State v. Griffin, COA24-156, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Mar. 5, 2025)

In this Mecklenburg County case, defendant appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a felon, arguing the trial court erred by seating a juror from the jury pool instead of elevating one of the prospective alternate jurors. The Court of Appeals found no error.

Defendant was indicted for first-degree murder, possession of a firearm by a felon, and conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon related to a 2018 armed robbery. During jury selection, twelve prospective jurors were selected, as well as two prospective alternate jurors. Before the jury was empaneled, prospective Juror No. 7 was excused due to his wife going into labor. The State argued that a new juror should be selected from the jury pool under G.S. 15A-1214(g). Defendant argued that one of the prospective alternate jurors should replace Juror No. 7, and then a new alternate juror should be selected. The trial court agreed with the State, and a new prospective juror was picked from the pool to replace the departing juror. The jury was then empaneled and ultimately found defendant guilty of first-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a felon.

The Court of Appeals explained the core of the question on appeal as “whether those prospective, yet-to-be members of the to-be empaneled jury who have been accepted by each party, are properly classified as jurors or alternate jurors.” Slip Op. at 8. The text of G.S. 15A-1215 governs when an alternate juror becomes a juror, but to properly apply the statute in this situation the court was forced to determine the proper meaning of “juror.” Referencing Garner's Modern English Usage, the court stated that a "juror" is someone who has been empaneled on the jury and distinguished this from a potential juror or veniremember who hasn't yet been selected to sit on the jury. Id. at 8. The court held that G.S. 15A-1214(g) was controlling in this situation, as it permitted the trial court to substitute a new prospective juror when a juror that has been accepted but not empaneled is challenged for cause. Concluding the analysis, the court noted that since defendant did not argue or show prejudice on appeal, his “contentions as to statutory error are overruled.” Id. at 12. Defendant also attempted to argue that his constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury was infringed, but the court held he failed to preserve this argument as he did not raise it at trial.