In this Martin County case, the Supreme Court reversed an unpublished Court of Appeals decision granting defendant a new trial for first-degree murder and finding that the robbery with a dangerous weapon charge should have been dismissed. The Court held that (1) the State admitted substantial evidence of every element of the robbery charge, (2) admitting Rule of Evidence 404(b) evidence related to defendant’s gang affiliation and tattoos was not plain error, and (3) admitting a statement as an excited utterance under Rule of Evidence 803(2) was not error. 

In 2015, defendant was released from prison and rekindled a relationship with the victim. Both men had a history of being in prison and had previously been in a relationship in the 1990s. In December of 2015, the two had an argument, which led to a physical altercation and threats of violence, including reference to defendant’s gang affiliation. In January of 2016, the victim was found dead in his home from stab wounds, and the victim’s cellphone and wallet with a large amount of cash were missing. Defendant was tried and convicted for robbery with a dangerous weapon and first-degree murder, but on appeal, the Court of Appeals issued a unanimous unpublished opinion holding the robbery conviction should be dismissed and granting a new trial for first-degree murder. The State appealed and the Supreme Court granted discretionary review.  

Taking up (1), the Court explained that the Court of Appeals improperly “reviewed the evidence of robbery with a dangerous weapon ‘in isolation,’” instead of reviewing the evidence as a whole. Slip Op. at 9. The Court then laid out the three elements of robbery with a dangerous weapon under G.S. 14-87(a), and looked to the record for support. Here, defendant had made an extrajudicial confession to a cellmate after his arrest, and the money and cellphone from the victim were never found, meaning the corpus delicti doctrine applied. The corpus delicti doctrine required the State to admit corroborating evidence to support “the trustworthiness of the accused’s confession.” Id. at 12. The Court concluded that the confession, along with the independent testimony and evidence, represented substantial evidence that defendant committed the offense. 

Moving to (2), the Court approached the issue of the Rule 404(b) evidence of defendant’s prior incarceration, gang affiliation, and tattoos by considering the second prong of the plain error standard, whether defendant could demonstrate prejudice by “showing that without the admission of the evidence in question, the jury probably would have reached a different result.” Id. at 19. The Court concluded defendant could not meet this standard, as additional evidence supported defendant as the perpetrator and connected him to the victim. 

Finally in (3), the Court considered the admission of the victim’s statement “Dianne to the house” as an excited utterance under Rule 803(2). The victim made this statement on a quick phone call with his niece, and it was offered to prove defendant went to the victim’s house the night of the murder, with “Dianne” being a codeword for defendant. The Court outlined the applicable standard for an excited utterance, and determined that because “the statement [the victim] made followed a startling experience and was brief and quick, this statement qualifies as an excited utterance.” Id. at 21.