Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Table of Contents
State v. Brown, COA24-500, ___ N.C. App. ___ (May. 7, 2025)
In this New Hanover County case, defendant appealed her convictions for felony breaking and entering, making a harassing phone call, and communicating threats, arguing several errors related to the State’s closing argument. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding no error.
In 2021, defendant and the victim were both romantically involved with the same man, leading to several incidents where defendant harassed the victim. In April of 2022, defendant entered the victim’s apartment while she was away, taking a laptop, TVs, and a handgun, and trashing the apartment. Afterwards, defendant sent the victim threatening texts, and when the victim called her number, defendant harassed her, and even called back after the victim hung up to communicate threats to her. At trial, defendant objected to two statements by the prosecutor during closing argument, but the trial court overruled the objections.
The Court of Appeals first considered the two statements defense counsel objected to during closing, that defendant would likely still threaten the victim today, and an expression of opinion regarding the evidence. The court found no abuse of discretion allowing both statements, as the State presented overwhelming evidence and the remarks could not have prejudiced defendant.
Defendant next argued error in failing to intervene ex mero motu when the State made “flagrantly impermissible” remarks during the closing. Slip Op. at 10. Because defendant did not object, the review was for gross impropriety, a high bar that defendant’s arguments could not meet.
Finally, defendant argued a violation of her constitutional rights as she asserted the prosecution commented on her failure to testify. The court again disagreed, explaining that “[t]he State did not comment on defendant’s failure to testify but did comment on defendant’s failure to produce [the male romantic partner] as a witness.” Id. at 14 (cleaned up). This did not represent an improper comment on defendant’s right against self-incrimination, and the court found no error.