Accomplices in Error: Improper Argument in State v. Meadows

The defendant in State v. Meadows, No. COA24-149 (N.C. Ct. App. May 7, 2025), was convicted of murder based on evidence that he and two other men broke into the victim’s home and shot the victim to death. Despite evidence that the defendant was not alone, the trial court refused to instruct on acting in concert. During closing argument, however, the prosecutor told the jury that the State need not prove the defendant “actually fired the shot that actually killed the victim. If he committed one act that contributed to the victim’s death, he is just as guilty as everybody else.” This argument, the Court of Appeals said, was improper. This post examines the opinion in Meadows. Permissible Argument As a rule, the trial court’s jury instructions must be both accurate in law and supported by evidence. State v. Mumma, 372 N.C. 226, 239 (2019). Closing argument is subject to the same requirements. As noted in a prior post, a prosecutor’s closing argument should not contain misstatements of law. State v. Fletcher, 370 N.C. 313, 319 (2017). In general, however, a proper instruction from the judge will cure any misstatement of law by the prosecutor. State v. Goss, 361 N.C. 610, 626 (2007). Further, an attorney generally may not make arguments based on matters outside the record. G.S. 15A-1230(a). Counsel may, however, argue to the jury the law, the facts in evidence, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. State v. Waring, 364 N.C. 443, 518 (2010); cf. G.S. 7A-97 (“the whole [...]