Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Table of Contents
Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
About
This compendium includes significant criminal cases by the U.S. Supreme Court & N.C. appellate courts, Nov. 2008 – Present. Selected 4th Circuit cases also are included.
Jessica Smith prepared case summaries Nov. 2008-June 4, 2019; later summaries are prepared by other School staff.
Instructions
Navigate using the table of contents to the left or by using the search box below. Use quotations for an exact phrase search. A search for multiple terms without quotations functions as an “or” search. Not sure where to start? The 5 minute video tutorial offers a guided tour of main features – Launch Tutorial (opens in new tab).
In this Union County case, defendant appealed her convictions for attempted first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, arguing error in (1) allowing the State to repeatedly question defendant about her failure to make a statement to law enforcement, and (2) allowing the State to reference her silence during closing argument. The Court of Appeals majority found no plain error.
The charges against defendant arose from her shooting her husband in the bathroom of their home in January 2022. Defendant fled the home but later turned herself in, declining to give a statement but telling officers she had no injuries. At trial, a prosecutor asked one of the law enforcement officers if defendant was given a chance to make a statement, and defense counsel objected. The objection was overruled, and the officer confirmed he did give defendant a chance to make a statement. Later questioning covered the officer’s attempts to speak to defendant on the phone about her version of events, which defense counsel did not object to at the time. Defendant was cross-examined about not giving a statement, and defense counsel again failed to timely object. Defendant’s version of events presented a self-defense claim, which the prosecutor called “smoke and mirrors” during closing argument. Defense counsel objected to this statement after the jury had left for deliberations, but the trial court did not rule on the objection, and defendant was subsequently convicted.
The Court of Appeals first established that defendant did not properly preserve her arguments for appeal, meaning the review would be plain error for (1) and grossly improper for (2). Taking up (1), the court disagreed that the questioning rose to the level of plain error, as “[t]he State presented overwhelming evidence from which a jury could conclude that the State’s version, rather than Defendant’s version, accurately explained the events.” Slip Op. at 20. This included defendant’s lack of injuries and the crime scene evidence of the blood, broken glass, and location of bullets in the walls, which did not support defendant’s narrative of a struggle and firing in self-defense. Moving to (2), the court disagreed that the prosecutor’s statements were grossly improper, as “the State’s references to Defendant’s silence were de minimis and, in context of the Record, do not rise to the level of being prejudicial to Defendant.” Id. at 25.
Judge Tyson provided a lengthy dissent, arguing “[t]he State repeatedly violated Defendant’s assertion of [her] rights and belittled her silence and prejudiced her before the jury.” Id. at 28.
In this Wilson County case, defendant appealed his convictions for second-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a felon, arguing error in (1) failing to intervene ex mero motu during the State’s closing argument or in the alternative ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object, and (2) sentencing him to a Class B1 sentence with lack of support. The Court of Appeals found no error.
The murder victim had previously attacked defendant’s son, and defendant came to the house were the victim lived with his mother in May of 2020 seeking retribution. Defendant and an accomplice forced their way into the home and after a confrontation, defendant shot the victim. The accomplice pleaded guilty to manslaughter and testified for the State. During closing arguments, the State referenced defendant’s plea of not guilty, criticized the manner in which defense counsel had cross-examined the victim’s mother, and equated his trial to the charges the accomplice-turned-witness had pled guilty to.
Taking up (1), the Court of Appeals first established that the statements in question occurred after defendant had attacked the validity of the victim’s mother’s testimony in closing arguments, and “[t]he State’s closing arguments were not prejudicial comments on Defendant’s execution of his right to remain silent, but could be considered instead a defense of the State’s strategy.” Slip Op. at 8. When considering the statement regarding the manslaughter plea of the witness, the court explained that while it is possible there was a misstatement of the law, “the trial court also provided the jury with instructions regarding how to evaluate the testimony of a witness who had secured a plea deal from the State.” Id. at 9. Finally, the court found no prejudice from any possible ineffective assistance of counsel, as the State provided overwhelming evidence that defendant was the shooter.
Moving to (2), the court explained that B1 and B2 felonies are “differentiated by the type of malice involved,” with B1 felonies being the default for second-degree murder and B2 felonies being justified by inherently dangerous acts or omissions only. Here, the State did not argue or present evidence defendant acted recklessly or engaged in an inherently dangerous act, and instead “[t]he State presented substantial evidence tending to show Defendant was in unlawful possession of a deadly weapon and was intent on causing harm and revenge.” Id. at 14. Thus, defendant’s sentence was justified by the evidence.
In this Vance County case, defendant appealed his convictions for attempted first-degree sexual offense with a child, statutory rape of a child, and indecent liberties with a child, arguing error in the denial of his motion to dismiss and the admission of testimony from several witnesses, ineffective assistance of counsel, and prejudicial statements by the prosecutor during closing argument. The Court of Appeals found no error.
Defendant’s convictions relate to inappropriate sexual conduct with his minor cousin from 2007 to 2012; the victim did not report the sexual conduct until 2018. At trial, defendant’s minor cousin testified regarding the extensive history of molestation and rape that defendant subjected her to over the course of several years. The jury convicted defendant in 2021.
Reviewing defendant’s motion to dismiss the attempted statutory sexual offense charge due to insufficient evidence, the court found ample evidence to support the attempt at sexual offense. During the events at issue in the motion, defendant was prevented from penetrating the genital opening of the victim because of the presence of her parents in the home, but the court noted that defendant had raped the victim on several other occasions, supporting the inference that he intended to do so during this time as well.
Moving next to defendant’s challenge to the admission of improper testimony, the court first looked at testimony regarding defendant’s history of sexual contact with the victim’s older sister. The court explained that Rule of Evidence 404(b) required careful scrutiny of the prior acts, but applicable precedent supported admission of similar sexual conduct with a victim’s sibling to show “defendant’s intent, motive and on-going plan to gratify his sexual desires.” Slip Op. at 14, quoting State v. Sturgis, 74 N.C. App. 188, 193 (1985). Defendant also argued ineffective assistance of counsel due to failure to object to this testimony, an argument the court rejected, noting even if counsel objected “the testimony would have likely been admitted under Rules 404(b) and 403.” Id. at 21. The court then examined the testimony of the victim’s parents vouching for her truthfulness, looking to State v. Gobal, 186 N.C. App. 308 (2007), for the applicable test regarding opinion testimony from lay witnesses vouching for the veracity of other witnesses. Slip Op. at 16. The court held defendant failed to demonstrate plain error, which was necessary because he did not object at trial.
Finally, the court turned to the prosecution’s closing argument, noting that the statements challenged by defendant, when read in context, did not comment on defendant’s failure to testify; instead, “the prosecutor was . . . highlighting the fact that [d]efendant never denied [the victim’s] allegations when confronted by her parents.” Id. at 23. The trial court also administered the appropriate jury instruction on defendant’s failure to testify, supporting the court’s finding of no error.
Judge Murphy concurred for sections I-VI of the opinion, but concurred in result only regarding the prosecutor’s statements during closing argument.
The defendant was convicted in a jury trial of multiple counts of statutory rape of a child, statutory sex offense with a child, and taking indecent liberties with a child. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 300 to 420 months of imprisonment and ordered lifetime satellite-based monitoring (“SBM”) upon his release from prison. The defendant appealed from his conviction, arguing that the State made improper closing arguments.
(1) The defendant argued on appeal that several of the prosecutor’s statements in closing argument were improper and prejudicial, identifying five sets of objectionable arguments.
(a) The defendant argued that the prosecutor’s statements to the jury that they “cannot consider what they did not hear” and could not “speculate about what people that did not come into court and did not put their hand on the Bible and did not swear to tell you the truth might have said” improperly commented on the defendant’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. Assuming without deciding that these comments referred to the defendant’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment right not to testify, the Court of Appeals concluded that arguments were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.
(b) The defendant argued that the prosecutor improperly commented, in reference to the juvenile victims’ testimony, that “[a]dults have to bring them into court and ask them to tell a roomful of strangers about these sexual acts to try and prevent them from occurring in the future to others.” The defendant contended that this comment impermissibly (1) criticized his exercise of the right to a jury trial, and (2) suggested that the juvenile victims had to testify to prevent him from committing future crimes. Assuming without deciding that the prosecutor’s comment referred to the defendant’s right to trial, the Court of Appeals concluded that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt. As for the second basis of the defendant’s objection, the court noted that specific deterrence arguments are proper and determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the defendant’s objection to this comment in closing argument.
(c) The defendant contended that the prosecutor impermissibly told the jury that if they acquitted the defendant, “You will be telling [the juvenile victims] it was their fault.” The defendant argued that the statement improperly focused the jury’s attention on how the juvenile victims would interpret a verdict of not guilty rather than on determining whether the State had proven its case against the defendant. The Court of Appeals determined that given the evidence of defendant’s guilt, the prosecutor’s statement was not so grossly improper as to justify a new trial.
(d) The defendant argued that the prosecutor presented an argument that was calculated to mislead or prejudice the jury when he referred to expert testimony about the probability of a random match for the defendant’s DNA profile. The prosecutor told the jury: “If you saw that statistical number [one in 9.42 nonillion] and thought there was still a chance that’s not the defendant’s DNA found in [N.M.], that’s an unreasonable doubt.” Assuming without deciding that the prosecutor’s statement improperly conflated the “chance that’s not the defendant’s DNA found in [N.M.]” with the one in 9.42 nonillion chance of a random match, the Court of Appeals did not find that the statement rendered the conviction fundamentally unfair.
(e) Finally, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in failing to intervene when the prosecutor said, “The DNA tells the truth. The girls told the truth.” The defendant contended that this statement was a prohibited expression of the prosecutor’s personal opinion about the veracity of evidence and witness credibility. The Court of Appeals noted that while an attorney may not express his personal belief as to the truth or falsity of the evidence or as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, a prosecutor may argue that the State’s witnesses are credible. Considering the record as a whole, the court concluded that the comment did not rise to the level of fundamental unfairness given the evidence presented at trial. The court noted that the State presented the testimony of both juvenile victims, the testimony of the victims’ family members that corroborated their testimony, and the testimony of forensic experts that showed that Defendant’s DNA matched the sperm collected from one of the juvenile victim’s rape kit. Given this overwhelming evidence of guilt, the court was unable to conclude that the prosecutor’s comments prejudiced the defendant.
(1) During closing statements to the jury, the prosecutor did not impermissibly comment on the defendant’s failure to take the stand. In context, the prosecutor’s statements summarized the evidence before the jury and asserted that no evidence was presented to support defense counsel’s assertions in his opening statement. Even if the prosecutor’s statements constituted an impermissible comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (2) The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the prosecutor improperly misled the jury during closing argument by asserting facts not in evidence. The defendant failed to show any gross impropriety that was likely to influence the verdict. (3) The defendant failed to show gross impropriety warranting intervention ex mero motu to when the prosecutor handled a rifle in evidence by pointing it at himself. The defendant argued that the prosecutor’s actions inflamed the jurors’ emotions and causing them to make a decision based on fear (4) Notwithstanding these conclusions, the court noted that it found the prosecutor’s words and actions “troublesome,” stating: “the prosecutor flew exceedingly close to the sun during his closing argument. Only because of the unique circumstances of this case has he returned with wings intact.” It went on to emphasize that a prosecutor “has the responsibility of the Minister of Justice and not simply that of an advocate; the prosecutor’s duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict” (quotation omitted).
In this sexual assault trial, the prosecutor’s comment during closing argument was not a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify. The prosecutor stated: “There are only two people in this courtroom as we sit here today that actually know what happened between the two people, and that’s [the victim] and the defendant.” The comment was made in the context of an acknowledgement that while the SANE nurse who examined the victim testified to abrasions and tears indicative of vaginal penetration, the nurse could not tell if the victim’s vagina was penetrated by a penis. The prosecutor went on to recount evidence that semen containing the defendant’s DNA was found on the victim’s vaginal swabs and on cuttings from her panties. The comment emphasized the limitations of the physical evidence and was not a comment on the defendant’s decision not to testify.
The prosecutor did not improperly refer to the defendant’s failure to testify but rather properly commented on the defendant’s failure contradict or challenge the State’s evidence.
The prosecutor’s comments during closing did not constitute a reference to the defendant’s failure to testify; the comments responded to direct attacks on the State’s witnesses and pertained to the defendant’s failure to produce witnesses or exculpatory evidence.
The prosecutor did not improperly comment on the defendant’s failure to testify by pointing out to the jury in closing that the defense had not put on any mental health evidence as forecasted in its opening statement; however, the court disapproved of the prosecutor’s statement that this constituted “[b]roken promises from the defense.” The prosecutor did not comment on the defendant’ failure to testify by stating in closing that there was no evidence regarding accident.