State v. Watlington, COA22-972, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Jun. 18, 2024)

In this Alamance County case, defendant appealed his convictions for assault by pointing a gun and discharging a weapon into an occupied vehicle, challenging the juror substitution provision G.S. 15A-1215(a) as unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals agreed, vacating defendant’s convictions and remanding for a new trial. 

In November of 2017, defendant was involved in a dispute after a near-collision with another driver. After exchanging words, defendant and his passenger pulled out guns, and eventually shots were fired at the other vehicle. Defendant came to trial in April of 2022. After the presentation of all evidence and when the jury had begun deliberations, one of the jurors went missing due to a foot injury. After learning the juror suffered an injury that required a trip to the emergency room, the trial court spoke to defense counsel and the prosecutor, and then appointed an alternate juror. The trial court followed the procedures required by G.S. 15A-1215(a), including an instruction to begin deliberations anew. Defendant was subsequently convicted. 

Taking up defendant’s argument, the Court of Appeals explained that precedent from State v. Chambers, COA22-1063, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Feb. 20, 2024), controlled, and justified finding the substitution of a juror in this case as unconstitutional. The opinion of the court spent substantial time exploring the relevant caselaw, and pointing out the issues created by the Chambers holding, noting that “[t]he Chambers Court did not explain how or why a verdict delivered in open court by a properly constituted and instructed jury of twelve in compliance with [G.S.] 15A-1215(a) violates article I, Section 24 of the North Carolina Constitution.” Slip Op. at 10. After acknowledging that the Chambers case was subject to a stay and may be taken up by the North Carolina Supreme Court, the court concluded it was bound by the Chambers precedent to grant defendant a new trial. 

Judge Arrowwood concurred only in the result by separate opinion, and wrote to express concern with the Chambers case itself and the possible violations of precedent in that case. 

Judge Griffin concurred but wrote separately to disagree with the lead opinion’s tone and interpretation of the Chambers opinion.