State v. Joyner, COA24-438, ___ N.C. App. ___ (May. 21, 2025)

In this Hertford County case, defendant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, arguing error in (1) the trial court’s remarks to the jury expressing alignment with the sheriff’s office, (2) admitting the victim’s bloody clothing as evidence, (3) admitting a forensic download of defendant’s phone, and (4) failing to intervene ex mero motu during the State’s closing. The Court of Appeals found no error.

In February of 2021, defendant confronted his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend at the boyfriend’s house. After an argument and physical confrontation, defendant and the new boyfriend started fighting. Eventually defendant pulled out his gun and shot the boyfriend eight times, killing him. During jury selection for the trial, the trial court introduced the sheriff of Hertford County to the potential jurors, and “[t]hroughout the rest of the five-day trial, the trial court thanked the jurors for their service ‘on behalf of the Sheriff’ approximately sixteen times.” Slip Op. at 7. During trial, the State offered the bloody shirt, shorts, and pants of the victim as an exhibit to demonstrate where the victim was shot. The State also offered a forensic download of defendant’s phone to show the calls and texts between defendant and his ex-girlfriend.

Taking up (1), the Court of Appeals explained that while the trial court’s choice to introduce and repeatedly reference the sheriff “was more than usual in this case, we cannot say that the trial court made an improper ‘expression of judicial leaning.’” Id. at 7. Even if the remarks represented error, overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt meant he could not show prejudicial error.

Moving to (2), the court noted that the bloody clothing was not excessively displayed or discussed in a way that would create unfair prejudice. As a result, under Rule of Evidence 403 “the probative value of [the victim’s] bloody clothing was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Id. at 10.

In (3), the court dispensed with defendant’s argument that the State did not lay a proper foundation under Rule of Evidence 901, pointing to the testimony of a sergeant that he “examined Defendant’s phone and performed the forensic extraction of the phone.” Id. at 11. Although defendant contended the testimony lacked information on when the extraction was performed and what method was used, the court explained that “[a]ll that is required under Rule 901 is that a witness with knowledge about the evidence in question testifies that ‘the matter in question is what its proponent claims.’” Id. at12.

Finally, in (4), the court explained that defendant did not object to a statement he subsequently asserted was erroneously-admitted hearsay, and failed to assert that it was plain error to admit the hearsay on appeal. As a result, the State’s closing argument was based on a properly admitted statement and defendant’s argument failed.