State v. Vann, 157PA22, ___ N.C. ___ (May. 23, 2024)

In this New Hanover County case, the Supreme Court reversed the unpublished Court of Appeals decision granting defendant a new trial on his convictions of first-degree murder, murder of an unborn child, and robbery with a dangerous weapon. The Court determined that the trial court properly exercised its discretion under G.S. 15A-1233 when denying the jury’s request to review partial transcripts.  

In August of 2016, Wilmington Police responded to a dead woman at a local hotel. An investigation of the victim’s phone and hotel surveillance determined that defendant came to the hotel looking for sexual services. When police interviewed defendant, he admitted that he had struck the victim but denied killing her. During subsequent testimony, defendant changed his story and no longer admitted he struck the victim. At trial, the jury made multiple requests to review evidence, including one request to review transcripts of a police detective’s testimony, defendant’s testimony, and the medical examiner’s testimony. The trial court denied this request for transcripts, informing the jury that it was their duty to recall the testimony and “[w]e’re not – we can’t provide a transcript as to that.” Slip Op. at 7. After defendant was convicted, he appealed and argued that the language from the trial court suggested that it had not exercised the discretion granted by G.S.15A-1233 to allow the jury to review transcripts. The Court of Appeals agreed, finding the trial court failed to exercise discretion and that the error was prejudicial, granting a new trial.

Taking up the State’s petition for discretionary review, the Supreme Court first explained that normally the presumption is that a trial court exercised its discretion when ruling on a jury request, unless the trial court makes a statement that expresses it has no discretion as to the request in unambiguous terms. The Court emphasized that appellate courts must review the record to determine the context of statements alleged to show lack of discretion. The court found ambiguity here in the combination of the trial court’s statement’s “we’re not” and “we can’t,” explaining “[w]hile the word ‘can’t,’ if read alone, could be indicative of a lack of discretion, the phrase ‘we’re not’ indicates the exercise of discretion.” Id. at 14. This ambiguity plus the trial court’s conduct when considering the previous requests indicated it had exercised the appropriate discretion, and the Court reversed the decision granting a new trial. 

Justice Riggs concurred in the result only, and would have held that the trial court erred but the error was not prejudicial. Id. at 18. 

Justice Earls dissented, and would have held the trial court failed to exercise discretion. Id. at 21.