State v. Hunt, COA23-890, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Oct. 15, 2024)

In this Robeson County case, defendant appealed his convictions for assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury without intent to kill and injury to personal property, arguing the admission of expert testimony by a lay witness represented plain error. The Court of Appeals majority agreed, vacating and remanding for a new trial.

Defendant and the alleged victim, his neighbor, had a contentious relationship due to the victim riding his 4-wheeler on defendant’s property without permission and throwing beer cans in defendant’s yard. In January of 2019, defendant was driving home and struck the victim on his 4-wheeler; testimony differed on whether the victim was riding his 4-wheeler on his own property and whether defendant intentionally hit the victim. At trial, the law enforcement officer who responded to the accident testified about the scene, and then was asked by the State if he had formed an opinion about whether the act of hitting the victim was intentional. The officer testified that it was his opinion that the act was intentional. Defendant was subsequently convicted and appealed.

The Court of Appeals explained that defense counsel failed to object to the officer’s opinion testimony at trial, meaning the review was for plain error. The court then noted that an officer who does not witness an accident is “permitted to testify about physical facts observed at the scene, including the condition of the vehicles after the accident and their positioning,” but is not qualified to offer conclusions from those facts. Slip Op. at 4. In this case, the State did not present the officer as an expert witness in accident reconstruction, and it was error to allow him to testify about his opinion on the intentional nature of the accident. The court then found that allowing the officer to testify about the central dispute in the case “had a probable impact on the jury” and represented plain error, justifying a new trial. Id. at 7.

Judge Stading dissented, and would not have found plain error, exploring the other arguments made by defendant and recommending a remand to remedy habitual felon and restitution issues.