In this Wake County case, two defendants were indicted for murdering the victim and their cases were consolidated for trial. After both defendants were convicted of first-degree murder, they appealed, arguing error in admitting certain evidence, imposing special conditions restricting defendant’s ability to participate in training or educational classes, and denying a motion to sever. The Court of Appeals found no error with the evidence or denying motion to sever, but reversed the portion of the judgments imposing special conditions on the two defendants.

In August of 2019, the victim was shot as he entered his home after being dropped off by a friend. The victim was followed by the two defendants, who were in separate vehicles but coordinating on a facetime call before shooting the victim. They fled in their separate vehicles after the shooting.

The Court of Appeals began with objections to five surveillance videotapes that defendants argued were not properly authenticated. The court rejected the challenge for all five tapes, noting each tape was introduced by witness testimony, and “[e]ach witness testified to the reliability of the surveillance videotaping systems and that the videos that were at trial accurately depicted the original videos recorded by the surveillance systems.” Slip Op. at 3.

The court next considered testimony from an officer regarding data from cell towers showing the movement of defendants on the night of the murder, as defendants argued the officer was not tendered as an expert. Here, no published North Carolina opinion had determined whether this was expert or lay opinion testimony. The court looked to the unpublished State v. Joyner, 280 N.C. App. 561 (2021), and the Iowa Supreme Court opinion State v. Boothby, 951 N.W.2d 859 (Iowa 2020). After exploring the applicable caselaw, the court “expressly adopt[ed] the analysis and holding in Boothby” when concluding that most of the officer’s testimony was lay testimony and admissible. Slip Op. at 5. The remaining testimony, while constituting expert testimony, was not prejudicial due to the video evidence previously discussed.

Reaching the special sentencing conditions, the State conceded the trial court’s sentencing conditions barring each defendant from receiving educational or vocational training for the first twenty-two years of imprisonment was error. The court agreed, explaining “[n]owhere in our General Statutes is there language providing a trial judge the authority to restrict a defendant’s rights to vocational training or educational classes while incarcerated.” Id. at 6.

The court also dispensed with an ineffective assistance of counsel claim as the defendant in question could not demonstrate unprofessional conduct. And finally, the court noted the motion to sever was properly denied, because although the two defendants presented antagonistic defenses, their respective positions did not represent a conflict that would prevent a fair trial.