Preservation Reservations in State v. Bell

The defendant in State v. Bell, No. 86A02-2 (N.C. March 21, 2025), failed to object to gender-based discrimination during jury selection. Accordingly, the North Carolina Supreme Court concluded that the “defendant’s J.E.B. claim was not preserved for appellate review.” Slip Op. at 2. If the Supreme Court were reviewing a judgment of conviction on direct appeal, this would not be surprising: a defendant’s failure to raise a constitutional issue at trial generally precludes a court’s consideration of the issue on appeal. But the Supreme Court in Bell was instead reviewing the denial of the defendant’s motion for appropriate relief, where the applicability of the preservation rule is less clear. This post considers Bell’s application of that rule to a postconviction motion. The Preservation Rule The requirement for contemporaneous objection is baked into the adversarial process. For historical reasons having to do with judicial economy, the common law left it to the parties, in the first instance, to decide whether or not the rules of evidence were to be enforced. 21 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 5032 (2d ed. 2024). Accordingly, error generally may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits evidence unless a timely objection appears of record. G.S. 8C-1, Rule 103(a)(1). More broadly, to preserve an issue for review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion stating the grounds for the ruling desired. N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(1). Caselaw recognizes various rationales for the requirement for contemporaneous objection. First, the rule [...]