This publish summarizes the revealed felony opinions from the North Carolina Courtroom of Appeals launched on March 19, 2025. These summaries might be added to Smith’s Felony Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the current.
State’s questions concerning defendant’s failure to offer a press release didn’t symbolize plain error; closing argument reference to defendant’s self-defense declare as “smoke and mirrors” was not grossly improper.
State v. Earley, COA24-386, ___ N.C. App. ___ (March 19, 2025). On this Union County case, defendant appealed her convictions for tried first-degree homicide and assault with a lethal weapon with intent to kill inflicting severe harm, arguing error in (1) permitting the State to repeatedly query defendant about her failure to make a press release to regulation enforcement, and (2) permitting the State to reference her silence throughout closing argument. The Courtroom of Appeals majority discovered no plain error.
The costs towards defendant arose from her taking pictures her husband within the toilet of their residence in January 2022. Defendant fled the house however later turned herself in, declining to offer a press release however telling officers she had no accidents. At trial, a prosecutor requested one of many regulation enforcement officers if defendant was given an opportunity to make a press release, and protection counsel objected. The objection was overruled, and the officer confirmed he did give defendant an opportunity to make a press release. Later questioning lined the officer’s makes an attempt to talk to defendant on the cellphone about her model of occasions, which protection counsel didn’t object to on the time. Defendant was cross-examined about not giving a press release, and protection counsel once more didn’t well timed object. Defendant’s model of occasions introduced a self-defense declare, which the prosecutor known as “smoke and mirrors” throughout closing argument. Protection counsel objected to this assertion after the jury had left for deliberations, however the trial courtroom didn’t rule on the objection, and defendant was subsequently convicted.
The Courtroom of Appeals first established that defendant didn’t correctly protect her arguments for enchantment, which means the evaluate can be plain error for (1) and grossly improper for (2). Taking on (1), the courtroom disagreed that the questioning rose to the extent of plain error, as “[t]he State introduced overwhelming proof from which a jury might conclude that the State’s model, reasonably than Defendant’s model, precisely defined the occasions.” Slip Op. at 20. This included defendant’s lack of accidents and the crime scene proof of the blood, damaged glass, and site of bullets within the partitions, which didn’t help defendant’s narrative of a battle and firing in self-defense. Transferring to (2), the courtroom disagreed that the prosecutor’s statements have been grossly improper, as “the State’s references to Defendant’s silence have been de minimis and, in context of the Report, don’t rise to the extent of being prejudicial to Defendant.” Id. at 25.
Decide Tyson offered a prolonged dissent, arguing “[t]he State repeatedly violated Defendant’s assertion of [her] rights and belittled her silence and prejudiced her earlier than the jury.” Id. at 28.
Defendant forfeited proper to counsel and proper to be current in courtroom by repeated disruptive conduct; Virginia conviction for identification theft was not considerably much like North Carolina offense for sentencing functions.
State v. Fuller, COA24-471, ___ N.C. App. ___ (March 19, 2025). On this Rockingham County case, defendant appealed his convictions for obstruction of justice, making an attempt to entry a authorities laptop to defraud, and submitting false liens, arguing error in (1) concluding defendant forfeited his proper to counsel and proper to be current within the courtroom for trial, and (2) discovering that defendant’s Virginia conviction was considerably much like the North Carolina offense of identification theft for sentencing. The Courtroom of Appeals discovered no error in (1), however remanded for resentencing based mostly on (2).
Defendant was indicted in February 2022, and at his first look indicated he needed to waive his proper to counsel however refused to signal the waiver type. At a later pretrial look, defendant requested for counsel to be appointed for “the defendant,” however gave complicated responses as as to whether he was requesting counsel for himself. On the subsequent look earlier than the trial courtroom, defendant was eliminated for being disruptive, and finally the trial courtroom concluded defendant had forfeited his proper to counsel by inappropriate conduct. At trial, defendant was handcuffed to a wheelchair after threatening to take away his clothes. After one other complicated change the place defendant requested a lawyer for “the defendant,” and triggered disruption within the courtroom, defendant was faraway from the courtroom and was given written updates on the trial by the trial courtroom. Defendant was subsequently convicted on all counts.
Taking on (1), the Courtroom of Appeals appeared to State v. Smith, 292 N.C. App. 656 (2024), for the relevant customary when a defendant’s conduct justifies forfeiture of counsel. Right here, defendant’s conduct was “combative and interruptive—he insisted the trial courtroom couldn’t be neutral, interrupted and spoke out of flip, threatened to take away his clothes, and refused to straight reply the trial courtroom’s questions.” Slip Op. at 16. In consequence, the courtroom held that it was not error to conclude defendant forfeited his proper to counsel. The courtroom then thought of whether or not eradicating defendant from the courtroom was error, trying to United States v. Mack, 362 F.3d 597 (ninth Cir. 2004) and Individuals v. Cohn, 160 P.3d 336 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). Complicating the issues, many instances and G.S. 15A-1032 presume {that a} defendant faraway from the courtroom might be represented by counsel, which was not the case right here. The courtroom concluded that the trial courtroom’s actions right here have been cheap, together with offering updates to defendant and instructing the jury to not think about defendant’s removing from the courtroom. Lastly, the courtroom concluded that not appointing standby counsel was not prejudicial error and G.S. 15A-1032 didn’t require appointment of standby counsel when defendant was eliminated.
Arriving at (2), the courtroom defined that Virginia’s statute on identification theft (Va. Code § 18.2-186.3) differed in materials methods from the North Carolina model in G.S. 14-113.22. The courtroom agreed with defendant’s argument that “the statutes should not considerably comparable as a result of Virginia’s statute may be violated utilizing the figuring out info of a ‘false or fictitious particular person’ whereas North Carolina’s statute requires the offender to have used the figuring out info of a ‘actual particular person.’” Slip Op. at 28. Thus the courtroom remanded for resentencing.
Courtroom of Appeals discovered no prejudicial error after Anders temporary evaluate.
State v. Johnston, COA24-816, ___ N.C. App. ___ (March 19, 2025). On this Pitt County case, defendant appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine and felony fleeing to elude arrest; protection counsel filed a quick beneath Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The Courtroom of Appeals discovered no error.
Defendant was arrested for rushing previous a freeway patrol officer, fleeing from the officer for a number of miles, and throwing one thing out of his window. As soon as defendant was pulled over, a search of the car found cocaine and $1,100 in money. Defendant got here to trial in Might 2023, the place he was acquitted of driving whereas impaired and sustaining a car for promoting cocaine, however convicted of the opposite fees.
The Courtroom of Appeals took up defendant’s enchantment and performed a evaluate beneath Anders searching for any prejudicial error. The courtroom thought of the trial courtroom’s denial of defendant’s movement for substitute counsel, whether or not defendant expressed a need to symbolize himself, an overruled objection to testimony, and defendant’s alternative to deal with the trial courtroom concerning lawyer’s charges, concluding that none of those points represented error.
Defendant’s disputes and requests for alternative of appointed counsel didn’t symbolize forfeiture or waiver of counsel, justifying remand for brand new trial.
State v. McGirt, COA24-551, ___ N.C. App. ___ (March 19, 2025). On this Wake County case, defendant appealed his convictions for statutory intercourse offense with a toddler and indecent liberties with a toddler, arguing error in concluding defendant waived his proper to counsel or forfeited his proper to counsel. The Courtroom of Appeals majority concluded defendant didn’t voluntarily waive his proper to counsel or forfeit his proper to counsel, reversing and remanding for a brand new trial.
In 2019, defendant was indicted for the intercourse offense and indecent liberties fees, and since defendant was indigent the trial courtroom appointed counsel. This started a sequence of 5 appointed attorneys representing defendant, and by 2023 all of the attorneys withdrew or have been changed. On Might 4, 2023, the trial courtroom held a listening to on the ultimate lawyer’s movement to withdraw, and after consulting with defendant concluded that defendant had waived his proper to illustration and ordered the general public defender’s workplace to provide standby counsel. On Might 22, 2023, defendant requested one other court-appointed lawyer, and the trial courtroom denied the request. The State moved to have standby counsel query witnesses throughout trial and the trial courtroom granted the movement, however in any other case defendant represented himself at trial.
Taking on defendant’s arguments, the Courtroom of Appeals first thought of waiver, trying to precedent like State v. Moore, 290 N.C. App. 610 (2023), for the circumstances required to search out waiver of the correct to counsel. Right here, the trial courtroom didn’t inform defendant that if he fired his lawyer, he can be waiving the correct to counsel, as a substitute announcing this after granting the lawyer’s movement to withdraw. Additionally, “[t]he trial courtroom by no means requested if Defendant wished to symbolize himself, nor did Defendant make an specific assertion that he would symbolize himself” and the trial courtroom additionally “didn’t inquire whether or not Defendant understood the distinction between a court-appointed counsel versus standby counsel, such that Defendant was now continuing professional se.” Slip Op. at 14 (cleaned up). The courtroom famous that defendant repeatedly requested for brand new counsel, regardless of as soon as mentioning representing himself, which means it was not clear and unequivocal that defendant wished to symbolize himself. In consequence, the courtroom concluded defendant didn’t “clearly and unequivocally” waive his proper to counsel. Id. at 18.
The courtroom then appeared as to whether defendant forfeited his proper to counsel, concluding “[b]ased on the Report proof, we can not say Defendant’s firing of his attorneys was ‘egregious misconduct’ or a flagrant delaying tactic” and it was error to search out that defendant forfeited his proper to counsel. Id. at 23. Lastly, the courtroom thought of the hybrid waiver/forfeiture by conduct outlined in State v. Blakeney, 245 N.C. App. 452 (2016). The courtroom concluded defendant didn’t waive his proper to counsel by conduct “[b]ecause waiver by conduct ‘requires {that a} defendant be warned concerning the penalties of his conduct,’ and there’s no Report right here that the trial courtroom offered Defendant with any warning concerning his conduct, nor does the State argue there was any warning[.]” Id. at 25 (quoting Blakeney at 465).
Decide Tyson dissented and argued “[t]he majority’s opinion incorrectly concludes Defendant didn’t waive or forfeit his proper to counsel.” Id. at 32.
Protection counsel’s Harbison error justified new trial.
State v. Meadows, COA24-149, ___ N.C. App. ___ (March 19, 2025). On this Duplin County case, defendant appealed his convictions for first-degree homicide and possession of a firearm by a felon, arguing protection counsel was ineffective by conceding his guilt with out permission. The Courtroom of Appeals majority agreed, vacating the judgment and granting defendant a brand new trial.
In July of 2016, officers responded to the report of a break-in and gunshot accidents. Defendant was indicted for the break-in and taking pictures of the sufferer and got here to trial in March 2023. Earlier than and throughout the trial, defendant tried to get new counsel thrice, however every try was denied by the trial courtroom. Throughout trial, testimony from defendant’s former girlfriend targeted on his gang connections and his motivations for the killing, together with following orders from gang leaders in order that he might transfer up within the group. On the cost convention, the trial courtroom denied the State’s request for an instruction on appearing in live performance, however the prosecutor made arguments associated to appearing in live performance anyway. When protection counsel gave closing arguments, he referenced the construction of the gang and conceded that defendant was current on the scene of the crime and that he ran away afterwards, leaving his sneakers exterior the home. Defendant was subsequently convicted.
The Courtroom of Appeals agreed with defendant’s argument that “his counsel impliedly admitted defendant’s guilt when he said throughout closing arguments that defendant went to the house of the sufferer with [two gang members] on the night time of the incident.” Slip Op. at 10. The courtroom defined this represented a violation of defendant’s rights beneath the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments as articulated in State v. Harbison, 315 N.C. 175 (1985). Right here, there was no on-the-record Harbison inquiry aside from defendant’s consent to the dialogue of a previous conviction. There was “no proof within the document to counsel that at some other level earlier than or throughout trial defendant’s counsel sought or obtained knowledgeable consent from defendant to debate his presence on the crime scene or his involvement with the gang the night of the incident.” Slip Op. at 12. The courtroom additionally highlighted protection counsel’s statements that represented “an implied admission that though defendant was following orders, he was additionally a participant within the crime in query.” Id. at 15-16. Protection counsel’s statements represented a Harbison error of impliedly admitting defendant’s guilt, justifying a brand new trial.
Decide Stading dissented, arguing protection counsel didn’t impliedly admit defendant’s guilt, and that even when he did admit guilt, the dearth of document about defendant’s voluntary consent justified dismissing the enchantment and permitting defendant to file a movement for acceptable reduction.
Trial courtroom carried out acceptable Waller evaluation earlier than closing courtroom throughout testimony of two witnesses.
State v. Miller, COA24-72, ___ N.C. App. ___ (March 19, 2025). On this Union County case, defendant appealed his convictions for tried first diploma homicide, going armed to the fear of the folks, and possession of a handgun by a minor, arguing it was error to shut the courtroom throughout the testimony of two witnesses. The Courtroom of Appeals discovered no error.
This matter arose from a taking pictures at a basketball courtroom and initially reached the Courtroom of Appeals in State v. Miller, 287 N.C. App. 660, (2023), the place the panel concluded that the trial courtroom didn’t make the most of the four-part check from Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984), when figuring out it was acceptable to shut the courtroom. On remand, the trial courtroom decided that closing the courtroom throughout the testimony of two witnesses was justified beneath Waller, as defendant had tried to intimidate the younger witnesses. The present case comes after the trial courtroom’s entry of an order on remand and defendant’s second enchantment.
The Courtroom of Appeals started by laying out the four-part check from Waller after which carried out an evaluation. The courtroom thought of (1) whether or not the State superior an overriding curiosity supporting the closure; (2) whether or not the trial courtroom made enough findings to help the closure; (3) if the closure was no broader than needed; and (4) that no cheap alternate options to closure existed. First, “the State adequately superior the overriding curiosity of witness security, and that curiosity was more likely to be prejudiced by the intimidation ways of Defendant and members of the gallery filming.” Slip Op. at 14. The courtroom decided competent proof supported the closure based mostly on the State’s displays and defendant’s prior conduct. The trial courtroom solely closed the courtroom throughout the testimony of the 2 witnesses, narrowly tailoring the closure to the difficulty at hand. Lastly, the trial courtroom had already banned cellphones within the courtroom, however even then certainly one of defendant’s relations was present in possession of a cellphone, displaying the trial courtroom thought of alternate options earlier than transferring to closure of the courtroom.
State’s feedback concerning not responsible plea and cross-examination of witness didn’t require trial courtroom to intervene ex mero motu; imposition of Class B1 sentence for defendant’s second-degree homicide conviction was correct.
State v. Parker, COA24-230, ___ N.C. App. ___ (March 19, 2025). On this Wilson County case, defendant appealed his convictions for second-degree homicide and possession of a firearm by a felon, arguing error in (1) failing to intervene ex mero motu throughout the State’s closing argument or within the various ineffective help of counsel for failing to object, and (2) sentencing him to a Class B1 sentence with lack of help. The Courtroom of Appeals discovered no error.
The homicide sufferer had beforehand attacked defendant’s son, and defendant got here to the home have been the sufferer lived together with his mom in Might of 2020 searching for retribution. Defendant and an confederate compelled their means into the house and after a confrontation, defendant shot the sufferer. The confederate pleaded responsible to manslaughter and testified for the State. Throughout closing arguments, the State referenced defendant’s plea of not responsible, criticized the style by which protection counsel had cross-examined the sufferer’s mom, and equated his trial to the costs the accomplice-turned-witness had pled responsible to.
Taking on (1), the Courtroom of Appeals first established that the statements in query occurred after defendant had attacked the validity of the sufferer’s mom’s testimony in closing arguments, and “[t]he State’s closing arguments weren’t prejudicial feedback on Defendant’s execution of his proper to stay silent, however could possibly be thought of as a substitute a protection of the State’s technique.” Slip Op. at 8. When contemplating the assertion concerning the manslaughter plea of the witness, the courtroom defined that whereas it’s potential there was a misstatement of the regulation, “the trial courtroom additionally offered the jury with directions concerning consider the testimony of a witness who had secured a plea deal from the State.” Id. at 9. Lastly, the courtroom discovered no prejudice from any potential ineffective help of counsel, because the State offered overwhelming proof that defendant was the shooter.
Transferring to (2), the courtroom defined that B1 and B2 felonies are “differentiated by the kind of malice concerned,” with B1 felonies being the default for second-degree homicide and B2 felonies being justified by inherently harmful acts or omissions solely. Right here, the State didn’t argue or current proof defendant acted recklessly or engaged in an inherently harmful act, and as a substitute “[t]he State introduced substantial proof tending to indicate Defendant was in illegal possession of a lethal weapon and was intent on inflicting hurt and revenge.” Id. at 14. Thus, defendant’s sentence was justified by the proof.
Defendant’s admission that he lived in his mother and father’ residence, together with circumstantial proof, supported conviction of protecting or sustaining a dwelling for managed substances.
State v. Rowland, COA24-274, ___ N.C. App. ___ (March 19, 2025). On this Wake County case, defendant appealed his convictions together with protecting or sustaining a dwelling for the protecting or promoting of managed substances, arguing error in denying his movement to dismiss the protecting or sustaining a dwelling cost. The Courtroom of Appeals disagreed, discovering no error.
Raleigh Police acquired info that defendant was promoting bundles of heroin from his residence and commenced investigating, leading to a 2021 search warrant for the house that turned up heroin, firearms, and drug paraphernalia. The residence was owned by defendant’s mother and father, and in an interview with police defendant informed them he had lived on the residence “on and off since 2005.” Slip Op. at 2. At trial, defendant moved to dismiss the cost, arguing the State didn’t show that the dwelling had been stored or maintained over time for the aim of managed substances, however the trial courtroom denied the movement.
The Courtroom of Appeals first famous that G.S. 90-108(a)(7) ruled the crime in query, and “[w]hile mere occupancy of a property, with out extra, won’t help the ‘protecting or sustaining’ ingredient, ‘proof of residency, standing alone, is enough to help the ingredient of sustaining.’” Id. at 5 (quoting State v. Spencer, 192 N.C. App. 143, 148 (2008)). Moreover, residency may be established by defendant’s admission and thru circumstantial proof, each of which have been current right here. The courtroom concluded that the admission defendant resided at his mother and father’ home together with the State’s circumstantial proof defendant resided within the residence represented substantial proof defendant stored or maintained a dwelling for managed substances.
Defendant’s prior document degree was improperly calculated as a consequence of inclusion of DWLR-Impaired Revocation, and calculation error justified resentencing.
State v. Wilson, COA24-442, ___ N.C. App. ___ (March 19, 2025). On this Watauga County case, defendant appealed the sentence he acquired after pleading responsible to possession of a stolen firearm, arguing error in calculating his prior document degree. The Courtroom of Appeals majority agreed, vacating defendant’s sentence and remanding for resentencing.
Throughout sentencing, the trial courtroom calculated defendant’s prior document degree as Stage III with six factors, together with one level for defendant’s misdemeanor conviction of driving whereas license revoked for impaired driving (DWLR-Impaired Revocation). On enchantment, defendant argued that the DWLR-Impaired Revocation conviction was exempt from prior document degree calculations beneath G.S. 15A-1340.14(b)(5) as it’s an “different misdemeanor visitors offense” recognized beneath the statute. Slip Op. at 2-3. This led the courtroom to conclude that defendant “ought to have been sentenced as a PRL II, reasonably than a PRL III.” Id. at 3.
The State argued that this error was not prejudicial, however the courtroom disagreed, noting the holding in State v. Williams, 355 N.C. 501 (2002), {that a} prior document degree error prejudices a defendant even when the sentence given fell inside the acceptable presumptive vary.
Decide Murry dissented, agreeing that the prior document degree calculation was error however that the error was innocent and didn’t justify remand for resentencing.
Nonetheless pictures from ATM video have been correctly authenticated and admitted; lay opinion testimony from officer figuring out defendant was correctly admitted.
State v. Windseth, COA24-718, ___ N.C. App. ___ (March 19, 2025). On this Jackson County case, defendant appealed his convictions for felony acquiring property by false pretenses and felony identification fraud, arguing error in (1) admitting ATM movies of defendant that weren’t correctly authenticated, and (2) permitting lay-opinion testimony from an officer figuring out defendant within the movies. The Courtroom of Appeals discovered no error.
When defendant’s mom went lacking in January 2022, the sheriff’s workplace started investigating her disappearance, and so they finally obtained data from Wells Fargo containing movies from ATMs the place withdrawals have been comprised of her account. These movies confirmed defendant making withdrawals, and later when defendant was apprehended, his mom’s credit score and debit playing cards have been discovered on his particular person. At trial, the State confirmed stills from these movies, and an officer testified as to the movies and figuring out defendant because the particular person showing in them. Protection counsel didn’t object at trial to the admission of those movies or the identification of defendant.
Starting with (1), the Courtroom of Appeals defined that Rule of Proof 901 ruled admitting the movies, and right here defendant solely challenged the admission of the nonetheless pictures from these movies. Though this was a novel query, the courtroom rejected the problem, noting the State laid enough basis for the video extractions and “that the trial courtroom correctly authenticated the ATM movies as admissible proof as a result of their spinoff images have been ‘nothing greater than a sequence of static pictures showing at a given body fee.’” Slip Op. at 8 (quoting United States v. Clotaire, 963 F.3d 1288 (2020)).
In (2), the courtroom famous that Rule of Proof 701 ruled the lay testimony, and beneath State v. Collins, 216 N.C. App. 249 (2011), the officer wanted some superior degree of familiarity with the defendant to justify his testimony figuring out the defendant or the testimony can be invading the province of the jury. The courtroom concluded that the proof right here supported the familiarity required by Collins, because the officer “had interacted with Defendant on a number of events as a part of that preexisting investigation” into his mom’s disappearance. Slip Op. at 10.
