In this Wake County case, defendant appealed his convictions for forcible rape, sex offense, kidnapping, various assault charges, and interfering with emergency communication, arguing (1) he was deprived of his right to autonomy in the presentation of his defense, (2) he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel when his attorney admitted guilt during closing argument, and (3) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him for habitual misdemeanor assault due to a facially invalid indictment. The Court of Appeals majority disagreed, finding no error. 

In April of 2020, defendant came to trial for assaulting and raping a woman he was dating at the time. During the trial, defense counsel informed the court that defendant would not testify or present evidence, and the trial court conducted a colloquy to ensure defendant was knowingly waiving this right. During the colloquy, defendant mentioned documentary evidence he wanted to admit, but that his attorney had not admitted. The trial court did not instruct defense counsel to introduce the evidence. During closing argument, defense counsel mentioned that defendant was not guilty of kidnapping, sexual offense, or rape, but did not mention assault. Defendant was subsequently convicted, and appealed.  

In (1), defendant contended that he and defense counsel had reached an absolute impasse about the documentary evidence, and the trial court committed a structural error by failing to instruct defense counsel to comply with defendant’s wishes to admit the evidence. The Court of Appeals first noted the rule that “where the defendant and his defense counsel reach an absolute impasse and are unable come to an agreement on such tactical decisions, the defendant’s wishes must control.” Slip Op. at 5. However, here the court was “unable to determine from the cold record whether there was a true disagreement, which would amount to an absolute impasse.” Id. at 7-8. Additionally, the court explained that even if there was an error, it was not a type recognized as structural by the Supreme Court, referencing the list identified in State v. Minyard, 289 N.C. App. 436 (2023). 

Moving to (2), defendant argued his defense counsel committed an error under State v. Harbison, 315 N.C. 175 (1985), which would represent ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the court did not see a Harbison error, noting “defense counsel here never implied or mentioned any misconduct [by defendant]” while giving closing argument. Slip Op. at 15. Instead, the court held that “[defense counsel’s] statements cannot logically be interpreted as an implied concession of Defendant’s guilt.” Id.  

Finally, in (3) defendant argued that the indictment was flawed as it failed to state the assault caused “physical injury.” Id. at 17. The court explained that here, count VIII of the indictment alleged that defendant caused “serious injury” for the assault inflicting serious injury charge. Id. at 18. The court determined that the broader term was sufficient, as “it logically follows Defendant was noticed of his need to defend against an allegation that he caused physical injury as ‘serious injury’ is defined to include physical injury.” Id. at 21. 

Judge Murphy concurred in part and dissented in part by separate opinion, and would have held that the indictment for habitual misdemeanor assault in (3) was insufficient as physical injury and serious injury were not synonymous.  

In this Guilford County case, defendant appealed his convictions for communicating threats and assault charges, arguing abuse of discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial based on the late disclosure of discoverable material, and ineffective assistance of counsel by implicitly conceding guilt. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion or error. 

Defendant came to trial in February of 2020 for charges related to a dispute with his girlfriend regarding access to her phone. On the Thursday before the trial, the state provided a set of body camera videos. On the first day of trial, the state provided additional photographs of the crime scene and injuries after they were mislabeled with the wrong case number. And on the second day of trial, the state provided a set of 29 phone call recordings from defendant while he was in jail. Defense counsel only raised a discovery objection to the phone call recordings produced on the second day of trial. The trial court denied the motion and allowed the state to play one of the recorded calls for the jury. At the close of state’s evidence, defendant moved for a mistrial based on the discovery violations. The trial court denied the motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals first noted that the right to a mistrial was not automatic, and that a mistrial was one of several sanctions permitted under G.S. 15A-910 for failure to comply with required disclosures, all of which are discretionary. Because defense counsel only objected to the phone call recordings, that was the only evidence considered by the court when reviewing the motion for mistrial. The court noted that defense counsel could not identify any element of the calls which would have been exculpatory for defendant. Additionally, the court noted that G.S. 15A-910 did not establish any other basis for granting the mistrial or finding an abuse of discretion. 

Turning to defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the court noted that the standards from State v. Harbison, 315 N.C. 175 (1985), applied to defendant’s claim regarding admission of guilt, and that State v. McAllister, 375 N.C. 455 (2020), showed implied concessions of guilt may rise to the level of a Harbison error. However, the court explained that implied concessions of guilt must be based on statements that “cannot logically be interpreted as anything other than an implied concession of guilt.” Slip Op. at 16-17, quoting McAllister. The court did not find that logical conclusion from either of the statements pointed to by defendant as indicative of error. Instead, the court distinguished the statements from the McAllister examples, finding no Harbison error. 

In this Alamance County case, defendant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and error by the trial court admitting lay witness opinion testimony. The Court of Appeals found no ineffective assistance of counsel and no prejudicial error by the trial court. 

In December of 2018, defendant sold drugs to the murder victim; the victim used a fake $100 bill to purchase the drugs from defendant. Defendant soon realized he had received a fake bill, and repeatedly contacted the victim, arguing that she owed him money. Eventually defendant and a friend went to the apartments where victim resided, and after a short exchange the victim was shot; she later died of her wounds. At trial, defendant’s counsel informed the trial court that defendant planned to concede that he fired the shot that killed the victim, and that he may argue defendant was guilty of lesser included offenses. Defendant indicated that he consented to this strategy during a colloquy with the trial court. Defendant’s counsel subsequently argued that defendant was struggling with the victim over a bag of drugs and he fired a shot that was not premeditated. 

The court first examined defendant’s per se ineffective assistance of counsel argument, noting that defendant consented to the strategy of admitting a shot was fired, effectively admitting to defendant’s guilt for second-degree murder, and thus could not argue ineffective assistance on this point. Examining defendant’s alternative argument that he received prejudicially ineffective assistance of counsel, the court explained that (1) defendant consented to his counsel’s strategy of self-defense, but then decided to invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to testify, sabotaging the strategy, (2) defendant’s witness offered testimony useful for raising doubts about the processing of the crime scene, and (3) defense counsel’s closing argument was coherent and attempted to negate the elements of first-degree murder. 

Reviewing the trial court’s admission of lay opinion testimony that it would be easier to lure the victim with promises instead of threats, the court could find no prejudicial error. Explaining that the State did not even refer to this testimony in closing arguments, instead simply referencing this concept as a commonsense notion, the court found that defendant failed to show any reasonable possibility that the jury would have reached a different verdict. 

The defendant was indicted for seven crimes arising from a domestic violence incident. The defendant severely beat his wife, resulting in her being hospitalized for six days where she was treated for extensive swelling and bruising to face and neck, fractures to rib bones and bones around her eyes, strangulation, contusions, and kidney failure induced by toxins released from skeletal muscle destruction. Following trial, the defendant was convicted of six of the seven charges and was sentenced to four consecutive sentences totaling 578 to 730 months. The defendant appealed.

(1) On appeal, the defendant first argued that the trial court committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter because the evidence showed that the defendant lacked the requisite intent for attempted first-degree murder. The defendant contended that the State failed to conclusively prove he had the requisite intent of premeditation and deliberation to commit first-degree murder because evidence at trial showed that he assaulted his wife spontaneously in response to adequate provocation. In rejecting this argument, the Court of Appeals noted that there was overwhelming evidence at trial supporting premeditation and deliberation. Although the wife admitted during trial that she stabbed the defendant in the chest with a knife, the defendant’s testimony confirmed that the subsequent assault lasted multiple hours, and the defendant testified that he “knew what he was doing” and agreed that he “could have left at any time.” Slip op. at ¶ 27. The Court thus held that this the defendant’s testimony did not warrant an instruction on attempted voluntary manslaughter.

(2) The defendant next argued that the trial court did not ensure the defendant had knowingly consented before allowing defense counsel to concede the defendant’s guilt to multiple charges. The defendant contended that statements made by his defense counsel during opening and closing statements constituted an implied admission of his guilt because counsel (i) told the jury that the defendant “beat” his wife and (ii) argued only against the charge of first-degree murder and did not mention the defendant’s other charges in closing argument. The Court of Appeals held that defense counsel’s reference to the defendant having beaten his wife did not amount to a Harbison error because the defendant chose to testify on his own behalf, under oath, with full awareness that he did not have to testify. The defendant then repeatedly admitted that he beat his wife. The Court concluded that defense counsel repeated the defendant’s own testimony, then urged the jury to evaluate the truth in defendant’s words, and that defense counsel’s statements could logically be interpreted as a recitation of facts presented at trial.

(3) The defendant’s final argument was that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the charge of first-degree kidnapping because the State failed to introduce sufficient evidence of confinement separate from that which was inherent in the commission of the assaults on his wife. In rejecting this argument, the Court reasoned that the State presented evidence that the defendant confined his wife to her apartment through actions apart from confinement inherent in the many instances of assault, and the evidence allowed a reasonable inference that the defendant chose to wholly confine his wife to her apartment to prevent her from seeking aid.

The defendant was charged with first degree burglary after she was found inside the victims’ home in the early morning hours, having taken items from their cars and placed them inside a purse belonging to one of the homeowners. The defendant appeared to be impaired at the time she was arrested. She claimed during the encounter that, alternatively, she was an emergency medical worker, someone had chased her inside the house, and someone had invited her to the house.

(1) Before making an opening statement, defense counsel notified the court that he would be admitting all of the elements of the charged offense besides intent. The trial court asked the defendant whether she understood and agreed with this decision. She said she did. While defense counsel’s express or implied admission of the defendant’s guilt of a charged offense to the jury without the defendant’s consent is per se ineffective assistance of counsel, such an admission may be made with the defendant’s consent. Here, the trial court had an exchange with the defendant where she expressed her understanding and agreed to admit the elements of felony breaking and entering other than intent. Therefore, even assuming, without deciding, that defense counsel impliedly admitted that defendant was guilty of misdemeanor breaking and entering, that admission was consensual and did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.

(2) An expert in forensic psychology testified for the defendant that she had diagnosed the defendant with post-traumatic stress disorder, severe alcohol use disorder, severe amphetamine use disorder, and a personality disorder. The expert testified that the defendant admitted to using methamphetamine daily and that such use can result in a methamphetamine-associated psychosis which presents with delusions, paranoia, and hallucinations. The expert characterized the defendant’s symptoms as congruent with this condition.

During closing argument, the prosecutor attacked the expert’s credibility, stating that “‘psychosis is quite convenient as an excuse’” and that the defendant “‘had Dr. James come and testify . . . with the end in mind.’” Slip op. at 14. The prosecutor argued to the jury that the expert was “‘paid by the defense, for the defense, to give good stuff for the defense’” and that “‘[y]ou get what you put out. What you put in, you get out.’” Id. After questioning the utility of Dr. James’s diagnoses of the defendant, the prosecutor remarked to the jury, “‘So I ask you to take that for what it is. At the end of the day, hired by the defense, for the defense, to say good things for the defense . . . .’” Id. The defendant did not object to the remarks. The court of appeals held that the prosecutor’s remarks were improper because they went beyond arguing that the expert witness was potentially biased, which is permissible. Instead, the prosecution impermissibly suggested to the jury that the defendant’s expert was paid to fabricate an excuse for her conduct and acts, regardless of the truth. The court explained:

By arguing that psychosis was an “excuse,” Dr. James testified with an end in mind, Dr. James was paid “to give good stuff for the defense,” and Dr. James was hired “to say good things for the defense,” the prosecutor inappropriately suggested that Dr. James “should not be believed because [s]he would give untruthful or inaccurate testimony in exchange for pay.”

 Slip op. at 14 (quoting, in last clause of last sentence, State v. Huey, 370 N.C. 174, 183 (2017)).

While these remarks were improper, the court of appeals held that in the absence of an objection by the defendant, they were not so grossly improper as to impede the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The court noted that similar remarks had been held not to amount to prejudicial error. Moreover, the court said it could not conclude that the remarks were so prejudicial as to merit a new trial considering the substantial amount of evidence tending to show that the defendant had the requisite intent for first-degree burglary.

(3) The Court vacated the civil judgment for attorney’s fees and remanded the matter to the trial court for a waiver by the defendant or a hearing on the issue. Although at trial the defendant stated she had no objection to the entry of a civil judgment, she did not know at that time the number of hours her appointed counsel planned to submit or what amount she would owe. She was, therefore, deprived of a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the judgment was entered.

This Pitt County case involved charges of attempted first-degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury (“AWDWIKISI”) and felony breaking or entering. Before trial, the defendant signed a document allowing his attorney to argue that he was guilty of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury (“AWDWISI”). This “Harbison acknowledgement” stated that the defendant understood his right to plead not guilty and have all issues in his case tried; that the defendant understood he was not required to concede guilt as to any offense; that he voluntarily admitted guilt to the assault while understanding the consequences of that admission; and that he authorized his attorney to argue his guilt of that offense to the jury. The trial court conducted a colloquy with the defendant where the defendant orally reaffirmed the terms of the document. At trial, defense counsel argued that the defendant was guilty of AWDWISI but lacked the intent to kill necessary to support the first-degree attempted murder (or AWDWIKISI). The jury convicted on all counts and the defendant appealed. He argued that his admission of guilt to the assault was not knowing or voluntary and that he therefore received ineffective assistance of counsel. He also claimed the trial court’s Harbison colloquy was deficient.

(1) Under State v. Harbison, 315 N.C. 175 (1985), it is per se ineffective assistance of counsel for defense counsel to admit a defendant’s guilt to an offense without the defendant’s consent. The defendant argued that his admission to the assault was effectively an admission to attempted murder. AWDWISI and attempted first-degree murder have different elements and AWDWISI is not a lesser-included offense of attempted first-degree murder. Thus, the admission to AWDWISI did not admit guilt to attempted murder. Further, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily admitted guilt to that assault, and his attorney never conceded guilt to attempted murder. The defendant therefore could not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel.

(2) Before accepting an admission of guilt at trial, the record should reflect the defendant’s knowing and informed consent to the admission. Here, it did:

The record demonstrates that Defendant fully understood that trial counsel was going to concede guilt to AWDWISI, and the Defendant expressly consented to the concession. Further, Defendant specifically acknowledged that he understood the consequences of such admission. Id. at 11.

Thus, the trial court’s Harbison colloquy with the defendant was proper. In addition to his appeal, the defendant filed a motion for appropriate relief (“MAR”) in the appellate division. Denying that motion, the court found that no Harbison violation occurred and that the defendant could not therefore show the existence of a ground for relief under the MAR statute. The convictions were thus unanimously affirmed.

In this murder case, trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to produce evidence, as promised in counsel’s opening statement to the jury, that the shooting in question was justified or done in self-defense. After the trial court conducted a Harbison inquiry, defense counsel admitted to the jury that the defendant had a gun and shot the victim but argued that the evidence would show that the shooting was justified. The concession regarding the shooting did not pertain to a hotly disputed factual matter given that video surveillance footage of the events left no question as to whether the defendant shot the victim. The trial court’s Harbison inquiry was comprehensive, revealing that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily consented to counsel’s concession. The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that making unfulfilled promises to the jury in an opening statement constitutes per se ineffective assistance of counsel. And it found that because counsel elicited evidence supporting a defense of justification, counsel did not fail to fulfill a promise made in his opening statement. The court stated: “Defense counsel promised and delivered evidence, but it was for the jury to determine whether to believe that evidence.”

In a murder case, trial counsel did not impermissibly concede the defendant’s guilt under Harbison. Although defense counsel never explicitly conceded the defendant’s guilt during trial, she did make factual concessions, including admitting that the defendant was present at the shooting and that he believed that he was participating in a plan to commit a robbery. The court found that it did not need to decide whether the factual admissions constituted an admission of guilt to first degree felony-murder given that the defendant expressly consented to counsel’s admissions. 

The court rejected the defendant’s Harbison claim (it is ineffective assistance of counsel for a defense lawyer to concede guilt without the defendant’s consent) where defense counsel raised the admission with the trial court before it was made and the defendant consented to counsel’s strategy.

Although concluding that counsel admitted the defendant’s guilt to the jury, the court dismissed the defendant’s Harbison claim without prejudice to his right to file a motion for appropriate relief on that basis in the trial court. Counsel conceded guilt to resisting a public officer and eluding arrest when he stated, among other things, that the defendant “chose to get behind the wheel after drinking, and he chose to run from the police[,]” and “[the officer] was already out of the way and he just kept on going, kept running from the police.” However, the record did not indicate whether the defendant had consented to these admissions.

(1) Defense counsel did not commit a Harbison error during the habitual felon proceeding by admitting that the defendant had pled guilty to three felonies. Although defense counsel admitted the defendant’s prior convictions, he never argued that the jury should find that the defendant had attained habitual felon status and in fact suggested that the jury take certain mitigating factors into account. (2) Even if such an admission occurred, the defendant would not be entitled to relief because Harbison does not apply to a habitual felon proceeding.