State v. Meadows, COA24-149, ___ N.C. App. ___ (May. 7, 2025)

In this Duplin County case, defendant appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a felon, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel by conceding his guilt without permission. The Court of Appeals majority agreed, vacating defendant’s convictions and remanding for a new trial.

In July of 2016, officers responded to the report of a break-in and gunshot injuries. Defendant was indicted for the break-in and shooting of the victim and came to trial in March 2023. Before and during the trial, defendant attempted to get new counsel three times, but each attempt was denied by the trial court. During trial, testimony from defendant’s former girlfriend focused on his gang connections and his motivations for the killing, including following orders from gang leaders so that he could move up in the organization. At the charge conference, the trial court denied the State’s request for an instruction on acting in concert, but the prosecutor made arguments related to acting in concert anyway. When defense counsel gave closing arguments, he referenced the structure of the gang and conceded that defendant was present at the scene of the crime and that he ran away afterwards, leaving his shoes outside the house. Defendant was subsequently convicted.

The Court of Appeals agreed with defendant’s argument that “his counsel impliedly admitted defendant’s guilt when he stated during closing arguments that defendant went to the home of the victim with [two gang members] on the night of the incident.” Slip Op. at 10. The court explained this represented a violation of defendant’s rights under the Sixth Amendment as articulated in State v. Harbison, 315 N.C. 175 (1985). Here, there was no on-the-record Harbison inquiry except for defendant’s consent to the discussion of a prior conviction. There was “no evidence in the record to suggest that at any other point before or during trial defendant’s counsel sought or obtained informed consent from defendant to discuss his presence at the crime scene or his involvement with the gang the evening of the incident.” Slip Op. at 12. The court also highlighted defense counsel’s statements that represented “an implied admission that although defendant was following orders, he was also a participant in the crime in question.” Id. at 15-16. Defense counsel’s Harbison error of impliedly admitting defendant’s guilt justified a new trial.

Judge Stading dissented, arguing defense counsel did not impliedly admit defendant’s guilt, and that even if he did admit guilt, the lack of record about defendant’s voluntary consent justified dismissing the appeal and allowing defendant to file a motion for appropriate relief.