This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on April 2, 2025. These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present.
Defense counsel’s leading question did not represent offer of proof to preserve excluded-testimony argument for appeal; State’s evidence showed defendant constructively possessed stolen camper.
State v. Capps, COA24-653, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Apr. 2, 2025). In this McDowell County case, defendant appealed his conviction for felonious possession of stolen goods, arguing error in excluding certain cross-examination testimony as hearsay and denying his motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals found no error.
In November of 2021, a woman called police to report her pop-up camper was missing from her driveway. In December, officers who responded to a fire on defendant’s property discovered the stolen camper in a field near a makeshift campground. Although the camper had been spray-painted a different color and modified to serve as a residence, the officers identified it as the stolen camper by the model and serial number. After a series of interviews, officers came to believe that one or more of the men residing on defendant’s land obtained the camper on his behalf. Defendant came to trial in September 2023 and moved to dismiss the charges, arguing insufficient evidence that he knowingly possessed the stolen camper. The trial court denied the motion. When defense counsel was cross-examining one of the detectives, he asked the detective if defendant told him one of the men on the property lied to defendant. The prosecutor objected on hearsay grounds and the trial court sustained the objection; defense counsel did not make an offer of proof.
The Court of Appeals took up defendant’s hearsay argument first. Because defendant did not make an offer of proof, the matter would normally not be preserved for appeal. However, defendant argued that the offer of proof was in the leading question itself, pointing to a nonprecedential opinion in support, State v. Everett, 178 N.C. App. 44 (2006), aff’d and ordered not precedential, 361 N.C. 217 (2007). The court rejected defendant’s argument, explaining that he “fail[ed] to show the essential content or substance of [the detective’s] excluded testimony; all that appears in the record is defense counsel’s unanswered leading question.” Slip Op. at 6. Since there was no substance of the detective’s potential answer in the record, there was no basis to support appellate review.
Moving to the motion to dismiss, the court noted that the State offered evidence to show defendant’s constructive possession of the camper because he was not the one who purchased or moved the camper to the property directly. The record contained evidence that defendant knew the camper was stolen by the time he was interviewed, along with testimony that defendant didn’t know where the camper came from and didn’t want to ask. These represented “incriminating circumstances” to support the State’s argument for constructive possession and justified denying defendant’s motion to dismiss. Id. at 11.
(1) State’s evidence supported premeditation and deliberation; (2) trial court properly allowed previous testimony regarding defendant’s violence towards his girlfriend; (3) State’s closing argument misstatement of law was cured by jury instruction; (4) excluding evidence of victim’s gang affiliation was not error.
State v. Ervin, COA24-650, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Apr. 2, 2025). In this Durham County case, defendant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, arguing error in (1) denying his motion to dismiss, (2) admitting testimony of several of his prior violent acts, (3) overruling his objection to the State’s closing argument, and (4) excluding evidence surrounding the victim’s alleged gang involvement. The Court of Appeals found no error.
In March of 2019, defendant lived in a townhouse with his girlfriend, as well as his girlfriend’s brother, the brother’s girlfriend, and defendant’s sister. Conflict developed between defendant and his girlfriend/her brother after they learned another woman was pregnant with defendant’s child. On the day of the murder, defendant argued with his girlfriend after her mother recommended defendant move out of the townhouse. Later that evening, a confrontation led to defendant shooting the brother at the back door of the townhouse. Defendant surrendered to law enforcement and told officers he shot in self-defense. Despite the self-defense argument, the jury convicted defendant of first-degree murder.
In (1), defendant argued insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation, an argument the Court of Appeals rejected. The court noted that although defendant and the victim engaged in a fight before the shooting, defendant “walked away from this fight on his own accord” and then he “walked up two flights of stairs, retrieved his gun, walked down to the second floor, talked with his sister for a period of time, and then walked back down to the first floor.” Slip Op. at 7. This showed defendant clearly anticipated another confrontation and planned to respond. The court also pointed to multiple shots from defendant, as “[r]egardless of Defendant’s intent when he fired his first shot, there was adequate time between each shot for Defendant to think through his actions.” Id. at 8. Additionally, the State’s evidence suggested defendant did not act in self-defense, supporting the conviction.
For (2), defendant’s argument referenced testimony from his girlfriend about three previous incidents where he was violent towards her. The court first looked to Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, determining that the testimony was relevant as it provided context to the “circumstances surrounding the parties” and defendant’s relationship with his girlfriend and her brother before the shooting. Id. at 10. Moving to Rule 404(b), the court explained that the evidence showed defendant’s “motive and intent” and was “also sufficiently similar and temporally proximate to the charged crime.” Id. at 13. Finally, the court arrived at Rule 403, determining that “[a]fter considering the arguments made by both parties, the trial court conducted the proper balancing test required under Rule 403 to determine the evidence’s admissibility.” Id. at 16.
Reaching (3), defendant argued that during closing argument a prosecutor misstated the law of self-defense, arguing it did not apply because defendant shot an unarmed man. Defendant objected to the statement, but the trial court overruled the objection. The court quoted the confusing statement: “[e]ven if it is reasonable, the defendant never has a right to use excessive force.” Id. at 17. Despite this confusing statement, the State further argued that defendant’s use of force was unreasonable and the jury instruction was proper, leading the court to conclude any improper statement of law was cured by the correct instructions.
Finally, in (4), defendant argued that denying his attempts to introduce evidence of the victim’s gang affiliation was error. The court disagreed, concluding that even if relevant, the evidence’s “probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice” and did little to support defendant’s claim of self-defense. Id. at 20.