Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Table of Contents
Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
About
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.
Instructions
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).
(1) No gross impropriety occurred in closing argument in the guilt-innocence phase of a capital trial when the prosecutor (a) improperly expressed his personal belief that there was overwhelming evidence of guilt; (b) improperly injected his personal opinion that a stab wound to the victim’s neck showed intent. (2) The trial court did not err by failing to intervene ex mero motu during closing argument in the sentencing phase of a capital trial when the prosecutor improperly injected his personal beliefs, repeatedly using the words, “I think” and “I believe.” (3) The collective impact of these arguments did not constitute reversible error.
The defendant was convicted of taking indecent liberties with a minor, charges that arose from sexual assaults against his daughters. During closing argument, the prosecutor said that the defendant’s excuse for possibly touching his daughters’ breasts—that he lacked feeling in his hands and fingers—was “ridiculous.” (Slip op. at ¶ 10). He explained that the defendant could adjust a microphone and open candy wrappers, which defendant demonstrated during the trial. The prosecutor also stated that the fight between the defendant and one of his daughters over her phone occurred because “he wanted to get in, and I guess see what was in there, what those pictures were, what those text messages were.” Id. He explained, “it makes a lot more sense when you put it in the context of a father who has a sexual attraction to his daughters.” Id. The defendant (who did not object to these statements when they were made) argued on appeal that the trial court erred by failing to intervene on its own motion to correct these statements.
The Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument. The Court characterized the “ridiculous excuse” statements as a small part of an otherwise proper argument that the jury should not believe the defendant’s claim that a lack of feeling in his fingers prevented him from knowing if he had touched his daughters’ breasts. Additionally, the Court noted that the prosecutor used the word “ridiculous” only twice in his lengthy closing argument. The Court said that although the prosecutor should not have expressed his personal belief that the defendant’s testimony was false, his remarks were not so grossly improper as to render the proceeding fundamentally unfair.
The Court further determined that it was not improper for the prosecutor to argue that the defendant wanted to access his daughter’s phone to look at inappropriate photos. This was a reasonable inference based upon the evidence introduced at trial. Because the argument was not improper, the trial court was not required to intervene.
The defendant was convicted in a jury trial of multiple counts of statutory rape of a child, statutory sex offense with a child, and taking indecent liberties with a child. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 300 to 420 months of imprisonment and ordered lifetime satellite-based monitoring (“SBM”) upon his release from prison. The defendant appealed from his conviction, arguing that the State made improper closing arguments.
(1) The defendant argued on appeal that several of the prosecutor’s statements in closing argument were improper and prejudicial, identifying five sets of objectionable arguments.
(a) The defendant argued that the prosecutor’s statements to the jury that they “cannot consider what they did not hear” and could not “speculate about what people that did not come into court and did not put their hand on the Bible and did not swear to tell you the truth might have said” improperly commented on the defendant’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. Assuming without deciding that these comments referred to the defendant’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment right not to testify, the Court of Appeals concluded that arguments were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.
(b) The defendant argued that the prosecutor improperly commented, in reference to the juvenile victims’ testimony, that “[a]dults have to bring them into court and ask them to tell a roomful of strangers about these sexual acts to try and prevent them from occurring in the future to others.” The defendant contended that this comment impermissibly (1) criticized his exercise of the right to a jury trial, and (2) suggested that the juvenile victims had to testify to prevent him from committing future crimes. Assuming without deciding that the prosecutor’s comment referred to the defendant’s right to trial, the Court of Appeals concluded that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt. As for the second basis of the defendant’s objection, the court noted that specific deterrence arguments are proper and determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the defendant’s objection to this comment in closing argument.
(c) The defendant contended that the prosecutor impermissibly told the jury that if they acquitted the defendant, “You will be telling [the juvenile victims] it was their fault.” The defendant argued that the statement improperly focused the jury’s attention on how the juvenile victims would interpret a verdict of not guilty rather than on determining whether the State had proven its case against the defendant. The Court of Appeals determined that given the evidence of defendant’s guilt, the prosecutor’s statement was not so grossly improper as to justify a new trial.
(d) The defendant argued that the prosecutor presented an argument that was calculated to mislead or prejudice the jury when he referred to expert testimony about the probability of a random match for the defendant’s DNA profile. The prosecutor told the jury: “If you saw that statistical number [one in 9.42 nonillion] and thought there was still a chance that’s not the defendant’s DNA found in [N.M.], that’s an unreasonable doubt.” Assuming without deciding that the prosecutor’s statement improperly conflated the “chance that’s not the defendant’s DNA found in [N.M.]” with the one in 9.42 nonillion chance of a random match, the Court of Appeals did not find that the statement rendered the conviction fundamentally unfair.
(e) Finally, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in failing to intervene when the prosecutor said, “The DNA tells the truth. The girls told the truth.” The defendant contended that this statement was a prohibited expression of the prosecutor’s personal opinion about the veracity of evidence and witness credibility. The Court of Appeals noted that while an attorney may not express his personal belief as to the truth or falsity of the evidence or as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, a prosecutor may argue that the State’s witnesses are credible. Considering the record as a whole, the court concluded that the comment did not rise to the level of fundamental unfairness given the evidence presented at trial. The court noted that the State presented the testimony of both juvenile victims, the testimony of the victims’ family members that corroborated their testimony, and the testimony of forensic experts that showed that Defendant’s DNA matched the sperm collected from one of the juvenile victim’s rape kit. Given this overwhelming evidence of guilt, the court was unable to conclude that the prosecutor’s comments prejudiced the defendant.
In this felon in possession of a firearm case, the court held that although some of the prosecutor’s statements were improper, they were not so improper as to deprive the defendant of a fundamentally fair trial.
The court first determined that, in context, the prosecutor’s use of the term “fool” was not improper. The prosecutor’s remarks related to a gunfight and did not single out the defendant as a fool, but compared him to other fools who behave recklessly with firearms. Additionally there were no repeated ad hominem attacks on the defendant.
Although the prosecutor’s expressions of personal belief were improper, they were not so grossly improper as to warrant reversal. Specifically, “[t]he prosecutor went too far when he asserted that the witnesses were ‘telling the truth.’” These statements improperly vouched for the truthfulness of the witnesses.
Although the prosecutor’s statements as to the defendant’s guilt were improper, they did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. The prosecutor proclaimed that the defendant was “absolutely guilty” and that there was “just no question about it.”
The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the prosecutor made arguments on matters outside of the record and unsupported by the evidence when he remarked that the defendant told another person to get rid of the gun. The prosecutor’s assertion fairly summarized the evidence and argued a reasonable inference arising from it.
The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the prosecutor impermissibly advocated that the jury’s accountability to the community should compel a guilty verdict. A prosecutor can argue that the jury is the voice and conscience of the community and ask the jury to send a message to the community regarding justice. A prosecutor may not ask or embolden the jury to lend an ear to the community, such that the jury is speaking for the community or acting for the community’s desires. Here, the prosecutor’s remarks were proper because they involved commonly held beliefs and merely attempted to motivate the jury to come to an appropriate conclusion, rather than to achieve a result based on the community’s demands. Additionally, the prosecutor did not urge that society wanted the defendant to be punished, but rather requested, based on the evidence, that the jury make an appropriate decision.
The court concluded with this note:
While we reject Defendant’s arguments, we do not condone remarks by prosecutors that exceed statutory and ethical limitations. Derogatory comments, epithets, stating personal beliefs, or remarks regarding a witness’s truthfulness reflect poorly on the propriety of prosecutors and on the criminal justice system as a whole. Prosecutors are given a wide berth of discretion to perform an important role for the State, and it is unfortunate that universal compliance with “seemingly simple requirements” are hindered by “some attorneys intentionally ‘push[ing] the envelope’ with their jury arguments.” Jones, 355 N.C. at 127, 558 S.E.2d at 104. But, because Defendant has failed to overcome the high burden to prove that these missteps violated his due process rights, he is not entitled to relief.
In this murder case, the trial court did not err by failing to intervene ex mero motu during the State’s closing argument. The defendant argued that the prosecutor’s closing arguments injected the prosecutor’s personal beliefs, appealed to the jury’s passion, and led the jury away from the evidence. The court determined that the challenged portions of the argument, when taken in context, draw reasonable inferences based on the defendant’s inconsistent statements and point out inconsistencies in his testimony. The court determined that statements like “give me a break” and “come on” do not reflect the prosecutor’s personal opinion but rather point out inconsistencies in the defendant’s testimony. With respect to the prosecutor’s statement that he would “respectfully disagree” with the jury if they decided to find that the defendant killed the victim in self-defense, even if this argument was improper, it was not grossly so as to warrant the trial court’s intervention ex mero motu.
In this DWI case the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by failing to intervene ex mero motu to statements made by the prosecutor in closing argument. The court found the defendant’s argument to be “meritless at best,” noting that the statements at issue were consistent with the evidence presented and did not delve into conjecture or personal opinion. Even if the remarks were improper, the defendant failed to show prejudice.
(1) The prosecutor’s statement, which was clarified after objection, was not in violation of the law or calculated to mislead or prejudice the jury. After the trial court sustained defense counsel’s objection to the prosecutor’s statement about the victim, “I think she is telling the truth,” the prosecutor clarified: “I’m just arguing they should think she’s telling the truth. I’m sorry, Judge, I misstated. You should be able to say, after watching her testify, that you think she is telling the truth.” (2) The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by failing to give a curative instruction to the jury after sustaining defense counsel’s objection, where the defendant had not asked for such an instruction. Additionally, the trial court had instructed the jury at the outset of the trial that when the court sustains an objection to a question, the jury must disregard the question and e answer. (3) The trial court did not err by failing to intervene ex mero motu when the prosecutor made his clarifying statement.
In this murder case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling the defendant’s objections to the State’s closing argument. Although the prosecutor’s remarked that the case was one of “the most gruesome and violent murders this community has ever seen,” the comment related directly to the State’s theory of the case--that the defendant acted intentionally and with premeditation and deliberation.
The trial court did not err by failing to intervene ex mero motu when, in a triple homicide case, the prosecutor argued, among other things, “If that . . . isn’t murder, I don’t know what is” and “I know when to ask for the death penalty and when not to. This isn’t the first case, it’s the ten thousandth for me.”