State v. Augustine ( 2020 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. 130A03-2
Filed 25 September 2020
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
QUINTEL MARTINEZ AUGUSTINE
On writ of certiorari pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-32(b) to review an order
dismissing defendant’s motion for appropriate relief in which defendant asserted
claims under the Racial Justice Act entered on 25 January 2017 by Judge W. Erwin
Spainhour in Superior Court, Cumberland County. Heard in the Supreme Court on
26 August 2019.
Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Danielle Marquis Elder and Jonathan
P. Babb, Special Deputy Attorneys General, for the State-appellee.
Gretchen M. Engel and James E. Ferguson II for defendant-appellant.
Jeremy M. Falcone, Paul F. Khoury, Robert L. Walker, and Madeline J. Cohen
for Former State and Federal Prosecutors, amicus curiae.
Carlos E. Mahoney, Jin Hee Lee, and W. Kerrel Murray for NAACP Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., amicus curiae.
Janet Moore for National Association for Public Defense, amicus curiae.
Burton Craige and Bidish Sarma for North Carolina Advocates for Justice,
amicus curiae.
Grady Jessup for North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers, amicus curiae.
Cynthia F. Adcock for North Carolina Council of Churches, amicus curiae.
STATE V. AUGUSTINE
Opinion of the Court
Lisa A. Bakale-Wise and Irving Joyner for North Carolina State Conference of
the NAACP, amicus curiae.
Professors Robert P. Mosteller & John Charles Boger, amicus curiae.
Joseph Blocher for Social Scientists, amicus curiae.
HUDSON, Justice.
Pursuant to defendant’s petition for writ of certiorari, we review whether
double jeopardy bars review of the judgment entered in this matter. For the reasons
stated in State v. Robinson (Robinson II), No. 411A94-6, 2020 WL 4726680 (N.C. Aug.
14, 2020), we hold that it does. We also conclude for the reasons stated in this Court’s
decision in State v. Ramseur, 374 N.C. 658, 843 S.E.2d 106 (2020), that the retroactive
application of the 2012 Amended Racial Justice Act (RJA), and the 2013 repeal of the
RJA violates the prohibitions against ex post facto laws contained in both (1) the
Federal Constitution, and (2) the North Carolina Constitution as interpreted by our
prior decision in State v. Keith, 63 N.C. 140, 1869 WL 1378 (1869). Accordingly, we
vacate the trial court’s order and remand for the reinstatement of defendant’s
sentence of life imprisonment without parole.
Factual and Procedural Background
The jury returned a verdict finding defendant guilty of first-degree murder on
15 October 2002 in the Superior Court, Cumberland County. On 22 October 2002, he
was sentenced to death. Defendant then appealed as of right to this Court from the
judgment sentencing him to death under N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(a). On direct appeal, we
-2-
STATE V. AUGUSTINE
Opinion of the Court
found no error in defendant’s trial and affirmed his conviction and death sentence.
State v. Augustine (Augustine I), 359 N.C. 709, 740, 616 S.E.2d 515, 537 (2005).
On 9 August 2010, defendant filed a motion for appropriate relief (MAR)
challenging his death sentence under the RJA in the Superior Court, Cumberland
County. At the time that defendant filed his MAR, the RJA prohibited any person
from being “subject to or given a sentence of death . . . that was sought or obtained on
the basis of race.” North Carolina Racial Justice Act, S.L. 2009-464, § 1, 2009 N.C.
Sess. Laws 1213, 1214 [hereinafter Original RJA] (codified at N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-2010,
-2011 (2009)) (repealed 2013). At that time, the RJA allowed defendants to prove that
“race was the basis of the decision to seek or impose a death sentence” in their cases
if they could present evidence that “race was a significant factor in decisions to seek
or impose the sentence of death in the county, the prosecutorial district, the judicial
division, or the State at the time the death sentence was sought or imposed.” Id., § 1,
2009 N.C. Sess. Laws at 1214. To meet this burden of proof, defendants were allowed
to offer statistical evidence. Id.
Also in August 2010, Marcus Reymond Robinson filed an MAR pursuant to the
RJA in the Superior Court, Cumberland County.1 Robinson’s MAR hearing was held
before Judge Gregory A. Weeks from 30 January through 15 February 2012. The trial
court received evidence for thirteen days from thirteen witnesses, including: (1)
Robinson’s appeal is the subject of our decision in State v. Robinson, No. 411A94-6,
1
2020 WL 4726680 (N.C. Aug. 14, 2020).
-3-
STATE V. AUGUSTINE
Opinion of the Court
Barbara O’Brien, an associate professor at Michigan University College of Law who
conducted an empirical study of peremptory strike decisions in capital cases in North
Carolina and concluded that race was a significant factor in those decisions in North
Carolina, the former Second Judicial Division, and Cumberland County at the time
of Robinson’s trial; (2) George Woodworth, a professor emeritus of statistics and of
public health at the University of Iowa who concurred with Professor O’Brien’s
testimony; (3) Samuel R. Sommers, an associate professor of psychology at Tufts
University who concurred with the testimonies of Professor O’Brien and Professor
Woodworth; (4) Bryan Stevenson, a professor of law at the New York University
School of Law and the director of the Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery,
Alabama, who testified that he found dramatic evidence of racial bias in jury selection
in capital cases in North Carolina at the time of Robinson’s trial; and (5) the
Honorable Louis A. Trosch Jr. a district court judge in Mecklenburg County who was
previously a public defender in Cumberland County and has trained judges to
recognize implicit bias.
After the MAR hearing, the trial court entered an order on 20 April 2020
granting Robinson’s MAR. In the 167-page order, the trial court made extensive
findings, including that
[t]he RJA identifies three different categories of racial
disparities a defendant may present in order to meet the
“significant factor” standard, any of which, standing alone,
is sufficient to establish an RJA violation: evidence that
death sentences were sought or imposed more frequently
-4-
STATE V. AUGUSTINE
Opinion of the Court
upon defendants of one race than others; evidence that
death sentences were sought or imposed more frequently
on behalf of victims of one race than others; or evidence
that race was a significant factor in decisions to exercise
peremptory strikes during jury selection. N.C.[G.S.] § 15A-
2011(b)(1)–(3). It is the third category, evidence of
discrimination in jury selection, that was the subject of the
nearly three week long evidentiary hearing held in this
case.
In the first case to advance to an evidentiary hearing
under the RJA, Robinson introduced a wealth of evidence
showing the persistent, pervasive, and distorting role of
race in jury selection throughout North Carolina. The
evidence, largely unrebutted by the State, requires relief in
his case and should serve as a clear signal of the need for
reform in capital jury selection proceedings in the future.
The trial court concluded that Robinson was entitled to relief under the RJA as
follows: “The [c]ourt . . . concludes that Robinson is entitled to have his sentence of
death vacated, and Robinson is resentenced to life imprisonment without the
possibility of parole.”
On 15 May 2012, following the trial court’s decision in Robinson’s case,
defendant Augustine, Christina Shea Walters,2 and Tilmon Charles Golphin3 each
filed a Motion for Grant of Sentencing Relief arguing that the evidence that
established that Robinson was entitled to relief under the RJA also entitled them to
relief in their cases. The State responded and requested that the trial court either (1)
2 Walters’s appeal is the subject of our opinion in State v. Walters, No. 548A00-2 (N.C.
Sept. 25, 2020).
3 Golphin’s appeal is the subject of our opinion in State v. Golphin, No. 441A98-4 (N.C.
Sept. 25, 2020).
-5-
STATE V. AUGUSTINE
Opinion of the Court
deny relief entirely, or (2) order an evidentiary hearing. On 11 June 2012, the trial
court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for 23 July 2012.
On 2 July 2012, the General Assembly amended the RJA. An Act to Amend
Death Penalty Procedures, S.L. 2012-136, §§ 3–4, 2012 N.C. Sess. Laws 471, 472
[hereinafter Amended RJA]. In the lead-up to defendant’s evidentiary hearing, the
General Assembly’s amendments to the RJA made changes to (1) the burden of proof
that defendants were required to meet in order to obtain relief, and (2) the types of
evidence that could be used to satisfy that burden of proof. Id. Specifically, the
Amended RJA allowed relief only if a defendant could demonstrate that “race was a
significant factor in decisions to seek or impose the sentence of death in the county or
prosecutorial district at the time the death sentence was sought or imposed.”
Amended RJA, § 3, 2012 N.C. Sess. Laws at 472 (emphasis added). This provision of
the Amended RJA was narrower than the Original RJA, which also granted relief if
a defendant could demonstrate that “race was a significant factor . . . [in] the judicial
division[ ] or the State at the time the death sentence was sought or imposed.”
Original RJA, § 1, 2009 N.C. Sess. Laws at 1214 (emphasis added). Further, the
Amended RJA defined the relevant time period as “10 years prior to the commission
of the offense to the date that is two years after the imposition of the death sentence.”
Amended RJA, § 3, 2012 N.C. Sess. Laws at 472–73. In addition, while the Original
RJA allowed defendants to satisfy their burden of proof through statistical evidence,
the Amended RJA stated that “[s]tatistical evidence alone is insufficient to establish
-6-
STATE V. AUGUSTINE
Opinion of the Court
that race was a significant factor.” Amended RJA, § 3, 2012 N.C. Sess. Laws at 472.
Finally, the Amended RJA repealed N.C.G.S. § 15A-2011(b)4 and added N.C.G.S. §
15A-2011(d), which provided that
[e]vidence relevant to establish a finding that race was a
significant factor in decisions to seek or impose the
sentence of death in the county or prosecutorial district at
the time the death sentence was sought or imposed may
include statistical evidence derived from the county or
prosecutorial district where the defendant was sentenced
to death, or other evidence, that either (i) the race of the
defendant was a significant factor or (ii) race was a
4 The Original RJA provided that
[e]vidence relevant to establish a finding that race was a
significant factor in decisions to seek or impose the sentence of
death in the county, the prosecutorial district, the judicial
division, or the State at the time the death sentence was sought
or imposed may include statistical evidence or other evidence,
including, but not limited to, sworn testimony of attorneys,
prosecutors, law enforcement officers, jurors, or other members
of the criminal justice system or both, that, irrespective of
statutory factors, one or more of the following applies:
(1) Death sentences were sought or imposed significantly more
frequently upon persons of one race than upon persons of
another race.
(2) Death sentences were sought or imposed significantly more
frequently as punishment for capital offenses against persons of
one race than as punishment of capital offenses against persons
of another race.
(3) Race was a significant factor in decisions to exercise
peremptory challenges during jury selection.
North Carolina Racial Justice Act, S.L. 2009-464, § 1, 2009 N.C. Sess. Laws 1213,
1214.
-7-
STATE V. AUGUSTINE
Opinion of the Court
significant factor in decisions to exercise peremptory
challenges during jury selection.
Amended RJA, § 3, 2012 N.C. Sess. Laws at 472. In Ramseur, we held that each of
these provisions of the Amended RJA constituted impermissible ex post facto laws
that could not be applied retroactively. 374 N.C. at 682, 843 S.E.2d at 121.
On 3 July 2012, defendant Augustine, Walters, and Golphin filed amendments
to their motions for sentencing relief pursuant to the Amended RJA. On 6 July 2012,
the trial court scheduled the evidentiary hearing for 1 October 2012.
The evidentiary hearing on the amended motions was held on 1 October 2012
through 11 October 2012 before Judge Gregory A. Weeks. On 13 December 2012, the
trial court entered an order granting the MARs filed by defendant, Walters, and
Golphin. In the opening paragraphs of the order, the trial court emphasized that “race
was, in fact, a significant factor in the prosecution’s use of peremptory strikes during
jury selection, and [the trial court] therefore grants Defendants’ motions for
appropriate relief pursuant to the RJA, vacates their death sentences, and imposes
sentences of life imprisonment without possibility of parole” under the Amended RJA.
The lengthy order contained numerous findings of fact, including the following:
130. Having considered testimony from Coyler,
Russ, and Dickson [Cumberland County prosecutors] in
conjunction with all of the foregoing evidence, the [c]ourt
concludes that their denials that they took race into
account in Cumberland County capital cases are
unpersuasive and not credible. Their contention that they
selected capital juries in a race-neutral fashion does not
withstand scrutiny and is severely undercut by all of the
-8-
STATE V. AUGUSTINE
Opinion of the Court
evidence to the contrary. The evidence of Coyler’s race-
conscious “Jury Strikes” notes in Augustine, Coyler and
Dickson’s conduct in the Burmeister and Wright cases,
Russ’ use of a prosecutorial “cheat sheet” to respond to
Batson objections, and the many case examples of
disparate treatment by these three prosecutors, together,
constitute powerful, substantive evidence that these
Cumberland County prosecutors regularly took race into
account in capital jury selection and discriminated against
African-American citizens.
131. Finally, this [c]ourt would be remiss were it to
fail to acknowledge the difficulties involved in reaching
these determinations. Coyler, Russ, and Dickson each
represented the State in Cumberland County for over two
decades. During that time—as judges testified in this
proceeding—these prosecutors gained reputations for good
character and integrity. The [c]ourt first notes that its
conclusion that unconscious biases likely operated in their
strike decisions does not impugn the prosecutors’
character. The [c]ourt additionally finds that there is no
evidence that any of these prosecutors acted with racial
animus towards any minority venire member. To the
extent that the actions of these prosecutors were informed
by purposeful bias, the [c]ourt finds that such bias falls
within the category of “rational bias,” and was motivated
by the prosecutors’ desire to zealously prosecute the
defendants, rather than racial animosity.
In the final conclusion of law, the trial court stated that
[i]n view of the foregoing, the [c]ourt finally concludes
based upon a preponderance of the evidence that race was
a significant factor in decisions to seek or impose
Defendants’ death sentences at the time those sentences
were sought or imposed. Defendants’ judgments were
sought or obtained on the basis of race.
As a consequence, the trial court concluded by ordering the following:
-9-
STATE V. AUGUSTINE
Opinion of the Court
The [c]ourt, having determined that Golphin,
Walters, and Augustine are entitled to appropriate relief
on their RJA jury selection claims, concludes that
Defendants are entitled to have their sentences of death
vacated, and Golphin, Walters, and Augustine are
resentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of
parole.
The [c]ourt reserves ruling on the remaining claims
raised in Defendants’ RJA motions, including all
constitutional claims.
On the same day, the trial court entered a separate Judgment and Commitment,
sentencing defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The State
neither appealed nor otherwise sought review of the separate Judgment. However,
the State sought review by this Court of the trial court’s decisions granting relief to
defendant, Robinson, Walters, and Golphin pursuant to two separate petitions for
writ of certiorari. We allowed both petitions.
On 18 December 2015, we issued separate orders addressing the review of the
petitions for certiorari. In Robinson’s case, this Court vacated the trial court’s order
granting relief under the RJA and remanded his case to the trial court. State v.
Robinson (Robinson I), 368 N.C. 596, 597, 780 S.E.2d 151, 152 (2015). This Court
concluded that the trial court erred in granting relief because it abused its discretion
by denying the State’s third motion to continue the evidentiary hearing on Robinson’s
MAR. Id. at 596, 780 S.E.2d at 151. In a separate order, we vacated the trial court’s
order granting relief to Augustine, Walters, and Golphin, and remanded the three
-10-
STATE V. AUGUSTINE
Opinion of the Court
cases to the trial court as well. State v. Augustine (Augustine II), 368 N.C. 594, 780
S.E.2d 552 (2015). The remand order entered by this Court stated the following:
After careful review, we conclude that the error
recognized in this Court’s Order in State v. Robinson, [368
N.C. 596, 780 S.E.2d 151 (2015)], infected the trial court’s
decision, including its use of issue preclusion, in these
cases. Accordingly, the trial court’s order is vacated.
Furthermore, the trial court erred when it joined these
three cases for an evidentiary hearing. These cases are
therefore remanded to the senior resident superior court
judge of Cumberland County for reconsideration of
respondents’ motions for appropriate relief. Cf. Gen. R.
Pract. Super. & Dist. Cts. 25(4), 2016 Ann. R. N.C. 22.
We express no opinion on the merits of respondents’
motions for appropriate relief at this juncture. On remand,
the trial court should address petitioner’s constitutional
and statutory challenges pertaining to the Act. In any new
hearings on the merits, the trial court may, in the interest
of justice, consider additional statistical studies presented
by the parties. The trial court may also, in its discretion,
appoint an expert under N.C. R. Evid. 706 to conduct a
quantitative and qualitative study, unless such a study has
already been commissioned pursuant to this Court’s Order
in Robinson, in which case the trial court may consider that
study. If the trial court appoints an expert under Rule 706,
the Court hereby orders the Administrative Office of the
Courts to make funds available for that purpose.
Augustine II, 368 N.C. at 594, 780 S.E.2d at 552–53.
In June 2013—during the pendency of the State’s appeals to this Court in
Robinson I and Augustine II—the General Assembly repealed the RJA.5 This repeal
came after we allowed the State’s petition for writ of certiorari in Robinson I on
5 Act of June 13, 2013, S.L. 2013-154, § 5.(a), 2013 N.C. Sess. Laws. 368, 372.
-11-
STATE V. AUGUSTINE
Opinion of the Court
11 April 2013, but before we allowed the State’s petition for writ of certiorari in
Augustine II on 3 October 2013. The repeal applied retroactively to any MAR filed
before the repeal’s effective date. Act of June 13, 2013, S.L. 2013-154, § 5.(d), 2013
N.C. Sess. Laws 368, 372. However, the repeal’s savings clause exempted from the
repeal all cases in which there was
a court order resentencing a petitioner to life imprisonment
without parole pursuant to the provisions of Article 101 of
Chapter 15A of the General Statutes prior to the effective
date of this act if the order is affirmed upon appellate
review and becomes a final Order issued by a court of
competent jurisdiction.
Id. (emphasis added). Conversely, the savings clause specifically made the repeal’s
retroactivity provision
applicable in any case where a court resentenced a
petitioner to life imprisonment without parole pursuant to
the provisions of Article 101 of Chapter 15A of the General
Statutes prior to the effective date of this act, and the Order
is vacated upon appellate review by a court of competent
jurisdiction.
Id. (emphasis added).
On remand from our orders in Robinson I and Augustine II, the trial court held
a single hearing for the four defendants’ cases; the hearing was not scheduled as an
evidentiary hearing, and no evidence was taken. Prior to the hearing, all counsel were
notified that the trial court had ordered that the hearing would only involve
arguments on the following single question of law:
Did the enactment into law of Senate Bill 306, Session Law
-12-
STATE V. AUGUSTINE
Opinion of the Court
2013-14, on 19 June 2013, specifically Sections 5. (a), (b)
and (d) therein, render void the Motions for Appropriate
Relief filed by the defendants Augustine, Walter[s],
Golphin and Robinson pursuant to the provisions of Article
101 of the General Statutes of North Carolina?
After the hearing, the trial court dismissed the MARs filed by all defendants
concluding that they were voided by the repeal of the RJA. Defendant Augustine filed
a petition for writ of certiorari requesting review of the trial court’s ruling on 30 May
2017. We allowed the petition on 1 March 2018.
Analysis
For the reasons stated in this Court’s decision in Robinson II, “the retroactivity
provision of the RJA Repeal violates the double jeopardy protections of the North
Carolina Constitution.” 2020 WL 4726680, at *12. Furthermore, the judgment
entered by the trial court sentencing defendant Augustine to life imprisonment
without the possibility of parole was and is a final judgment. Therefore, double
jeopardy bars further review. Id. In addition, for the reasons stated in Ramseur, we
conclude that the retroactive application of the RJA repeal violates the prohibitions
against ex post facto laws contained in both (1) the United States Constitution, and
(2) the North Carolina Constitution as interpreted by our prior opinion in Keith, 63
N.C. 140, 1869 WL 1378. Ramseur, 374 N.C. at 658–83, 843 S.E.2d at 106–22.
Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order ruling that the repeal of the RJA voided
defendant’s MAR and remand to the Superior Court, Cumberland County, for the
reinstatement of defendant’s sentence of life imprisonment without parole.
-13-
STATE V. AUGUSTINE
Opinion of the Court
VACATED AND REMANDED.
Justice ERVIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
-14-
Justice DAVIS concurring in result.
For the reasons stated in Justice Ervin’s concurring opinions in State v.
Golphin, No. 441A98-4 (N.C. Sept. 25, 2020), and State v. Walters, No. 548A00-2
(N.C. Sept. 25, 2020), I concur in the result only.
Justice NEWBY dissenting.
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinions in State v. Robinson, No.
411A94-6, 2020 WL 4726680 (N.C. Aug. 14, 2020), and State v. Ramseur, 374 N.C.
658, 843 S.E.2d 106 (2020), I respectfully dissent.