State v. Canady ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA18-985
Filed: 3 September 2019
Columbus County, Nos. 14CRS050013, 14CRS000008-9
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
v.
AMANDA KAY CANADY, Defendant.
Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 28 March 2018 by Judge Douglas
B. Sasser in Columbus County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 April
2019.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by General Counsel W. Swain Wood, for the
State.
Michael E. Casterline for defendant-appellant.
BERGER, Judge.
On March 28, 2018, Amanda Kay Canady (“Defendant”) was convicted of first
degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious
injury, and attempted first degree murder. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial
court abused its discretion when it admitted several crime scene photographs into
evidence. Defendant claims the photographs were more prejudicial than probative,
and argues that, but for this error, there is a reasonable possibility that a different
result would have occurred at trial. We disagree, and find no error.
Factual and Procedural Background
STATE V. CANADY
Opinion of the Court
On December 31, 2013, Keshia Ward (“Ward”) and her fiancé, Johnny Lee
Tyler (“Tyler”), hosted a New Year’s Eve cookout at their home. After the cookout
and subsequent party had mostly concluded, in the early morning hours of January
1, 2014, a dispute arose over a cellular telephone. The cell phone was owned by
Derrick Pierce (“Pierce”) and had been left in Tyler’s truck. Pierce, who was at the
party with his associate Antwan Johnson (“Johnson”), had previously sold drugs to
Tyler. Tyler initially claimed that he did not know where the cell phone was, but he
eventually admitted that he had sold the phone.
This confession led Johnson to grab Tyler and take him into the home. Pierce
and Johnson began beating Tyler once inside, with Johnson holding Tyler while
Pierce struck him in the face. Ward attempted to stop the beating of her fiancé, at
which point Defendant entered the home. Pierce instructed Defendant to “get her
ass, too.”
Defendant then grabbed a baseball bat and began to beat Ward, continuing her
assault even as Ward fell to the floor. Defendant also swung the bat at Tyler, striking
him in the head. After several minutes of continuous beating, Tyler and Ward were
instructed to strip naked and perform sexual acts on one another. Throughout this
time, Tyler and Ward’s children were hiding in the back bedroom of the home. The
eldest, Delanee Chavis (“Chavis”), heard male voices instruct Defendant to “go check
on the kids.” Chavis then saw Defendant open the bedroom door, enter the room
-2-
STATE V. CANADY
Opinion of the Court
holding a wooden leg of a barstool in her hand, look around, and then exit the room
closing the door behind her.
The noise from the beatings eventually stopped, and Tyler heard someone say,
“They’re dead. Come on, let’s go.” Chavis heard someone say, “If y’all tell anybody,
I’ll kill y’all.” Chavis awoke later that morning to find Tyler naked, badly injured,
and asking for help. Chavis also saw Ward, her mother, naked and lying on the floor,
covered with a blanket. Tyler spent nearly three weeks in the hospital recovering
from his severe injuries. Ward died as a result of the injuries she had sustained
during the beating.
Deputies from the Columbus County Sheriff’s Department responded to the
house the next day after Chavis had called family members seeking help. Deputy
Joseph Graham (“Deputy Graham”) found Tyler in the living room and Ward in a
bedroom near the front of the house. Deputy Graham observed blood on the walls,
floor, furniture, and throughout the house. The Chief Medical Examiner for the State
of North Carolina determined that Ward’s death was the result of blunt trauma
injuries to the head, chest, abdomen and extremities.
That same day, Johnson showed one of his associates, Antonio Murdock
(“Murdock”), a video of the assault that he had recorded with his cell phone. In the
fifteen second video, Defendant, who was known to Murdock and recognized by him,
was sitting on top of another woman and swinging something at her head.
-3-
STATE V. CANADY
Opinion of the Court
In January 2017, Johnson pleaded guilty to second degree murder and
attempted first degree murder, and he agreed to testify at Defendant’s trial on behalf
of the State. Pierce was tried and convicted in June 2017.
Defendant’s trial began on March 19, 2018. Before trial began, Defendant
conceded to being present at the crime scene on the day of the incident. Throughout
trial, Defendant consistently objected to the introduction of the many photographs of
the victims and the crime scene. Defendant asserted that the photographs were more
prejudicial than probative. To expedite this process, the trial court reviewed all of
the photographs in camera, and ruled on each photograph Defendant had objected to
during this process. Defendant objected to more than seventy of the photographs the
State was seeking to introduce into evidence, and the trial court sustained roughly
twenty objections to individual photographs.
Defendant was convicted by the jury for three crimes: (1) first degree murder
of Ward under the three theories offered by the State—malice, premeditation and
deliberation; felony murder rule; and murder by torture; (2) assault with a deadly
weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious bodily injury on Tyler; and (3) attempted
murder of Tyler. In addition to her sentence of life imprisonment without parole for
the first degree murder conviction, Defendant was also sentenced to a term of 73 to
100 months for the Class C felony assault and 157 to 201 months for the attempted
murder. Defendant appeals.
-4-
STATE V. CANADY
Opinion of the Court
Analysis
Defendant only asserts one argument here on appeal. She argues that her
conviction must be vacated, and a new trial granted, because the trial court erred in
allowing “an excessive number of bloody and gruesome photographs of the crime
scene” into evidence that “had little probative value” and were “unfairly prejudicial,”
pursuant to Rule 403 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence. We disagree.
Rule 403 states that: “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay,
waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-
1, Rule 403 (2017).
Whether to exclude relevant evidence under the Rule 403
balancing test lies within the sound discretion of the trial
court, and the trial court’s ruling should not be overturned
on appeal unless the ruling was manifestly unsupported by
reason or was so arbitrary that it could not have been the
result of a reasoned decision.
State v. Lloyd, 354 N.C. 76, 98, 552 S.E.2d 596, 614 (2001) (purgandum).
“Whether the use of photographic evidence is more probative than prejudicial
and what constitutes an excessive number of photographs in the light of the
illustrative value of each is within the trial court’s discretion under a totality of the
circumstances analysis.” State v. Clark, 138 N.C. App. 392, 399, 531 S.E.2d 482, 487
(2000).
-5-
STATE V. CANADY
Opinion of the Court
The test for excess is not formulaic: there is no bright line
indicating at what point the number of crime scene or
autopsy photographs becomes too great. The trial court’s
task is rather to examine both the content and the manner
in which photographic evidence is used and to scrutinize
the totality of circumstances composing that presentation.
State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279, 285, 372 S.E.2d 523, 527 (1988).
Photographs are usually competent to be used by a
witness to explain or illustrate anything that it is
competent for him to describe in words. Photographs are
admissible to illustrate testimony concerning the manner
of a killing in order to prove circumstantially the elements
of first-degree murder. Even gory or gruesome
photographs are admissible so long as they are used for
illustrative purposes and are not introduced solely to
arouse the jurors’ passions. When determining the
admissibility of a photograph, the trial court should
consider what a photograph depicts, its level of detail and
scale, whether it is color or black and white, a slide or a
print, where and how it is projected or presented, and the
scope and clarity of the testimony it accompanies.
Lloyd, 354 N.C. at 98, 552 S.E.2d at 613-14 (purgandum).
Here, Defendant contends that the court abused its discretion in admitting
roughly seventy photographs of the crime scene, arguing that “the sheer volume of
photographs prominently displaying blood was excessive and unnecessary to prove
the State’s case against [Defendant].” She further argues that the evidence served
no probative value and was “calculated to play to the jury’s emotions; to horrify the
jurors and incite them” in order to find Defendant guilty. Defendant focuses
specifically on nine photographs of the victim as she was found at the crime scene
and twelve more autopsy photographs. Defendant argues that this evidence did not
-6-
STATE V. CANADY
Opinion of the Court
“contain any information to help the jury assess [Defendant’s] alleged role in [the
victim’s] death . . . [and that] the evidence should have focused on establishing
[Defendant’s] participation.” In allowing “the State to flood the jury with these
disturbing images, the trial court abused its discretion and prejudiced [Defendant].”
However, the trial court admitted the photographs only after careful in camera
consideration of each photograph. Then, the trial court reviewed the photographs
again, allowing the State and Defendant to argue on the record over whether certain
photographs should or should not be admitted. The trial court, after hearing
arguments on individual photographs sustained several of Defendant’s objections,
because it found that the evidence was either cumulative or unnecessary. The trial
court admitted several other photographs, over the objection of Defendant, concluding
that those photographs showed unique aspects of the crime scene or the victims’
injuries. There were different categories of photographs that were introduced: crime
scene and clothes; Tyler’s injuries; Ward’s body at the crime scene; the bedroom where
Ward was found; and autopsy photographs.
The ruling of the trial court was not “manifestly unsupported by reason or [ ]
so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” Lloyd, 354
N.C. at 98, 552 S.E.2d at 614. The admission of each photograph was a thoroughly
reasoned decision. Each photograph was reviewed and discussed. Defendant does
not even argue which specific photographs should have been excluded, only that the
-7-
STATE V. CANADY
Opinion of the Court
photographs, cumulatively, were prejudicial. As stated previously, it is “[t]he trial
court’s task . . . to examine both the content and the manner in which photographic
evidence is used and to scrutinize the totality of circumstances composing that
presentation. Hennis, 323 N.C. at 285, 372 S.E.2d at 527. The trial court completed
its task here.
Furthermore, Defendant is unable to show that the admission of the
photographs, cumulatively, was prejudicial because of the other overwhelming
evidence of Defendant’s guilt. Defendant stipulated that she was present in Tyler
and Ward’s home at the time these crimes were committed. Tyler, Chavis, and
Murdock testified to Defendant’s involvement in the murder, assault, and attempted
murder in which two victims were savagely beaten. The photographs allowed into
evidence in this case illustrated the testimonies that proved this to the jury, and the
photographs were properly allowed into evidence by the trial court.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the trial court did not err in allowing the State
to introduce photographic evidence of Defendant’s crimes. She received a fair trial,
free from error.
NO ERROR.
Chief Judge MCGEE and Judge TYSON concur.
-8-