State v. Plaza, COA 24-311, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Dec. 3, 2024)

In this Wake County case, defendant appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a felon, arguing error in admitting evidence outside the presence of the jury and by allowing the jury to view the improperly admitted evidence. The Court of Appeals found no error.

In January of 2021, the victim was shot with a nine-millimeter handgun outside her home. Police later found defendant with a nine-millimeter handgun and wearing clothing that matched the description of the shooter. A forensic firearms analyst linked defendant’s handgun to the bullets recovered at the scene. During defendant’s trial, the State offered Exhibit 12, a box containing a pistol, a magazine, and bullets, and the items were identified by a detective testifying about the case; defense counsel did not object. A few minutes after the trial court accepted Exhibit 12, the prosecutor requested to publish by reference the contents of the box as Exhibits 12-A (the pistol), 12-B (the magazine), and 12-C (the bullets). Defense counsel did not object to the publication of the components to the jury. Later, during a recess, the prosecutor asked the trial court to move Exhibits 12-A, 12-B, and 12-C into evidence, and defense counsel did not object. Defendant was subsequently convicted and appealed.

Taking up defendant’s arguments, the Court of Appeals first specified that the review was for plain error, as defendant did not object to the admission of Exhibit 12 or the identification of the components as 12-A to 12-C. The court then proceeded to explain the situation, noting that after Exhibit 12 and the component parts were properly admitted, “[f]or reasons unknown, in an apparent overabundance of caution, the prosecutor unnecessarily moved to have the previously admitted components: 12-A, 12-B, 12-C, ‘readmitted.’” Slip Op. at 7. The court noted that both parties treated the exhibit and component parts as properly admitted during the proceedings, and defendant could not prove any prejudicial error from the facts of the case. The court also dispensed with defendant’s arguments as to due process and structural error.