In this Cabarrus County case, the defendant was convicted of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance based on 0.1 grams of methamphetamine found in a backpack in the trunk of a vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence on the basis that it was seized in connection with a traffic stop that was not supported by reasonable suspicion. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant pled guilty, without a plea arrangement with the State, and appealed.

(1) G.S. 15-979(b) provides that an order finally denying a motion to suppress may be reviewed upon an appeal from a judgment of conviction, including a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty. The North Carolina Supreme Court held in State v. Reynolds, 298 N.C. 380 (1979), that when a defendant intends to appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress pursuant to G.S. 15A-979(b), the defendant must give notice of that intention to the prosecutor and the court before plea negotiations are finalized. Absent such notice, the right to appeal is waived. The Court of Appeals held that the Reynolds notice requirement did not apply in the instant case because the defendant did not plead guilty as part of a plea arrangement. Thus, the defendant had a statutory right to appeal without having provided notice to the State and the trial court before entering his guilty plea.

(2) The officer who stopped the car in which the defendant was traveling testified that he stopped the car because it emerged from the empty parking lot of a closed business, a trailer had recently been stolen in that area, and the car was equipped with transporter plate, which the officer had never seen placed on a vehicle other than a truck. The Court of Appeals noted that, despite the officer’s belief to the contrary, G.S. 20-79.2 “clear[ly] and unambiguous[ly]” permits transporter plates to be used on motor vehicles generally, not just trucks. Though the Fourth Amendment tolerates objectively reasonable mistakes, the Court concluded that the officer’s mistake about the transporter plates was not objectively reasonable because the statute was not ambiguous. Thus, the officer’s belief regarding the transporter plates could not support reasonable suspicion. The Court determined that the additional facts that the business was closed and there was a recent trailer theft in the area were insufficient to support reasonable suspicion. Accordingly, the Court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress. It reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case to the trial court for entry of an order vacating the defendant’s guilty plea.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving, was convicted in district court, appealed to superior court, and prevailed on a motion to suppress at a pretrial hearing in superior court. The State appealed. (1) The Court of Appeals rejected the State’s argument that the superior court judge lacked jurisdiction to enter a written order after the State gave oral notice of appeal at the conclusion of the hearing at which the judge granted the motion to suppress. At the hearing, the trial judge stated that the State could not establish a nexus between the person the officer saw driving and the defendant who later walked up to the officer. The Court found that the judge’s written order was a chronicle of the findings and conclusions he decided at the motion hearing and was not a new order affecting the merits of the case. (2) The Court rejected the State’s argument that certain findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. In regard to the green pickup truck that the defendant was allegedly driving, the trial judge found that the arresting officer testified that he did not see the truck park or anyone get in or out of the truck. The State asserted that the officer testified that he observed a video at the mini-mart where the truck was parked showing the defendant getting out of the truck. The Court found that the officer testified that the video was lost because he left the flash drive containing the video in his patrol car when he took the car to a mechanic. The Court held that the trial judge determines the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given to testimony, and reasonable inferences. “The trial court was free to give no weight to [the officer’s] testimony regarding viewing the Mini-mart video.” (3) The Court rejected the State’s argument that probable cause existed to arrest the defendant for impaired driving. The Court found that the trial judge’s findings supported his conclusion that the State failed to show that the defendant was driving and, although the truck was registered to the defendant, failed to establish a connection between the driver of the truck and the defendant.

The defendant was speaking at an anti-abortion event outside an abortion clinic in Charlotte. He was using an amplified microphone and was sitting at the table where the amplification controls were located. Officers measured his amplified voice at more than 80 decibels and approached him to cite him for violating the city’s noise ordinance. The defendant refused to produce identification, so the officers arrested him and charged him with resisting, delaying, and obstructing a law enforcement officer as well as the noise ordinance violation. At a bench trial in superior court, a judge convicted the defendant of R/D/O and dismissed the noise ordinance violation because, although the judge concluded that the defendant had violated the ordinance, the city “had discretion to decide which enforcement penalties it would levy against a violator of the noise ordinance, but . . . failed to do so.” The judge sentenced the defendant to probation, one condition of which was that the defendant stay at least 1,500 feet away from the abortion clinic where the event took place. The defendant appealed. Among other issues: (1) The defendant’s conduct was covered by the ordinance, so the officers’ initial stop was valid. The ordinance applies, in part, to persons “operating . . . sound amplification equipment.” The defendant contended that simply speaking into a microphone does not amount to “operating” any “amplification equipment.” The court of appeals viewed that construction as “unduly narrow” and found that the “plain meaning” of the ordinance was that speaking into an amplified microphone, while sitting at a table with the amplification controls present, was covered. (2) The probation condition is reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation as required by statute, in part because it reduces the likelihood that he will commit a similar offense again.

The defendant Molly Corbett was the daughter of the co-defendant, Thomas Marten. The two were charged with second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter following an altercation with Molly’s husband in Davidson County. The altercation occurred at the couple’s home while Molly’s mother and father were visiting overnight. The defendants were jointly tried, and both were convicted of second-degree murder. A divided Court of Appeals granted a new trial based on three evidentiary errors, as well as errors relating to the jury instructions (that decision is summarized here). Based on a partial dissent at the Court of Appeals, the State sought review at the North Carolina Supreme Court. A divided court affirmed.

(1) Following the incident, the children of the deceased husband (from an earlier marriage) made statements to a social worker at a child abuse advocacy and treatment center. They both indicated their father had been abusive towards Molly. One child provided an explanation for the presence of a brick paver (apparently used in the altercation) found in Molly’s room on the night of the incident. The other child explained that her father originally got angry that evening when she awakened her parents following a nightmare. The children were living out of the country at the time of trial and the defendants sought to admit the hearsay statements as statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and under the residual exception (803(4) and 803(24), respectively). The trial court excluded the testimony.

Rule 803(4) objections are reviewed de novo, while Rule 803(24) objections are reviewed for abuse of discretion. The statements of the children to the social worker were made for purposes of treatment and were reasonably pertinent to their treatment, satisfying Rule 803(4). When determining whether a child had the requisite intent to make a statement for purposes of treatment, North Carolina courts look to the objective circumstances surrounding the statement, including:

(1) whether ‘some adult explained to the child the need for treatment and the importance of truthfulness’; (2) ‘with whom, and under what circumstances, the declarant was speaking’; and (3) ‘the surrounding circumstances, including the setting of the interview and the nature of the questioning’. Corbett Slip op. at 21 (citation omitted).

All of those factors “strongly supported” admission of the children’s statement on the facts of the case.

The statements were also admissible under the residual hearsay exception. The trial court excluded the statements as lacking trustworthiness. No evidence in the record supported this finding, and the evidence otherwise met the requirements for admission under the residual exception. The majority therefore agreed with the Court of Appeals that the children’s statements were improperly excluded and that the defendants’ self-defense claims were undermined as a result. This was prejudicial error requiring a new trial under both rules.

(2) At trial, the State presented expert testimony regarding blood splatter patterns on the defendants’ clothes. On voir dire, the witness acknowledged that the purported blood splatter at issue was not tested for the presence of blood. He further testified that failing to test the material for blood violated the procedures for blood splatter analysis laid out in his own treatise on the subject. The trial court allowed the testimony over objection. A majority of the Court of Appeals determined the evidence was inadmissible under Rule 702, as it was not based on sufficient data and therefore could not have been the product of reliable application of the method to the facts of the case. The dissenting judge at the Court of Appeals only challenged preservation of this claim and did not discuss the merits of the Rule 702 issue in her opinion. The State also did not seek discretionary review of the Rule 702 ruling on the merits. The Supreme Court therefore examined only the preservation argument.

The majority found that the defendants’ preserved the objection by immediately objecting when the evidence was presented (after having also objected during voir dire of the witness), and by renewing the objection the next day. Further, the court determined the issue was preserved by operation of the law. Under G.S. § 15A-1446(d)(10):

[N]otwithstanding a party’s failure to object to the admission of evidence at some point at trial, a party may challenge ‘[s]ubsequent admission of evidence involving a specified line of questioning when there has been an improperly overruled objection to the admission of evidence involving that line of questioning.’ Corbett Slip op. at 44-45 (citing the statute).

While some subsections of G.S. § 15A-1446 have been found to be unconstitutional, the court has never disavowed this one and found that it applied here. Because the Court of Appeals determined this evidence was improperly admitted and that finding was not at issue on appeal to the Supreme Court, the law of the case dictated that the evidence had been improperly admitted. Thus, the defendants’ objections at trial were improperly overruled and the issue was preserved as matter of law, in addition to the grounds relied upon by the Court of Appeals.

(3) Thomas Martens testified in his defense at trial that he heard his daughter yell, “don’t hurt my dad” during the altercation. The trial court sustained the objection as hearsay. The Supreme Court again agreed with the Court of Appeals that this was error. The statement was not hearsay, as it went the Thomas’s subjective belief of fear at the time and was not offered for the truth of the statement. It was alternatively admissible as an excited utterance under N.C. R. Evid. 803(2). In isolation, this error was not prejudicial because the defendant was otherwise given wide latitude to describe his state of mind at the time. It did however contribute to the cumulative prejudice:

[T]hese errors together imposed a significant constraint on defendants’ efforts to establish a crucial fact: namely, their state of mind at the time of the events in question based on all of the circumstances known to them. Corbett Slip op. at 53.

Because the majority agreed with the decision below regarding these evidentiary issues and their prejudicial impact, the court did not reach the other issues addressed by the Court of Appeals.

Justice Berger, joined by Justices Newby and Barringer, dissented. The dissenting justices believed that the majority improperly re-weighed the evidence on appeal and would have found that Rule 803(4) issues were subject to abuse of discretion review, rather than the de novo review applied by the majority. They also faulted the majority for raising G.S. 15A-1446 when no party argued the applicability of that statute.

In this capital case, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that a law enforcement officer’s testimony that he received information about the location of the victim from the defendant’s attorneys was inadmissible hearsay. The trial court properly determined that these statements were admissible under Rule 801(d) as admissions by a party opponent.

The victim in this Davie County murder case was a “neighborhood runner,” running errands for people in general, and allegedly running drugs for the defendant. One afternoon, a friend of the victim was walking home and discovered the victim laying near railroad tracks. The victim told his friend, “Red beat me up.” The defendant was known as “Red.” Around an hour and a half passed before law enforcement was alerted. The first responding officer asked the victim what happened, and the defendant named “Carlos Lowery” and “Red” as the person responsible. The victim again repeated this information to a detective. An additional officer and an EMT on the scene overheard the victim name the defendant as the perpetrator, and the victim named the defendant once more to a detective in the ambulance. The victim did not survive, and the defendant was charged with first-degree murder and common law robbery.

The defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude the victim’s statements to law enforcement and overheard by the EMT as hearsay and in violation of the defendant’s confrontation and due process rights. The trial court denied the motion. It found that the statements fell within the excited utterance exception or were offered in corroboration and did not address the motion’s constitutional grounds. At trial, the defendant made only general objections to the testimony regarding the victim’s statements. The State also presented evidence of a recorded jail call between the defendant and a woman through a detective. The detective testified to her familiarity with the defendant’s voice, as well as the jail phone system, and identified the voice on the call as the defendant’s. The phone call was played for the jury, but the audio was of low quality. The detective was permitted to testify that the defendant stated on the call that he “got the cigarettes and the change, but not the phone.” Lowery Slip op. at 6. Those specific items were among those listed as missing from the victim. The defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and appealed, arguing evidentiary and confrontation errors at trial.

(1) The defendant argued evidence of the victim’s statements to police and EMT identifying the defendant as his attacker was improperly admitted under the excited utterance exception. The exception provides that “statement[s] relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition,” are admissible. G.S. 8C-1, Rule 803(2) (2019). The defendant maintained that, because the time of the attack was unknown, it was error to conclude the defendant was still under the influence of the event at the time. Rejecting this argument, the court noted that the unknown time frame cut against the defendant’s argument. In its words:

Defendant’s argument, however, rests on a speculative assessment of the facts precisely because the Record does not disclose how much time elapsed from the assault until the statements were made. Put another way, the assault may have occurred just minutes before [the friend] found [the victim] but no more than approximately 75-90 minutes before. Lowery Slip op. at 9.

 Further, there is not a firm rule regarding how soon after the startling event a statement may be made to be considered an excited utterance; the question turns on whether the declarant was still under the stress of the event at the time. The defendant pointed to evidence that the defendant’s friend initially perceived the victim to be “calm” but “in pain” when the victim was first discovered. This too was rejected. Given the severity of the victim’s injuries—internal injuries causing breathing difficulty and eventually death—the court declined to conclude that the victim’s statements were not made while under the stress of the event. The trial court therefore did not err in admitting the statements as excited utterances.

(2) The defendant argued that admission of the victim’s statements identifying him to police and the EMT violated his Confrontation Clause and Due Process rights under Sixth Amendment. This constitutional argument was raised in the defendant’s pretrial motion, but the court did not rule on that issue when admitting the statements. The defendant made no constitutional objections at trial, and the issue was consequently unpreserved for appellate review. See N.C.R. App. P. 10(a)(1) (2021). The defendant did not seek plain error review or suspension of the Rules of Appellate Procedure to allow review of the unpreserved claim, and the court declined to review it.

(3) The defendant argued that admission of the jail phone call testimony violated Rule 701 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence as improper lay opinion. He pointed out that the call was played for the jury and argued that the detective’s testimony was not helpful to the jury. As a preliminary matter, the court observed that the defendant again only made a general objection at trial and possibly failed to preserve the issue for appellate review. Assuming the issue was preserved, the admission of this testimony was not an abuse of discretion. Under State v. Belk, 201 N.C. App. 412 (2009), a lay witness may identify a defendant when the testimony is helpful to the jury and does not improperly invade the jury’s role as finder of fact. Distinguishing the video identification at issue in Belk, as well as the strength of the evidence in the respective cases, the court rejected this argument:

Given [the detective’s] familiarity with both the telephone system and with Defendant . . . , we cannot say then that there was ‘no basis for the trial court to conclude that the officer was more likely than the jury to correctly identify’ the contents of the recording of the telephone call . . . Lowery Slip op. at 18.

Finally, the court concluded that even if this testimony was admitted in error, the defendant could not demonstrate prejudice on the facts. The trial court was therefore affirmed in all respects. Judge Dietz and Zachary concurred.

The defendant Molly Corbett was the daughter of the co-defendant, Thomas Marten. The two were charged with second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter following an altercation with Molly’s husband in Davidson County. The altercation occurred at the couple’s home while Molly’s mother and father were visiting overnight. The defendants were jointly tried, and both were convicted of second-degree murder. A divided Court of Appeals granted a new trial based on three evidentiary errors, as well as errors relating to the jury instructions (that decision is summarized here). Based on a partial dissent at the Court of Appeals, the State sought review at the North Carolina Supreme Court. A divided court affirmed.

(1) Following the incident, the children of the deceased husband (from an earlier marriage) made statements to a social worker at a child abuse advocacy and treatment center. They both indicated their father had been abusive towards Molly. One child provided an explanation for the presence of a brick paver (apparently used in the altercation) found in Molly’s room on the night of the incident. The other child explained that her father originally got angry that evening when she awakened her parents following a nightmare. The children were living out of the country at the time of trial and the defendants sought to admit the hearsay statements as statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and under the residual exception (803(4) and 803(24), respectively). The trial court excluded the testimony.

Rule 803(4) objections are reviewed de novo, while Rule 803(24) objections are reviewed for abuse of discretion. The statements of the children to the social worker were made for purposes of treatment and were reasonably pertinent to their treatment, satisfying Rule 803(4). When determining whether a child had the requisite intent to make a statement for purposes of treatment, North Carolina courts look to the objective circumstances surrounding the statement, including:

(1) whether ‘some adult explained to the child the need for treatment and the importance of truthfulness’; (2) ‘with whom, and under what circumstances, the declarant was speaking’; and (3) ‘the surrounding circumstances, including the setting of the interview and the nature of the questioning’. Corbett Slip op. at 21 (citation omitted).

All of those factors “strongly supported” admission of the children’s statement on the facts of the case.

The statements were also admissible under the residual hearsay exception. The trial court excluded the statements as lacking trustworthiness. No evidence in the record supported this finding, and the evidence otherwise met the requirements for admission under the residual exception. The majority therefore agreed with the Court of Appeals that the children’s statements were improperly excluded and that the defendants’ self-defense claims were undermined as a result. This was prejudicial error requiring a new trial under both rules.

(2) At trial, the State presented expert testimony regarding blood splatter patterns on the defendants’ clothes. On voir dire, the witness acknowledged that the purported blood splatter at issue was not tested for the presence of blood. He further testified that failing to test the material for blood violated the procedures for blood splatter analysis laid out in his own treatise on the subject. The trial court allowed the testimony over objection. A majority of the Court of Appeals determined the evidence was inadmissible under Rule 702, as it was not based on sufficient data and therefore could not have been the product of reliable application of the method to the facts of the case. The dissenting judge at the Court of Appeals only challenged preservation of this claim and did not discuss the merits of the Rule 702 issue in her opinion. The State also did not seek discretionary review of the Rule 702 ruling on the merits. The Supreme Court therefore examined only the preservation argument.

The majority found that the defendants’ preserved the objection by immediately objecting when the evidence was presented (after having also objected during voir dire of the witness), and by renewing the objection the next day. Further, the court determined the issue was preserved by operation of the law. Under G.S. § 15A-1446(d)(10):

[N]otwithstanding a party’s failure to object to the admission of evidence at some point at trial, a party may challenge ‘[s]ubsequent admission of evidence involving a specified line of questioning when there has been an improperly overruled objection to the admission of evidence involving that line of questioning.’ Corbett Slip op. at 44-45 (citing the statute).

While some subsections of G.S. § 15A-1446 have been found to be unconstitutional, the court has never disavowed this one and found that it applied here. Because the Court of Appeals determined this evidence was improperly admitted and that finding was not at issue on appeal to the Supreme Court, the law of the case dictated that the evidence had been improperly admitted. Thus, the defendants’ objections at trial were improperly overruled and the issue was preserved as matter of law, in addition to the grounds relied upon by the Court of Appeals.

(3) Thomas Martens testified in his defense at trial that he heard his daughter yell, “don’t hurt my dad” during the altercation. The trial court sustained the objection as hearsay. The Supreme Court again agreed with the Court of Appeals that this was error. The statement was not hearsay, as it went the Thomas’s subjective belief of fear at the time and was not offered for the truth of the statement. It was alternatively admissible as an excited utterance under N.C. R. Evid. 803(2). In isolation, this error was not prejudicial because the defendant was otherwise given wide latitude to describe his state of mind at the time. It did however contribute to the cumulative prejudice:

[T]hese errors together imposed a significant constraint on defendants’ efforts to establish a crucial fact: namely, their state of mind at the time of the events in question based on all of the circumstances known to them. Corbett Slip op. at 53.

Because the majority agreed with the decision below regarding these evidentiary issues and their prejudicial impact, the court did not reach the other issues addressed by the Court of Appeals.

Justice Berger, joined by Justices Newby and Barringer, dissented. The dissenting justices believed that the majority improperly re-weighed the evidence on appeal and would have found that Rule 803(4) issues were subject to abuse of discretion review, rather than the de novo review applied by the majority. They also faulted the majority for raising G.S. 15A-1446 when no party argued the applicability of that statute.

In a case where the defendant was convicted of interfering with an electronic monitoring device, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court committed plain error by admitting hearsay evidence regarding the ankle monitor in question. The defendant was subjected to electronic monitoring as a condition of probation. The defendant’s electronic monitoring equipment was installed by BI Total Monitoring and included an ankle monitor, a beacon that uses a GPS system to track the monitor, and a charger. The ankle monitor and beacon have serial numbers specific to the probationer. BI Total Monitoring’s computer software, BI Total Access, keeps logs of which serial numbers are assigned to each probationer. When an ankle monitor is not in the beacon’s range, it transmits a GPS signal that enables the probation officer to log into a computer program and see where the probationer is located. When a probationer removes the ankle monitor, BI Total Monitoring notifies the probation office. On-call probation officer Ashe received an alert that the defendant’s ankle monitor strap had been tampered with. Ashe used the GPS to locate the monitor miles from the defendant’s residence, in a ditch off of the road. He took the monitor to his office, where he verified that it was assigned and installed on the defendant. On appeal the defendant argued that the trial court committed plain error when it allowed Ashe to provide testimony based on GPS tracking evidence and simultaneously prepared reports to establish that the ankle monitor that he found was the same monitor that had been installed on the defendant. The defendant argued that this testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay. The court disagreed, finding that the evidence in question fell within the Rule 803(6) exception for business records.

The defendant Molly Corbett was the daughter of the co-defendant, Thomas Marten. The two were charged with second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter following an altercation with Molly’s husband in Davidson County. The altercation occurred at the couple’s home while Molly’s mother and father were visiting overnight. The defendants were jointly tried, and both were convicted of second-degree murder. A divided Court of Appeals granted a new trial based on three evidentiary errors, as well as errors relating to the jury instructions (that decision is summarized here). Based on a partial dissent at the Court of Appeals, the State sought review at the North Carolina Supreme Court. A divided court affirmed.

(1) Following the incident, the children of the deceased husband (from an earlier marriage) made statements to a social worker at a child abuse advocacy and treatment center. They both indicated their father had been abusive towards Molly. One child provided an explanation for the presence of a brick paver (apparently used in the altercation) found in Molly’s room on the night of the incident. The other child explained that her father originally got angry that evening when she awakened her parents following a nightmare. The children were living out of the country at the time of trial and the defendants sought to admit the hearsay statements as statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and under the residual exception (803(4) and 803(24), respectively). The trial court excluded the testimony.

Rule 803(4) objections are reviewed de novo, while Rule 803(24) objections are reviewed for abuse of discretion. The statements of the children to the social worker were made for purposes of treatment and were reasonably pertinent to their treatment, satisfying Rule 803(4). When determining whether a child had the requisite intent to make a statement for purposes of treatment, North Carolina courts look to the objective circumstances surrounding the statement, including:

(1) whether ‘some adult explained to the child the need for treatment and the importance of truthfulness’; (2) ‘with whom, and under what circumstances, the declarant was speaking’; and (3) ‘the surrounding circumstances, including the setting of the interview and the nature of the questioning’. Corbett Slip op. at 21 (citation omitted).

All of those factors “strongly supported” admission of the children’s statement on the facts of the case.

The statements were also admissible under the residual hearsay exception. The trial court excluded the statements as lacking trustworthiness. No evidence in the record supported this finding, and the evidence otherwise met the requirements for admission under the residual exception. The majority therefore agreed with the Court of Appeals that the children’s statements were improperly excluded and that the defendants’ self-defense claims were undermined as a result. This was prejudicial error requiring a new trial under both rules.

(2) At trial, the State presented expert testimony regarding blood splatter patterns on the defendants’ clothes. On voir dire, the witness acknowledged that the purported blood splatter at issue was not tested for the presence of blood. He further testified that failing to test the material for blood violated the procedures for blood splatter analysis laid out in his own treatise on the subject. The trial court allowed the testimony over objection. A majority of the Court of Appeals determined the evidence was inadmissible under Rule 702, as it was not based on sufficient data and therefore could not have been the product of reliable application of the method to the facts of the case. The dissenting judge at the Court of Appeals only challenged preservation of this claim and did not discuss the merits of the Rule 702 issue in her opinion. The State also did not seek discretionary review of the Rule 702 ruling on the merits. The Supreme Court therefore examined only the preservation argument.

The majority found that the defendants’ preserved the objection by immediately objecting when the evidence was presented (after having also objected during voir dire of the witness), and by renewing the objection the next day. Further, the court determined the issue was preserved by operation of the law. Under G.S. § 15A-1446(d)(10):

[N]otwithstanding a party’s failure to object to the admission of evidence at some point at trial, a party may challenge ‘[s]ubsequent admission of evidence involving a specified line of questioning when there has been an improperly overruled objection to the admission of evidence involving that line of questioning.’ Corbett Slip op. at 44-45 (citing the statute).

While some subsections of G.S. § 15A-1446 have been found to be unconstitutional, the court has never disavowed this one and found that it applied here. Because the Court of Appeals determined this evidence was improperly admitted and that finding was not at issue on appeal to the Supreme Court, the law of the case dictated that the evidence had been improperly admitted. Thus, the defendants’ objections at trial were improperly overruled and the issue was preserved as matter of law, in addition to the grounds relied upon by the Court of Appeals.

(3) Thomas Martens testified in his defense at trial that he heard his daughter yell, “don’t hurt my dad” during the altercation. The trial court sustained the objection as hearsay. The Supreme Court again agreed with the Court of Appeals that this was error. The statement was not hearsay, as it went the Thomas’s subjective belief of fear at the time and was not offered for the truth of the statement. It was alternatively admissible as an excited utterance under N.C. R. Evid. 803(2). In isolation, this error was not prejudicial because the defendant was otherwise given wide latitude to describe his state of mind at the time. It did however contribute to the cumulative prejudice:

[T]hese errors together imposed a significant constraint on defendants’ efforts to establish a crucial fact: namely, their state of mind at the time of the events in question based on all of the circumstances known to them. Corbett Slip op. at 53.

Because the majority agreed with the decision below regarding these evidentiary issues and their prejudicial impact, the court did not reach the other issues addressed by the Court of Appeals.

Justice Berger, joined by Justices Newby and Barringer, dissented. The dissenting justices believed that the majority improperly re-weighed the evidence on appeal and would have found that Rule 803(4) issues were subject to abuse of discretion review, rather than the de novo review applied by the majority. They also faulted the majority for raising G.S. 15A-1446 when no party argued the applicability of that statute.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by partially sustaining the State’s objection to expert testimony by a defense witness regarding the factors affecting the reliability of eyewitness identification. UNC-Charlotte Prof. Dr. Van Wallendael was qualified and accepted by the court as an expert witness in the field of memory perception and eyewitness identification. The defendant sought to have her testify concerning whether any factors were present that could have affected the witnesses’ identification of the defendant as the shooter. At a voir dire, the expert witness identified four factors in the case which could have affected the witnesses’ identifications: the time factor; the disguise factor; the stress factor; and the weapon focus effect. According to the time factor, the likelihood of an accurate identification increases the longer in time a witness has to view the perpetrator’s face. Under the disguise factor, anything covering the face of the perpetrator decreases the chances of an accurate identification later by the eyewitness. The stress factor states that stress, especially from violent crimes, can significantly reduce an eyewitness’s ability to remember accurately. Studies on the weapon focus factor show that people confronted with a weapon tend to concentrate their attention on the weapon itself, and not the individual holding the weapon, which decreases the likelihood of an accurate identification of the assailant or shooter later. The trial court sustained the State’s objection to opinion testimony concerning the time and disguise factors, noting that they are commonsense conclusions that would be of little if any benefit to the jury. It did however allow testimony on the stress factor and the weapon focus effect. The defendant failed to show any abuse of discretion by the trial court in partially sustaining the State’s objection. The trial court properly found that the time and disguise concepts were commonsense conclusions that would be of little benefit to the jury.

In a case in which the defendant was convicted of trafficking in more than 400 grams of cocaine, the trial court did not err by allowing the State’s expert to testify that the substance was cocaine where the expert combined three separate bags into one bag before testing the substance. After receiving the three bags, the expert performed a preliminary chemical test on the material in each bag. The test showed that the material in each bag responded to the reagent in exactly the same manner. She then consolidated the contents of the three bags into a single mixture, performed a definitive test, and determined that the mixture contained cocaine. The defendant argued that because the expert combined the substance in each bag before performing the definitive test, she had no basis for opining that each bag contained cocaine, that all of the cocaine could have been contained in the smallest of the bags, and thus that he could have only been convicted of trafficking in cocaine based upon the weight of cocaine in the smallest of the three bags. Relying on State v. Worthington, 84 N.C. App. 150 (1987), and other cases, the court held that the jury should decide whether the defendant possessed the requisite amount of cocaine and that speculation concerning the weight of the substance in each bag did not render inadmissible the expert’s testimony that the combined mixture had a specific total weight.

Because a lab that tested a controlled substance was neither licensed nor accredited, expert testimony regarding testing done at that lab on the substances at issue was inadmissible.

In this first-degree murder case, where the victim was found in a bathtub with a hair dryer and cause of death was an issue, the trial court did not err by admitting expert opinions.

         The defendant asserted that expert Michael Kale was not qualified to offer expert testimony that a running hairdryer dropped in a tub of water would not create current leakage if there is no path to the ground for the electrical current. Kale testified that he is an inspection supervisor for Mecklenburg County Code Enforcement specializing in electrical code enforcement, a position he has held for 15 years. In 2001 he received a Level III inspection certification, the highest level certification for electrical inspectors. He continues to take 60 hours in continuing education classes each year. Prior to his current position, he was an electrical contractor since 1987. In the early 1980s, he began constructing electrical wiring systems and continued to do so until his current position where he switched from constructing to inspecting such systems. His current responsibilities include checking the installation of electrical systems and power distribution systems by testing and visually inspecting electrical wiring to ensure code compliance. Given his knowledge, experience, and training regarding electrical systems, which encompasses how electricity moves, it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to determine that Kale had the necessary qualifications to provide his opinion. While Kale lacked a post-secondary degree in electrical engineering, the courts have never required such a formal credential. The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that Kale’s opinion was not based on reliable methods, finding that the defendant’s argument mischaracterized Kale’s testimony.

         The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting testimony from expert Michael McFarlane, an FBI forensic examiner, tendered as an expert in electrical systems and forensic electricity. McFarlane testified that appliances such as a hairdryer have an ALCI safety plug, which disables the electrical current going to the device when a certain amount of current leakage occurs. To test whether the ALCI on the hairdryer found with the victim was working and to determine the exact amount of leakage at which the ALCI would disable the current, McFarlane conducted an experiment. He set up “a trough with water in it” and attached wires to the hairdryer that he then placed in the water. At the other end of the trough, he placed additional wires to provide a secondary pathway for the current to leak to the ground. McFarlane then moved the hairdryer closer to the other wires to determine the exact amount of leakage from the hair dryer circuit to the secondary pathway that occurred before the ALCI plug disabled the current going to the hair dryer. McFarlane conducted the experiment to test the amount of current that would need to be leaked in order for the ALCI safety plug to disable the current going to the device. He used the same hairdryer that was found with the victim and set up a trough to re-create a bathtub. He testified that when he turned on the hairdryer, it functioned correctly with the attached wires. His failure to say what the trough was made of or whether it had a metal drain did not render the experiment void of substantial similarity as suggested by the defendant. He testified that the presence of a metal drain is relevant in determining whether the drain is connected to something that would provide an alternative pathway for the current to reach the ground. However, this experiment was testing the amount of leakage that causes the ALCI safety plug to disable the current and did not concern the medium through which the current travels once it is already leaked. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence. Even if this test was an experiment, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence in this context, noting that candid acknowledgment of dissimilarities and limitations of an experiment--as occurred here--is generally sufficient to prevent experimental evidence from being prejudicial. The court further rejected the defendant’s argument that McFarlane’s testimony was not based on reliable methods.

In this attempted murder and robbery case, the court applied the new Daubert test for expert testimony and held that trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State’s expert witness to testify that latent fingerprints found on the victim’s truck and on evidence seized during a home search matched the defendant’s known fingerprint impressions. The court held that the witness’s testimony failed to satisfy Rule 702(a)(3). To meet the requirements of the rule, an expert witness must be able to explain not only the abstract methodology underlying the opinion, but also that the witness reliably applied that methodology to the facts of the case. Here, the witness testified that during an examination, she compares the pattern type and minutia points of the latent print and known impressions until she is satisfied that there are “sufficient characteristics in sequence of the similarities” to conclude that the prints match. However, she provided no such detail in testifying about how she arrived at her actual conclusions in this case. The court concluded: without further explanation for her conclusions, the expert implicitly asked the jury to accept her expert opinion that the prints matched. Since she failed to demonstrate that she applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case as required by Rule 702(a)(3) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting this testimony. The court went on to find that the error was not prejudicial. 

In this burning of personal property case, the trial court did not err by allowing the State’s expert in fire investigation, a fire marshal, to testify that the fire had been intentionally set. The court noted that in State v. Hales, 344 N.C. 419, 424-25 (1996), the North Carolina Supreme Court held that with the proper foundation, a fire marshal may offer an expert opinion regarding whether a fire was intentionally set.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow a defense witness to testify as an expert. The defense proffered a forensic scientist and criminal profiler for qualification as an expert. Because the witness’s testimony was offered to discredit the victim’s account of the defendant’s actions and to comment on the manner in which the criminal investigation was conducted, it appears to invade the province of the jury. Although disallowing this testimony, the trial court made clear that the defendant would still be allowed to argue the inconsistencies in the State’s evidence.

In this homicide case, the trial court did not err by allowing the State’s expert witness on automatism to testify to the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the shooting. The expert endocrinologist testified that based on his experience with hypoglycemia and his review of the defendant’s medical records and account of what had occurred on the day of the shooting, the defendant’s actions were “not caused by automatism due to hypoglycemia.” The court rejected the defendant’s argument that this testimony, while couched in expert medical testimony, was merely speculation about the defendant state of mind at the time of the shooting. Here, the expert testified that in his opinion the defendant was not in a state of automatism at the time because he did not suffer from amnesia, a key characteristic of the condition. The trial court acted well within its discretion by admitting this testimony.

Reversing the Court of Appeals, the court held that Evidence Rule 702(a1) does not require the trial court to explicitly recognize a law enforcement officer as an expert witness pursuant to Rule 702(a) before he can testify to the results of a HGN test. Rather, the court noted, prior case law establishes that an implicit finding will suffice. Reviewing the record before it, the court found that here, by overruling the defendant’s objection to the witness’s testimony, the trial court implicitly found that the officer was qualified to testify as an expert. The court noted however that its ability to review the trial court’s decision “would have benefited from the inclusion of additional facts supporting its determination” that the officer was qualified to testify as an expert.

The trial court erred by admitting expert testimony regarding DNA evidence that amounted to a "prosecutor's fallacy." That fallacy, the court explained, involves the use of DNA evidence to show "random match probability." Random match probability evidence, it continued, is the probability that another person in the general population would share the same DNA profile as the person whose DNA profile matched the evidence. Citing, McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120 (2010), the court explained that "[t]he prosecutor's fallacy is the assumption that the random match probability is the same as the probability that the defendant was not the source of the DNA sample." It continued, quoting from McDaniel:

In other words, if a juror is told the probability a member of the general population would share the same DNA is 1 in 10,000 (random match probability), and he takes that to mean there is only a 1 in 10,000 chance that someone other than the defendant is the source of the DNA found at the crime scene (source probability), then he has succumbed to the prosecutor's fallacy.

Here, error occurred when the State’s expert improperly relied on the prosecutor’s fallacy. However, the error did not rise to the level of plain error.

In this Buncombe County case, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals that the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting an officer’s testimony that the defendant was driving his moped when it crashed. The Supreme Court noted that a warrant application for the defendant’s blood that was signed by the testifying officer was admitted without objection at the defendant’s trial on impaired driving charges. That application stated the officer’s conclusion, based on the circumstances he observed following the crash, that the defendant was operating the moped. In addition, the defendant’s cross-examination of the officer brought out much of the same information. Thus, the Supreme Court held that the defendant did not meet his burden to establish that a different result would have been reached had the objected-to testimony been excluded.

 In a felony death by vehicle case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by sustaining the State’s objection when defense counsel asked the defendant whether he would have been able to stop the vehicle if it had working brakes. Because a lay opinion must be rationally based on the witness’s perception, for the defendant’s opinion to be admissible, some foundational evidence was required to show that he had, at some point, perceived his ability, while highly intoxicated, to slow down the vehicle as it went through the curve at an excessive speed. However, there was no evidence that the defendant ever had perceived his ability to stop the car under the hypothetical circumstances.

The court, per curiam and without an opinion, reversed the ruling of the North Carolina Court of Appeals and held, for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion below, that the trial judge erred in allowing a detective to offer a lay opinion that 55 grams of a white powder was cocaine. The officer’s identification of the powder as cocaine was based solely on the detective’s visual observations. There was no testimony why the officer believed that the white powder was cocaine other than his extensive experience in handling drug cases. There was no testimony about any distinguishing characteristics of the white powder, such as its taste or texture.

The trial court did not err by allowing the two officers to identify the green vegetable matter as marijuana based on their observation, training, and experience.

In a case arising from a pharmacy break-in, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss trafficking in opium charges because the State did not present a chemical analysis of the pills. Citing State v. Ward, 364 N.C. 133 (2010), and State v. Llamas-Hernandez, 363 N.C. 8 (2009), the court determined that State is not required to conduct a chemical analysis on a controlled substance in order to sustain a conviction under G.S. 90-95(h)(4), provided it has established the identity of the controlled substance beyond a reasonable doubt by another method of identification. In the case at hand, the State’s evidence did that. The drug store’s pharmacist manager testified that 2,691 tablets of hydrocodone acetaminophen, an opium derivative, were stolen from the pharmacy. He testified that he kept “a perpetual inventory” of all drug items. Using that inventory, he could account for the type and quantity of every item in inventory throughout the day, every day. Accordingly, he was able to identify which pill bottles were stolen from the pharmacy by examining his inventory against the remaining bottles, because each bottle was labeled with a sticker identifying the item, the date it was purchased and a partial of the pharmacy’s account number. These stickers, which were on every pill bottle delivered to the pharmacy, aided the pharmacist in determining that 2,691 tablets of hydrocodone acetaminophen were stolen. He further testified, based on his experience and knowledge as a pharmacist, that the weight of the stolen 2,691 pill tablets was approximately 1,472 grams. Based on his 35 years of experience dispensing the same drugs that were stolen and his unchallenged and uncontroverted testimony regarding his detailed pharmacy inventory tracking process, the pharmacist’s identification of the stolen drugs as more than 28 grams of opium derivative hydrocodone acetaminophen was sufficient evidence to establish the identity and weight of the stolen drugs and was not analogous to the visual identifications found to be insufficient in Ward and Llamas–Hernandez.

In a murder case involving a shooting, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing a detective to give lay opinion testimony concerning the calibers of bullets recovered at the crime scene. The detective testified that as a result of officer training, he was able to recognize the calibers of weapons and ammunition. The detective’s testimony was based upon on his own personal experience and observations relating to various calibers of weapons, and was admissible under Rule 701.