In this capital case, the prosecution’s failure to disclose material evidence violated the defendant’s due process rights. At trial the defendant unsuccessfully raised an alibi defense and was convicted. The case was before the Court after the defendant’s unsuccessful post-conviction Brady claim. Three pieces of evidence were at issue. First, regarding State’s witness Scott, the prosecution withheld police records showing that two of Scott’s fellow inmates had made statements that cast doubt on Scott’s credibility. One inmate reported hearing Scott say that he wanted to make sure the defendant got “the needle cause he jacked over me.” The other inmate told investigators that he had witnessed the murder. However, he recanted the next day, explaining that “Scott had told him what to say” and had suggested that lying about having witnessed the murder “would help him get out of jail.” Second, regarding State’s witness Brown, the prosecution failed to disclose that, contrary to its assertions at trial that Brown, who was serving a 15-year sentence, “hasn’t asked for a thing,” Brown had twice sought a deal to reduce his existing sentence in exchange for his testimony. And third, the prosecution failed to turn over medical records on Randy Hutchinson. According to Scott, on the night of the murder, Hutchinson had run into the street to flag down the victim, pulled the victim out of his car, shoved him into the cargo space, and crawled into the cargo space himself. But Hutchinson’s medical records revealed that, nine days before the murder, Hutchinson had undergone knee surgery to repair a ruptured patellar tendon. An expert witness testified at the state collateral-review hearing that Hutchinson’s surgically repaired knee could not have withstood running, bending, or lifting substantial weight. The State presented an expert witness who disagreed regarding Hutchinson’s physical fitness. Concluding that the state court erred by denying the defendant’s Brady claim, the Court stated: “Beyond doubt, the newly revealed evidence suffices to undermine confidence in [the defendant’s] conviction. The State’s trial evidence resembles a house of cards, built on the jury crediting Scott’s account rather than [the defendant’s] alibi.” It continued: “Even if the jury—armed with all of this new evidence—could have voted to convict [the defendant], we have no confidence that it would have done so.” (quotations omitted). It further found that in reaching the opposite conclusion, the state post-conviction court improperly evaluated the materiality of each piece of evidence in isolation rather than cumulatively, emphasized reasons a juror might disregard new evidence while ignoring reasons she might not, and failed even to mention the statements of the two inmates impeaching Scott.

Defendant filed an MAR challenging his 1993 convictions and death sentence for burglary, rape, armed robbery, and two counts of first-degree murder. The MAR alleged that the state failed to disclose material and exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady. At his original trial, the state’s primary evidence against the defendant included his fingerprint on a knife found next to one victim’s body, a partial DNA match between the defendant and a semen sample recovered from one of the victims, and testimony from a witness that the defendant spent a large amount of money on drugs shortly after the victims were robbed and murdered. The defendant made several discovery requests prior to trial in 1993, but the evidence at issue in this MAR was not produced. Part of the additional evidence was voluntarily provided to postconviction counsel in 2011, while other evidence was located by defense counsel in the attic of Whiteville City Hall. The undisclosed evidence fell into four categories: (i) forensic testing on additional hair, fiber, fingerprint, and blood samples that were not a match to the defendant; (ii) a prior interview with the testifying witness in which she said the defendant had only a small amount of money on him around the time of the crimes; (iii) reports about glass particles found in the defendant’s shoes that did not match the broken window glass at the crime scene, and additional cash found in the victim’s purse; and (iv) investigative materials on two undisclosed alternate suspects.

The trial court denied the MAR, finding that the defendant failed to show prejudice, and the defendant appealed. On review, the state Supreme Court considered how the undisclosed evidence could have been used to either negate or cast doubt upon the principal evidence offered by the state, and was “sufficiently disturbed by the extent of the withheld evidence in this case, and by the materiality of that evidence, that it undermines our confidence in the jury’s verdict.” The trial court’s denial of the MAR was therefore reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to grant the MAR and order a new trial.

Justice Newby dissented, and would have held that the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different result even if the additional evidence had been made available at trial.

The defendant was found guilty by a Cleveland County jury of impaired driving and resisting a public officer and was found responsible for possession of open container. He appealed, challenging the denial of his motion to dismiss, the denial of his mid-trial motion to suppress, an evidentiary ruling, and alleging constitutional violations for lost evidence. The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed.

(1) The defendant claimed there was insufficient evidence that he operated the vehicle while impaired. As to operation, the defendant was found asleep behind the wheel with the car running in the middle of the road and had a bottle of vodka between his legs. No passengers were present, and the defendant asked the officer if he could move the car, revving the engine several times. He also used the driver side door to exit the vehicle. This was sufficient to establish operation. “An individual who is asleep behind the wheel of a car with the engine running is in actual physical control of the car, thus driving the car within the meaning of the statute.”  As to impairment, while the defendant’s blood alcohol content was only 0.07, the defendant’s blood revealed the presence of marijuana, amphetamine and methamphetamine. In addition to the blood test, the defendant “failed” horizontal and vertical gaze nystagmus tests, refused a breath test, had a strong odor of alcohol, was “confused and disoriented,” and exhibited other signs of impairment. This was sufficient evidence of impairment.

The defendant also claimed there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for resisting a public officer. Specifically, he argued that he was merely confused and in pain at the time of his interactions with the officers, and that this was the cause of his “negative interactions” with the officers. The court rejected this argument, noting: “The conduct proscribed under [N.C. Gen. Stat. §] 14-223 is not limited to resisting an arrest but includes any resistance, delay, or obstruction of an officer in discharge of his duties.” Here, the defendant committed multiple acts that obstructed the officer’s duties. The defendant would not roll down his window when asked by the officer, he repeatedly tried to start his car after being commanded to stop, he refused a breath test at least 10 times, and repeatedly put his hands in his pockets during the nystagmus testing after being instructed not to do so. He also refused to get into the patrol car once arrested and refused to voluntarily allow his blood to be drawn after a search warrant for it was obtained. In the court’s words:

Through these actions and his inactions, Defendant directly opposed the officers in their efforts to discharge their investigative duties of identifying him, speaking with him, and performing field sobriety tests. Thus, Defendant resisted the officers within the meaning of the statute.

The motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence of resisting a public officer was therefore properly denied.

The defendant also claimed his motion to dismiss for insufficiency as to the possession of open container of alcohol should have been granted. He pointed out that the bottle found in his car was not missing much alcohol and the officer admitted to emptying the bottle on the side of the road. Rejecting this argument, the court observed:

[T]he amount of alcohol missing from the container is irrelevant for purposes of this offense, because a contained is opened ‘[i]f the seal on [the] container of alcoholic beverages has been broken.’ Additionally, the fact that [the officer] poured out the contents of the container goes to the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency.

The trial court therefore did not err in denying the motion for insufficient evidence for this offense.

(2) As to the suppression motion, the issue was preserved despite the motion being untimely because the court considered and ruled on the motion. The defendant argued that the forcible blood draw violated his rights to be free to unreasonable force. He did not challenge the validity of the search warrant authorizing the blood draw. Claims of excessive force are evaluated under the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard. Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). “Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is ‘reasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of ‘the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests’ against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” Id. at 22 (citations omitted). Here, the officer had a valid warrant (obtained after the defendant’s repeated refusals to provide a breath sample), and the blood draw was performed by medical professionals at a hospital. Any acts of force by police to obtain the blood sample were the result of the defendant’s own resistance. The court observed:

Defendant had no right to resist the execution of a search warrant, and in fact, his actions rose to the level of criminal conduct under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-223, for resisting a public officer. . . Defendant ‘cannot resist a lawful warrant and be rewarded with the exclusion of the evidence.’

The force used to effectuate the blood draw was reasonable under the circumstances and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

The defendant also argued that his motion to suppress should have been granted for failure of the State to show that his blood was drawn by a qualified professional. G.S. 20-139.1(c) provides that doctor, registered nurse, EMT, or other qualified person shall take the blood sample. “An officer’s trial testimony regarding the qualifications of the person who withdrew the blood is sufficient evidence of the person’s qualifications.” Here, the officer testified that a nurse drew the blood, although he could not identify her by name and no other proof of her qualifications was admitted.  This was sufficient evidence that the blood was drawn by qualified person, and this argument was rejected.

(3) The trial court admitted into evidence the bottle found between the defendant’s legs at the time of arrest. According to the defendant, this was an abuse of discretion because the officers admitted to destroying the content of the bottle (by pouring it out) before trial. The defendant argued this was prejudicial and required a new trial. Because the defendant offered no authority that admission of the bottle into evidence was error, this argument was treated as abandoned and not considered.

(4) During the arrest, the stopping officer forgot to turn on his body camera and only began recording the investigation mid-way through. The officer also failed to record interactions with the defendant during processing after arrest in violation of department policy. The trial court found no constitutional violation. The defendant complained on appeal that the “intentional suppression” of this camera footage violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and sought dismissal or a new trial. However, the defendant only argued the Fourteenth Amendment Brady violation on appeal. His Sixth Amendment argument was therefore abandoned and waived.

As to the alleged Brady violation, the defendant did not seek dismissal in the trial court. “We are therefore precluded from reviewing the denial of any such motion, and Defendant’s request that this Court ‘dismiss the prosecution against him’ is itself dismissed.” However, the defendant’s argument at suppression that the failure to record the blood draw violated due process and warranted suppression was preserved. Under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), suppression of material evidence relevant to guilt or punishment violates due process, regardless of the government’s good or bad faith. Here though, there was no evidence that the State suppressed anything—the video footage was simply not created. Brady rights apply to materials within the possession of the State. “Defendant essentially asks this Court to extend Brady’s holding to include evidence not collected by an officer, which we decline to do.” There was also no indication that the video footage would have been helpful to the defendant. The court therefore rejected this claim. “Although the officers’ failure to record the interaction violated departmental policy, such violation did not amount to a denial of Defendant’s due process rights under Brady in this case.”

In this assault on a government officer case, no Brady violation occurred when recordings from police body cameras were reviewed by the defendant’s original trial counsel and then destroyed pursuant to the police department’s evidence retention schedule. The defendant’s original trial counsel reviewed the video recordings but opted not to obtain copies or use the footage at the defendant’s district court trial. The defendant was convicted and appealed for trial de novo to superior court. In the meantime, the original recordings were destroyed in accordance with the police department’s evidence retention schedule. The defendant’s new trial counsel moved for a continuance to allow time for counsel to prepare a motion to dismiss, arguing that such a remedy was warranted because the recordings had been destroyed and thus were unavailable for use by the defense. The trial court denied the motion. The defendant was convicted and appealed. The court stated: “Defense counsel’s decision not to make or preserve copies of the videos — regardless of counsel’s reason for declining to do so — cannot serve as a basis for arguing a Brady violation was committed by the State.” 

In this misdemeanor DWI case the trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motions to examine the Intoximeter source code. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the source code was Brady evidence, reasoning that he failed to show that it was favorable and material. The court noted that the jury found the defendant guilty under both prongs of the DWI statute. The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that under Crawford and the confrontation clause he was entitled to the source code. 

G.S. 15A-903 requires production of already existing documents; it imposes no duty on the State to create or continue to develop additional documentation regarding an investigation. To the extent the trial court concluded that the State violated statutory discovery provisions because it failed to document certain conversations, this was error. 

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to continue alleging that the defendant did not receive discovery at a reasonable time prior to trial where the defendant never made a motion for discovery and there was no written discovery agreement and thus the State was not required to provide discovery pursuant to G.S. 15A-903(a)(1). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a witness named Karen Holman to testify when her name allegedly was listed on the State’s witness list as Karen Holbrook where the defendant never made a motion for discovery and there was no written discovery agreement, even if such a motion had been made, the trial judge had discretion under the statute to permit any undisclosed witness to testify, and the witness’s testimony served only to authenticate a videotape. 

The defendant’s first trial on charges of DWI, driving while license revoked, and driving without a valid registration or properly displayed license plate ended in a hung jury and mistrial. A retrial was scheduled for approximately two months later. One week before the retrial, defense counsel made a motion for production of the transcript of the prior trial for the purpose of impeaching and cross-examining the state’s witnesses, and moved for a continuance to allow time to receive the transcript. The trial court denied the defendant’s motions, and the retrial was held. Over the state’s objections, the defense called the defendant’s prior trial counsel to testify at the retrial and impeach the state’s witnesses’ testimony. The jury convicted the defendant of all charges and he appealed, arguing that the trial court committed reversible error by denying his motions for a transcript and continuance.

 The appellate court characterized the defendant’s arguments as “a puffer fish, attempting to ‘blow up’ Defendant’s lack of a transcript” into a constitutional error attributable to the state or the court, when it was “more accurately described as a desiccated sardine, consciously canned by his trial counsel.” Noting that any error or prejudice was invited by defense counsel’s delay in filing the motion for a transcript, as well as the failure to pursue other options such as issuing a subpoena to have the court reporter read back testimony at the retrial, the appellate court held that the defendant might have a basis to allege ineffective assistance of counsel, but he failed to demonstrate that the trial court committed prejudicial error by denying the pretrial motions.

Judge Murphy dissented and would have held that the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motions without making the necessary findings on whether the transcript was necessary to the preparation of an effective defense or there were adequate alternatives available.

(1) In this murder case, the trial court did not err by excluding the testimony of a defense psychiatrist on the basis that the witness’s proffered testimony constituted expert opinion testimony that had not been disclosed pursuant to a reciprocal discovery order. The witness, Dr. Badri Hamra, was a psychiatrist with the North Carolina Department of Public Safety who treated the defendant fifteen months after his arrest. On appeal, the defendant argued that Hamra was proffered as a fact witness regarding the issue of premeditation and deliberation. Defendant further argued that as a fact witness, she was outside of the scope of the reciprocal discovery order, which applied only to expert witnesses. The court agreed with the trial court that Hamra intended to offer expert opinion testimony. Hamra testified that the defendant had a psychiatric condition for which the doctor had prescribed medication. He clarified that his decision to prescribe medication was based not merely on his review of the defendant’s medical history but on his own evaluation of the defendant. Finally he confirmed he would only have prescribed medication for a legitimate medical reason, dismissing the notion that he would write a prescription simply because the defendant asked him to do so. His testimony was tantamount to a diagnosis, which constitutes expert testimony. 

(1) In this murder case, the trial court abused its discretion by excluding, as a discovery sanction, testimony by defense expert Masucci. The defendant offered Masucci after the trial court precluded the original defense expert, Ward, from testifying that incriminating computer files had been planted on the defendant’s computer. The State made no pretrial indication that it planned to challenge Ward’s testimony. At trial, the defendant called Ward to testify that based upon his analysis of the data recovered from the defendant's laptop, tampering had occurred with respect to the incriminating computer files. The State successfully moved to exclude this testimony on the basis that Ward was not an expert in computer forensic analysis. The defendant then quickly located Masucci, an expert in computer forensic analysis, to provide the testimony Ward was prevented from giving. The State then successfully moved to exclude Masucci as a sanction for violation of discovery rules. The only evidence directly linking the defendant to the murder was the computer files. Even if the defendant violated the discovery rules, the trial court abused its discretion with respect to the sanction imposed and violated the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense. (2) The trial court erred by failing to conduct an in camera inspection of discovery sought by the defense regarding information related to FBI analysis of the computer files. The trial court found that the FBI information was used in counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations and that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. The court held that the trial court’s failure to do an in camera review constituted a violation of due process. It instructed that on remand, the trial court “must determine with a reasonable degree of specificity how national security or some other legitimate interest would be compromised by discovery of particular data or materials, and memorialize its ruling in some form allowing for informed appellate review.”

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. 

The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by denying his motion for sanctions for failure to preserve and disclose a blank recording of an arranged call between an informant and the defendant. Under the discovery statutes, officer Moody should have documented his efforts to preserve the conversation by audio recording and provided the blank audio file to the District Attorney’s Office to be turned over to the defendant in discovery. The court noted that when human error occurs with respect to technology used in investigations “[th]e solution in these cases is to document the attempt and turn over the item with that documentation, even if it appears to the officer to lack any evidentiary value.” However, failure to do so does not always require dismissal or lesser sanctions. Here, the trial court considered the materiality of the blank file and the circumstances surrounding Moody’s failure to comply with his discovery obligations. In denying sanctions, it considered the evidence presented and the arguments of counsel concerning the recording. The trial court found Moody’s explanation of the events surrounding the recording to be credible. On this record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying sanctions.

The defendant was cited for misdemeanor driving while impaired on November 27, 2016. His attorney requested discovery in July 2017, specifically asking for dash cam and body camera footage. The defendant was subsequently indicted for habitual impaired driving and other traffic offenses based on the November 27, 2016 incident. In January 2018, the defendant's attorney again requested dash cam footage. The defendant’s attorney was informed in February 2018 that the dash cam video had been deleted from the local server, and the Highway Patrol was attempting to locate it from other sources. In March 2018, defense counsel was informed that the video had been purged and was not available for release.

The defendant moved to dismiss the charges based on the destruction of the dash cam video. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that the destruction of the dash cam video footage violated the defendant’s right to exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and required dismissal of the charges. The State appealed.

The court of appeals noted that suppression of evidence favorable to an accused violates due process when the evidence is material to guilt or punishment, regardless of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. But when the evidence is only potentially useful, the State’s failure to preserve the evidence does not violate the defendant’s constitutional rights unless the defendant shows bad faith on the part of the State.

Though the trial court concluded that the destruction of the dash cam video footage was a Brady violation, it made no findings on what the dash cam video footage would have shown. Indeed, it could not have made such findings because there was no record of what the footage may have shown. The dash cam footage was not material exculpatory evidence; instead, it was only potentially useful. To establish a constitutional violation based on the destruction of potentially useful evidence, the defendant must show bad faith. The trial court erred by concluding that destruction of the footage warranted dismissal, regardless of bad faith on the part of the State. The court of appeals remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of whether the footage was destroyed in bad faith. A dissenting judge would have reversed the trial court on the basis that the evidence presented could not support a finding of bad faith.

The trial court erred by dismissing with prejudice murder charges as a sanction for discovery violations where the record did not reveal a basis for the determination that dismissal was an appropriate sanction. Additionally, because the defendant actually received before trial the evidence the State initially failed to disclose, any harm was either speculative or moot. 

(1) In this murder case, the trial court abused its discretion by excluding, as a discovery sanction, testimony by defense expert Masucci. The defendant offered Masucci after the trial court precluded the original defense expert, Ward, from testifying that incriminating computer files had been planted on the defendant’s computer. The State made no pretrial indication that it planned to challenge Ward’s testimony. At trial, the defendant called Ward to testify that based upon his analysis of the data recovered from the defendant's laptop, tampering had occurred with respect to the incriminating computer files. The State successfully moved to exclude this testimony on the basis that Ward was not an expert in computer forensic analysis. The defendant then quickly located Masucci, an expert in computer forensic analysis, to provide the testimony Ward was prevented from giving. The State then successfully moved to exclude Masucci as a sanction for violation of discovery rules. The only evidence directly linking the defendant to the murder was the computer files. Even if the defendant violated the discovery rules, the trial court abused its discretion with respect to the sanction imposed and violated the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense. (2) The trial court erred by failing to conduct an in camera inspection of discovery sought by the defense regarding information related to FBI analysis of the computer files. The trial court found that the FBI information was used in counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations and that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. The court held that the trial court’s failure to do an in camera review constituted a violation of due process. It instructed that on remand, the trial court “must determine with a reasonable degree of specificity how national security or some other legitimate interest would be compromised by discovery of particular data or materials, and memorialize its ruling in some form allowing for informed appellate review.”