State v. Townsend, COA24-431, ___ N.C. App. ___ (May. 21, 2025)

In this Guilford County case, defendant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder, arguing error in (1) instructing the jury on self-defense, (2) admitting testimony from a detective, and (3) failure to consider the detective’s testimony subject to disclosure under G.S. 15A-903(a)(2). The Court of Appeals found no error.

In October of 2017, defendant went to the apartment of the victim to buy marijuana, and shot the victim while he was preparing to sell to defendant. The detective at issue on appeal investigated the scene, examining the bullet holes in the wall to determine the trajectory of the shots. During the trial, the detective testified regarding photographs from the scene showing dowel rods in the bullet holes, and he used the dowel rods to demonstrate the trajectory of the bullets. However, the detective also acknowledged he was not an expert in ballistics or bullet trajectory. Defense counsel objected to this testimony, but was overruled. When instructing the jury, the trial court included a self-defense instruction including a statement that self-defense is not available to a defendant attempting to commit or committing a felony, and that “the State must prove ‘an immediate causal nexus between the Defendant’s use of force and felony conduct used to disqualify the Defendant from use of defensive force.’” Slip Op. at 4. When providing this instruction, the trial court told the jury that “attempting to possess two ounces of marijuana and attempting to possess any amount of marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver are felonies.” Id.

In (1), defendant argued that possessing marijuana could not be a disqualifying felony for self-defense. The Court of Appeals disagreed, looking to State v. McLymore, 380 N.C. 185 (2022), and explaining the causal nexus requirement is a jury question. Here, the jury instructions “closely follow[ed] the guidance set forth in McLymore regarding the causal nexus requirement, including expressly articulating the State’s burden to prove but-for causation between Defendant’s felonious conduct and the confrontation resulting in [the victim’s] death.” Slip Op. at 9.

For (2), defendant argued admitting the detective’s testimony regarding the trajectory of the bullets was error as he was not qualified under Rule of Evidence 702. The court explained that neither party had provided cases on whether lay testimony under Rule 701 may cover bullet trajectories, requiring the court to consider precedent from other states. After surveying relevant caselaw, the court explained that the detective’s testimony was based on observations and techniques appropriate for lay testimony, and the fact that he was law enforcement did not convert it to expert testimony.

Reaching (3), the court explained that “because we conclude [the detective’s] testimony was lay opinion testimony, Section 15A-903(a)(2) does not apply.” Id. at 14. The court disagreed with defendant’s assertion that the detective’s testimony could be expert opinions under State v. Davis, 368 N.C. 794 (2016), noting the witness in this case was not offered as an expert at trial and “his testimony regarding the trajectory of the bullets was lay opinion testimony.” Id. at 15.