Smith's Criminal Case Compendium

Smith's Criminal Case Compendium


This compendium includes significant criminal cases by the U.S. Supreme Court & N.C. appellate courts, Nov. 2008 – Present. Selected 4th Circuit cases also are included.

Jessica Smith prepared case summaries Nov. 2008-June 4, 2019; later summaries are prepared by other School staff.


Navigate using the table of contents to the left or by using the search box below. Use quotations for an exact phrase search. A search for multiple terms without quotations functions as an “or” search. Not sure where to start? The 5 minute video tutorial offers a guided tour of main features – Launch Tutorial (opens in new tab).

E.g., 06/26/2024
E.g., 06/26/2024

The defendant was charged with second-degree rape and first-degree kidnapping in Cabarrus County and was convicted at trial. Benzodiazepines were found in the victim’s urine, and the State presented expert testimony at trial on the urinalysis results. The expert witness did not conduct the forensic testing but independently reviewed the test results. The defendant’s hearsay and Confrontation Clause objections were overruled. Expert testimony from another witness established the presence of a muscle relaxant in the victim’s hair sample and indicated that the two drugs in combination would cause substantial impairment. There was additional evidence of a substantial amount of the defendant’s DNA on the victim, as well as evidence of prior similar sexual assaults by the defendant admitted under Rule 404(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence. He was convicted of both charges and appealed. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no error (summarized here). Among other issues, the majority rejected the defendant’s arguments that the admission of the substitute analyst testimony and the 404(b) evidence was error. The defendant appealed the Confrontation Clause ruling and the North Carolina Supreme Court later granted discretionary review on the Rule 404(b) issue.

Assuming without deciding that admission of the substitute analyst testimony was error, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Testimony from the substitute analyst established the presence of benzodiazepines in the victim’s blood based first on a preliminary test, and then a confirmatory test. While the defendant objected to all of this testimony at trial, only the testimony regarding the confirmatory test was challenged on appeal. Thus, “[e]ven in the absence of [the substitute analyst’s] subsequent testimony regarding the confirmatory testing, there was still competent evidence before the jury of the presence of Clonazepam in [the victim’s] urine sample.” Pabon Slip op. at 23. The Court noted that evidence from the other analyst established a different impairing substance in the victim’s hair which could have explained the victim’s drugged state on its own. In light of this and other “overwhelming” evidence of guilt, any error here was harmless and did not warrant a new trial.

As to the 404(b) evidence, the Court likewise assumed without deciding that admission of evidence of the previous sexual assaults by the defendant against other women was error but determined that any error was not prejudicial under the facts. Unlike a case where the evidence amounts to a “credibility contest”—two different accounts of an encounter but lacking physical or corroborating evidence—here, there was “extensive” evidence of the defendant’s guilt. This included video of the victim in an impaired state soon before the assault and while in the presence of the defendant, testimony of a waitress and the victim’s mother regarding the victim’s impairment on the day of the offense, the victim’s account of the assault to a nurse examiner, the victim’s vaginal injury, the presence of drugs in the victim’s system, and the presence of the a significant amount of the defendant’s DNA on the victim’s chest, among other evidence. “We see this case not as simply a ‘credibility contest,’ but as one with overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.” Id. at 34. Thus, even if the 404(b) evidence was erroneously admitted, it was unlikely that the jury would have reached a different result. The Court of Appeals decision was therefore modified and affirmed.

Chief Justice Newby concurred separately. He joined in the result but would not have discussed the defendant’s arguments in light of the Court’s assumption of error.

The court per curiam affirmed the decision below, State v. Hester, 224 N.C. App. 353 (Dec. 18, 2012), which had held, over a dissent, that the defendant’s first asserted issue must be dismissed because although he argued plain error, he failed provide an analysis of the prejudicial impact of the challenged evidence.

The facts of this Haywood County case were previously summarized here following the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Shuler, 2021-NCSC-89, 378 N.C. 337, 861 S.E.2d 512 (Aug. 13, 2021) (Shuler I). The North Carolina Supreme Court held in Shuler Ithat the Court of Appeals erred by admitting testimony regarding the defendant’s pre-arrest silence before the defendant testified at trial. Shuler I held that the defendant did not forfeit her Fifth Amendment right when she provided notice of her intent to invoke an affirmative defense and that the State may not preemptively impeach a defendant who has not testified. The North Carolina Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the erroneously admitted testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

On remand, the Court of Appeals held that admission of the improper evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence consisted of a detective’s testimony that at the time the defendant was discovered with drugs she did not make any statements about the person she later contended had threatened her in order to convince her to hold on to the drugs. The Court of Appeals reasoned that this testimony related solely to the affirmative defense of duress, a defense that was supported only by the defendant’s testimony and which the jury was “clearly likely” to have rejected. Id. at 14. The Court concluded there was substantial and overwhelming evidence that the defendant knowingly possessed the drugs for which she was charged. It further noted that the State made no additional references to the defendant’s pre-arrest silence following the detective’s testimony and did not reference the defendant’s silence in closing argument. The Court thus deemed the impact of the reference to the defendant’s silence to be de minimis.

Show Table of Contents