[n]ot true” have been improper in that they insinuated that the defendant lied throughout his testimony. The Court docket admonished counsel and the State to keep away from such feedback. Nevertheless, the Court docket concluded that the remarks weren’t so grossly improper that they disadvantaged the defendant of a good trial given the relative brevity of the feedback and the overwhelming proof supporting the voluntary manslaughter conviction. Thus, the Court docket discovered no prejudicial error.