State v. Crisp, COA24-2, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Dec. 31, 2024)

In this Cherokee County case, defendant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder, claiming speedy trial issues and introduction of prejudicial evidence to the jury. The Court of Appeals found no error.

Defendant was arrested in May of 2016 for murdering the victim. That defendant shot the victim was undisputed, so the only issue at trial was whether the shooting was intentional. Defendant finally went on trial for first-degree murder in January of 2023. Before trial, defendant moved to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, but the trial court denied the motion. During trial, the State offered a photograph showing a blood-stained area around the house where the shooting happened, but later admitted to the trial court that the photograph was from an unrelated 2007 incident and struck the exhibit from the record. The trial court provided a curative instruction to the jury regarding the photograph. Defendant was ultimately convicted of second-degree murder and appealed.

Taking up the speedy trial issues, the Court of Appeals noted the delay was more than a year, triggering the balancing test from Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). The four factors for the Barker test are “(1) length of the delay, (2) reason for the delay, (3) the defendant’s assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and (4) prejudice to the defendant.” Slip Op. at 3. Here, the court walked through the period of delay, noting that both defendant and the State bore some responsibility for the lengthy delay in reaching trial. However, defendant failed to “show that his defense was impaired by the delay” and failed to assert his right to a speedy trial “until approximately one month before the trial was scheduled to start,” justifying denial of his motion. Id. at 14.

Moving to the photograph, the court noted defendant could not demonstrate prejudice as “the photograph did not suggest Defendant had previously been arrested, tried, or convicted of a previous crime, or even that Defendant had previously committed a violent act.” Id. at 16. The court also held that “the [trial] court’s curative instruction was sufficiently clear and cured the jury from any purported prejudice the photograph may have caused.” Id. at 18.