State v. Huey: Repeatedly Insinuating that the Defendant Was a Liar Was Improper but Not Prejudicial

The North Carolina Supreme Court decided State v. Huey on Friday, reversing the court of appeals’ determination that the State’s closing argument unfairly prejudiced the defendant in his trial for murder. Facts. The defendant was charged with first-degree murder after he shot and killed James Love on a Charlotte street in 2011. The defendant called 911 after the shooting, stating, “I shot a motherfucker.” Immediately after the shooting, the defendant told law enforcement officers that another man shot Love. The defendant later admitted that he shot Love, stating that he took the gun from his truck, put it in his pocket, and asked someone to get Love to come outside to discuss an earlier disagreement. At trial, however, the defendant testified that Love hit him in the head and threatened him with what he believed to be a knife or a box-cutter while the defendant was buying drugs from an unidentified man. The defendant said the third man drew a handgun, which defendant took from him, firing two warning shots. The second shot killed Love. The defense also presented evidence at trial that the defendant had a low I.Q., had experienced head trauma, and suffered from hallucinations. The closing argument. The prosecutor opened closing arguments by stating, “Innocent men don’t lie.”  He used some variation of the verb “to lie” at least thirteen times during the course of his argument. He told the jury that the defendant was “not going to give you the truth,” arguing that the defendant developed the [...]