State v. SmithÂ

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA18-518
Filed: 15 January 2019
Wake County, No. 13 CRS 211979
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
TRAVION SMITH
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 22 February 2016 by Judge Paul
C. Ridgeway in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29
November 2018.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Derrick
C. Mertz, for the State.
Lisa Miles for defendant-appellant.
TYSON, Judge.
Travion Smith (“Defendant”) appeals from judgment entered following a jury’s
verdict finding him guilty of first-degree murder. We find no error.
I. Background
On the evening of 13 May 2013, the day following Mother’s Day, Defendant,
Ronald Anthony (“Anthony”), and Sarah Redden (“Redden”) were together in the
vicinity of North Hills shopping center in Raleigh. The trio had been walking around
several neighborhoods in the area, breaking into unlocked cars and stealing GPS
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
devices, headphones, cell phones, and other valuables. Eventually they arrived at
the Allister Apartments complex. The Allister Apartments consisted of several
unoccupied buildings that were under construction and one occupied building.
Melissa Huggins-Jones (“Huggins-Jones”) and her eight-year-old daughter
lived in one of the second-floor apartments of the occupied building. Huggins-Jones
had recently moved to Raleigh from Tennessee to start a new job as a branch manager
at a bank and to be closer to her mother, who lived in Wilmington. The front entrance
of Huggins-Jones’ apartment was located at the top of a set of stairs and down a
breezeway. The back of the apartment had a balcony with a sliding glass door. The
apartment located directly below Huggins-Jones’ was being used as a temporary
leasing office by the owner.
Huggins-Jones’ air conditioning had not been working properly on 13 May and
the previous weekend. Huggins-Jones had called the apartment building’s
maintenance worker several times to have the AC unit repaired. The night of 13
May, Huggins-Jones kept “the windows in the bedrooms” and the “sliding [glass] door
to the balcony” “wide open” to try and keep the apartment cool. Huggins-Jones’
daughter also had a large box fan operating in her bedroom.
After breaking into several cars, Defendant, Anthony, and Redden went to one
of the unoccupied buildings of the Allister Apartments to look through their back
packs at the items they had stolen. While Redden was charging her cell phone,
-2-
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
Defendant and Anthony told her “they were going to go check something, and told
[her] to wait there.” Redden testified that she could not see where Defendant and
Anthony went.
After waiting about ten minutes, Redden walked outside the unoccupied
building to look around for Defendant and Anthony. Redden did not see Defendant
and Anthony, so she went back inside the unoccupied apartment to continue charging
her cell phone. After waiting five more minutes, Redden stepped outside the
apartment and observed Defendant and Anthony walking from the direction of the
occupied apartment building.
Defendant and Anthony again told Redden to stay at the unoccupied building,
and they walked back in the direction of the occupied building. After waiting another
ten minutes, Redden walked over to the occupied apartment. While Redden was
outside the occupied apartment, a police car drove by and she hid in the breezeway
of the building under the stairwell. Redden waited a minute until after the police car
had left the area. She left the stairwell and heard a noise “like a shuffle” that made
her look up.
Redden observed Defendant standing on the second-floor balcony of Huggins-
Jones’ apartment. Defendant was using his shirt to wipe off the balcony railing.
Redden told Defendant they needed to leave and asked him where Anthony was. In
response, Defendant indicated to the sliding glass door behind him.
-3-
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
A few minutes later, Redden saw lights from a car and she hid under the
stairwell again. Redden observed a police car drive up and stop in the driveway of
the apartment building for a “minute or so” and then leave. About five minutes later,
Redden left the stairwell and walked to the other side of the apartment building. As
she arrived at the other side of the building, Anthony ran up to her. Anthony told
her “to just go” and that he was going to find Defendant.
Redden ran to a fence that was bordering the apartment complex and shortly
thereafter observed Anthony and Defendant running towards her. Anthony was
carrying water bottles and Defendant carrying two laptop computers. The three
jumped the fence and ran along Six Forks Road to a parking lot at North Hills
shopping center.
In the parking lot, Redden observed Anthony and Defendant wash their hands
off with water from one of the water bottles. Anthony then called and asked an
acquaintance to pick them up. Anthony referred to this acquaintance as “Reese.”
Reese arrived and picked up Defendant, Anthony, and Redden, and drove them to a
nightclub called “Flashbacks.” Redden testified that during the car ride, Anthony
showed Reese an iPhone in a “woman’s colored case” and a bloody knife. Redden
stated that Defendant was not surprised by Anthony displaying the bloody knife.
Redden observed Defendant “looked [to have] specs (sic) of blood on his shirt.”
-4-
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
Upon arriving at the nightclub, Anthony and Reese went inside while Redden
and Defendant waited outside. Redden asked Defendant, “What is going on?”
Defendant told her “to let it go, don’t ask questions, just forget about it.”
After leaving the nightclub, Defendant, Anthony, and Redden checked into a
Super 8 Motel at approximately 3:25 a.m. At the motel, Redden observed Defendant
remove the two laptop computers from his back pack. Defendant kept a silver one
and gave the other orange-colored one to Anthony. Redden testified that Defendant
asked Anthony, “What the hell just happened?” Defendant then said, “Man, I got a
son.” Redden described Defendant as “nervous about not seeing his son.”
Redden also testified that Defendant and Anthony had a conversation about
“being happy that the little girl did not wake up.” Huggins-Jones’ daughter testified
she kept a large, loud box fan in her bedroom to help her sleep and that she had it on
that night. Huggins-Jones’ daughter recalled “hear[ing] a screaming noise” that
night, but went back to sleep because “[i]t didn’t sound like it was in our apartment.”
Redden never observed what Defendant and Anthony did with the knife,
iPhone, or clothes they had worn earlier in the evening.
At approximately 7:00 a.m., Huggins-Jones’ daughter discovered her mother’s
body. She went outside the apartment building and sought help from two
construction employees working in the vicinity of the apartment complex. The two
construction workers accompanied Huggins-Jones’ daughter into the apartment unit
-5-
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
and called 911. One of the construction workers observed Huggins-Jones dead upon
the bed in her bedroom. He described her appearance in the bedroom: “I could tell
she had blood all over her face and blood was everywhere, and I put three fingers on
her wrist and there was no pulse, and she was cold as a block of ice[.]”
Shortly thereafter, emergency personnel arrived at the scene and confirmed
Huggins-Jones had died from unnatural causes. Dr. Lauren Scott of the North
Carolina Office of the Chief Medical Examiner performed the autopsy of Huggins-
Jones and verified she had suffered at least eighteen separate blows to her face, neck,
and upper chest area consistent with both blunt and sharp force trauma, in addition
to multiple bruises.
Huggins-Jones injuries included, in part: a fractured skull, a broken jaw, a
broken nose, a severed carotid artery, four dislodged teeth, “a chop wound” into her
left shoulder, and puncture wounds in the left and right sides of her chest and
shoulders. There were multiple bruises on her arms consistent with defensive
wounds, in addition to several bruises on her face, back, and legs. Dr. Scott testified
it took Huggins-Jones “anywhere from several minutes to an hour to die.”
First responders and police investigators testified to the state of disarray in
Huggins-Jones’ apartment. Various items had been overturned on her dresser, her
nightstand door had been torn off, window blinds had been pulled off the wall, a purse
-6-
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
had been emptied on the kitchen table, a drawer from a jewelry armoire had been
pulled out and blood found on one of the jewelry boxes.
Investigators discovered Huggins-Jones’ blood on her bedroom doorknob, her
daughter’s bedroom doorknob, Huggins-Jones’ purse, her wallet, two checkbooks, and
a book cover in the hallway. A droplet of Huggins-Jones’ blood was found on the
apartment balcony, and a swabbing of the balcony railing tested positive for her blood.
Police investigators also discovered that the leasing office in the apartment
unit immediately below Huggins-Jones’ unit had been robbed. Various items were in
disarray in the office and two Lenovo laptop computers, one silver and the other
orange, were missing along with a Canon digital camera, charger, and camera bag.
Approximately a week later, on 20 May 2013, police found an orange Lenovo
laptop bearing the same serial number as the one stolen from the leasing office
beneath Huggins-Jones’ apartment listed for sale on the Craigslist website. Detective
Zeke Morse of the Raleigh Police Department posed as an interested buyer and
contacted the seller of the laptop, Mike McCollum (“McCollum”), who lived in Wake
Forest. Detective Morse offered to pay the listed price for the laptop and arranged to
meet McCollum the afternoon of 20 May at a Wal-Mart store parking lot located in
Wake Forest. McCollum became suspicious of the high offer price for the laptop.
McCollum removed the listing for the orange laptop from Craigslist, did not appear
at the agreed upon location, and did not return further calls from Detective Morse.
-7-
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
Police began surveillance of McCollum’s residence that same day and later
obtained a warrant to search the residence on 21 May. During the execution of the
search warrant, police discovered the stolen silver Lenovo laptop and arrested
McCollum.
McCollum cooperated with the police and explained to them how had he
obtained the silver laptop. Anthony had called and asked him to sell two Lenovo
laptops that Anthony “was trying to get rid of” but had told him “they weren’t stolen.”
Anthony text messaged McCollum pictures of the orange laptop, which McCollum
used to list the laptop on Craigslist. Anthony used his girlfriend’s, Amber Alberts’
(“Alberts”), cellphone to send the text messages to McCollum. On 20 May 2013,
McCollum posted the listing for the orange laptop, but he did not yet have possession
of either the orange or silver laptops.
McCollum stated that on the morning of 21 May, he had received a phone call
from Defendant. Defendant informed McCollum that he was at the Wal-Mart store
in Wake Forest and had the silver laptop for McCollum to sell. McCollum sent his
fiancée and her friend to pick up Defendant and bring him to McCollum’s residence.
Defendant provided McCollum with the silver laptop in exchange for McCollum
giving him $50 up front. McCollum’s girlfriend drove Defendant back to the Wal-
Mart store in Wake Forest.
-8-
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
Undercover police officers conducting surveillance of McCollum’s residence
observed a person, who was later determined to be Defendant, leave the residence.
The officers followed McCollum’s fiancée’s car as she drove Defendant back to the
Wal-Mart store. McCollum’s fiancée dropped Defendant off at the Wal-Mart store.
One of the officers, Detective Gory Mendez of the Raleigh Police Department,
remained behind at the Wal-Mart store to determine Defendant’s identity. The other
undercover officers followed McCollum’s fiancée back to McCollum’s residence.
Detective Mendez lost sight of Defendant for approximately thirty minutes,
but eventually found him sitting inside a car with Anthony, Alberts, and another
woman, in a parking lot near the Wal-Mart store. Detective Mendez observed the
four individuals get out of the car and walk over to the Wal-Mart store. Detective
Mendez made arrangements to have law enforcement officers with the Raleigh Police
Department come pick up Defendant and Anthony and take them to the police station
for questioning. During the time Detective Mendez was following Defendant, other
officers were executing the search warrant for McCollum’s residence.
An officer requested Alberts to give him her phone for examination. The officer
discovered pictures of the orange laptop on Alberts’ phone and the text messages
Anthony had sent McCollum. Law enforcement officers obtained a search warrant
for Alberts’ residence. The officers discovered a large bag that Alberts identified as
Anthony’s bag. Inside the bag were GPS devices, phone chargers, cords, and other
-9-
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
items that were consistent with items reported stolen from cars in the neighborhood
surrounding the Allister Apartments complex the night of 13 May 2013. When police
took Defendant in for questioning, they requested he hand over his shoes, a pair of
red and black Nike tennis shoes. A grand jury returned a true bill of indictment for
the first-degree murder of Huggins-Jones against Defendant on 3 June 2013.
Defendant’s capital murder trial began on 4 January 2016. Prior to
Defendant’s trial, Anthony pled guilty to first-degree murder and received a sentence
of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Defendant stipulated at trial
to being “involved with the other co-defendants in breaking into cars and was with
the co-defendants before and after the incident and was involved in selling stolen
items afterwards; i.e., the laptop.”
Melvin Brown (“Brown”) was called as a witness by the State. At the time of
trial, Brown was serving a sentence for trafficking heroin. Brown met Defendant at
the Wake County Jail, while Defendant was awaiting trial. Brown testified
Defendant told him the reason he was in jail was because of a laptop. Brown stated
that Defendant told him:
[T]hey had broken into a house, [Defendant] and another
guy, and that is how he got the laptop. He took the laptop,
like $200, some jewelry.
He told me while he was in a place robbing the place, that
the lady confronted him. She started yelling at him and he
told me he jumped on the lady. He was hitting her and she
was screaming and stuff. And then he said that his co-
- 10 -
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
defendant had stabbed the lady with a knife, stabbed her
in the temple and stabbed her in the chest.
Defendant also told Brown that police did not have the knife, and that he was
confident police would not find blood on the shoes he was wearing the night of the
murder. Brown had provided the police and the prosecution with the information
Defendant had allegedly communicated to him in exchange for a twenty-month
reduction in his prison sentence and a waiver of the mandatory $100,000 fine for
trafficking heroin. Brown testified about threats he had received from Defendant in
response to his cooperation with the prosecution. Brown also recounted a jailhouse
attack against him in retaliation for speaking with the prosecution about Defendant.
Before the trial court charged the jury, Defendant requested a special
instruction in writing regarding Brown’s motivation for testifying. The trial court
denied Defendant’s requested special instruction.
Defendant did not present any evidence during the guilt-innocence
determination phase of the trial. The trial court submitted to the jury the charges of:
(1) first-degree murder under the theory of premeditation and deliberation and the
alternative theory of felony murder; and (2) second-degree murder. The trial court
also instructed the jury on the criminal liability theory of acting in concert with
regards to each of Defendant’s charges.
The jury found Defendant guilty of first-degree murder on the basis of
premeditation and deliberation, as well as under the felony murder rule with
- 11 -
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
burglary as the underlying felony. During the sentencing phase, the jury
recommended a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The
trial court entered judgment on 22 February 2016 and sentenced Defendant in
accordance with the jury’s recommendation. Defendant appeals.
II. Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction lies in this Court as of right from a final judgment in a superior
court. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b)(1) (2017).
III. Issues
Defendant argues the trial court erred: (1) by not giving his requested special
jury instruction regarding potential bias of the State’s witness Brown; and, (2) by
allowing Brown to testify about his belief that Defendant was involved in an attack
upon Brown while they were in jail, over Defendant’s objection.
IV. Jury Instruction
A. Standard of Review
Defendant and the State disagree over which standard of review this Court
should apply to the issue of the trial court’s refusal of Defendant’s requested
instruction. Defendant asserts the standard of review is de novo and the State asserts
this Court should review for an abuse of discretion. This Court has recognized “the
proper standard of review depends upon the nature of a defendant’s request for a jury
instruction.” State v. Edwards, 239 N.C. App. 391, 392, 768 S.E.2d 619, 620 (2015).
- 12 -
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
Defendant cites State v. Osorio, 196 N.C. App. 458, 466, 675 S.E.2d 144, 149
(2009), to argue the proper standard of review is de novo. At issue in Osorio was
whether sufficient evidence existed to support a jury instruction on acting in concert.
Id. “Whether evidence is sufficient to warrant an instruction . . . is a question of
law[.]” State v. Cruz, 203 N.C. App. 230, 242, 691 S.E.2d 47, 54 (2010). This Court
reviews questions of law de novo. Edwards, 239 N.C. App. at 393, 768 S.E.2d at 621
(citations omitted).
Where the issue is not a question of law reviewed de novo, the appropriate
standard of review is for an abuse of discretion. State v. Lewis, 346 N.C. 141, 145, 484
S.E.2d 379, 381 (1997) (“[w]hether the trial court instructs using the exact language
requested by counsel is a matter within its discretion and will not be overturned
absent a showing of abuse of discretion.”) (quoting State v. Herring, 322 N.C. 733,
742, 370 S.E.2d 363, 369 (1988)); State v. Shepherd, 156 N.C. App. 603, 607, 577
S.E.2d 341, 344 (2003) (“the choice of instructions given to a jury ‘is a matter within
the trial court’s discretion and will not be overturned absent a showing of abuse of
discretion.’”) (quoting State v. Nicholson, 355 N.C. 1, 66, 558 S.E.2d 109, 152, cert.
denied, 537 U.S. 845, 154 L. Ed. 2d 71 (2002)).
The issue before us involves the trial judge’s choice of language in the
instructions given to the jury. We review the trial court’s ruling for an abuse of
discretion. See Lewis, 346 N.C. at 145, 484 S.E.2d at 381.
- 13 -
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
“A trial court must give a requested instruction that is a correct statement of
the law and is supported by the evidence.” State v. Conner, 345 N.C. 319, 328, 480
S.E.2d 626, 629 (citation omitted), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 876, 139 L. Ed. 2d 134 (1997).
However, the trial court “need not give the requested instruction verbatim.” Id.
Instead, “an instruction that gives the substance of the requested instructions is
sufficient.” Id. To show that the refusal to give an instruction was error, the
defendant “must show that the requested instructions were not given in substance
and that substantial evidence supported the omitted instructions.” State v. Beck, 233
N.C. App. 168, 171, 756 S.E.2d 80, 82 (2014) (citation omitted).
“[W]hen instructions, viewed in their entirety, present the law fairly and
accurately to the jury, the instructions will be upheld.” State v. Roache, 358 N.C. 243,
304, 595 S.E.2d 381, 420 (2004). “[I]t is not enough for the appealing party to show
that error occurred in the jury instructions; rather, it must be demonstrated that such
error was likely, in light of the entire charge, to mislead the jury.” State v. Cornell,
222 N.C. App. 184, 191, 729 S.E.2d 703, 708 (2012) (citations and brackets omitted).
“In order for a new trial to be granted, the burden is on the defendant to not
only show error but to also show that the error was so prejudicial that without the
error it is likely that a different result would have been reached.” State v. Owen, 133
N.C. App. 543, 549, 516 S.E.2d 159, 164 (1999) (citation omitted).
B. Special Instruction
- 14 -
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
Defendant requested the following special jury instruction regarding Brown’s
testimony:
There is evidence which tends to show that a witness
testified with the hope that their testimony would convince
the prosecutor to recommend a charge reduction. If you
find that the witness testified for this reason, in whole or
in part, you should examine this testimony with great care
and caution. If, after doing so, you believe the testimony,
in whole or in part, you should treat what you believe the
same as any other believable evidence.
The trial court denied the requested special instruction, and gave the jury the pattern
jury instructions on interested witnesses and informants, as follows:
You may find that a witness is interested in the outcome of
this case. You may take the witness’s interest into account
in deciding whether to believe the witness. If you believe
the testimony of the witness in whole or in part, you should
treat what you believe the same as any other believable
evidence. [N.C.P.I.-Crim. 104.20 (2011)]
...
You may find that a State’s witness is interested in the
outcome of this case because of the witness’s activity as an
informer. If so, you should examine the testimony of the
witness with care and caution. After doing so, if you believe
the testimony in whole or in part, you should treat what
you believe the same as any other believable evidence.
(Emphasis supplied). [N.C.P.I.-Crim. 104.30 (2011)]
The trial court also gave the general pattern jury instruction concerning witness
credibility:
You’re the sole judges of the believability of witnesses. You
must decide for yourselves whether to believe the
testimony of any witness. You may believe all, any part, or
none of a witness’s testimony.
- 15 -
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
In deciding whether to believe a witness, you should use
the same tests of truthfulness that you use in your
everyday lives. Among other things, these tests may
include the opportunity of the witness to see, hear, know,
or remember the facts or occurrences about which the
witness has testified; the manner and appearance of the
witness; any interest, bias, prejudice, or partiality a witness
may have; the apparent understanding and fairness of the
witness; whether the testimony is reasonable; and whether
the testimony is consistent with other believable evidence
in this case.
N.C.P.I.-Crim. 101.15 (2011) (emphasis supplied).
Defendant contends his requested instruction regarding Brown was supported
by the evidence because “Brown testified that, not only did he receive a benefit from
providing this information to the State, he hoped for further reduction in his sentence
after testifying.”
Brown pled guilty to one count of trafficking in heroin on 20 August 2014. As
part of his plea arrangement, the State agreed that Brown provided substantial
assistance such that a departure was appropriate from the sentencing schedule for
trafficking offenses. Sentencing in Brown’s matter was continued until 17 March
2015, at which time Brown received a sentence which departed from the requirements
of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(h)(3). At the time of Defendant’s trial in January 2016,
Brown had fulfilled all of the conditions for entry of his plea and judgment in Brown’s
case had been entered in Wake County Superior Court. Brown’s plea to trafficking
in heroin was not contingent upon his truthful testimony against Defendant, and he
- 16 -
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
had no arrangement with the State to testify against Defendant. Defendant concedes
that Brown received a reduced sentence for information he provided against
Defendant.
Brown testified at trial that the prosecution had reduced his sentence for
trafficking heroin by twenty months in exchange for the information he provided
about Defendant. On direct examination, Brown further testified in the following
exchange with the prosecution:
Q. . . . So when you pled in, you got a benefit for talking to
law enforcement, with Detective Brady back here?
[Brown]. Yes, Ma’am.
[Prosecutor]. And as a result of coming in here today, you
don’t automatically get any new benefit, is that right?
[Brown]. No, Ma’am.
[Prosecutor]. When we met with you this morning and with
[your attorney], do you hope perhaps that you could get a
benefit from this?
[Brown]. Yes, Ma’am. I was under -- they told me that my
lawyer could put a motion in.
[Prosecutor]. At any point, have we agreed that you should
get any additional time?
[Brown]. No, Ma’am.
[Prosecutor]. But your lawyer has said she might see if she
can help you out?
[Brown]. Yes, Ma’am.
- 17 -
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
[Prosecutor]. So it’s safe to say you hope that you can get a
benefit?
[Brown]. Yes, Ma’am.
[Prosecutor]. But you are not guaranteed one as a result of
coming in here today?
[Brown]. No ma’am.
Defendant asserts “[t]here is a reasonable likelihood that, had the jury been
properly directed to consider Brown’s hope for further benefit after testifying, it would
not have convicted [Defendant] of first-degree murder.” We disagree.
The trial court’s charge to the jury, taken as a whole, was sufficient to address
the concerns motivating Defendant’s requested instruction. The entire jury charge,
including the instructions regarding interested witnesses, informants, and the jury’s
ability to take into consideration “any interest, bias, prejudice or partiality a witness
may have” was sufficient to apprise the jury that they may consider whether Brown
was interested, biased, or not credible. See State v. Singletary, 247 N.C. App. 368,
377, 786 S.E.2d 712, 719 (2016) (holding trial court’s denial of defendant’s requested
instruction was not error because “[t]he trial court’s jury charge was sufficient to
address Defendant’s concerns, as it left no doubt that it was the jury’s duty to
determine whether the witness was interested or biased”). The entire jury instruction
given by the trial court was supported by the evidence and in “substantial conformity”
with the instruction requested by Defendant. State v. McNeill, 346 N.C. 233, 239, 485
- 18 -
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
S.E.2d 284, 288 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1053, 139 L. Ed. 2d 647 (1998).
Additionally, we note the State made no promises to Brown in exchange for his
truthful testimony in this case. Defendant’s requested instruction, that Brown
“testified with the hope that [his] testimony would convince the prosecutor to
recommend a charge reduction,” was not supported by the law or the evidence as
there was no possibility Brown could receive any such “charge reduction.”
Brown had no pending charges at the time he testified against Defendant, and
thus, there were no charges to reduce. When asked at oral argument before this
Court how the State could make concessions to Brown, who was serving an active
sentence with no pending charges, Defendant argued that a motion for appropriate
relief could be filed on Brown’s behalf. However, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1415(b) (2017),
provides “the only grounds” for which Brown could have asserted a motion for
appropriate relief. The exhaustive list set forth in that statute does not allow relief
from entry of judgment for a defendant who subsequently provides truthful
testimony. See id.
Even presuming the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s requested
instruction, Defendant cannot demonstrate prejudice to award a new trial.
Defendant had ample opportunity to cross-examine Brown regarding his agreement
with the State, as well as to argue to the jury that Brown’s deal with the State, as
- 19 -
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
well as Brown’s hope for another future sentence reduction, motivated Brown’s
testimony and impacted his credibility and truthfulness.
In State v. Mewborn, this Court found no prejudice resulted from the trial
court’s refusal to give the pattern instruction on witnesses with immunity or quasi-
immunity where the “defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine [the witness]
about any alleged agreement and to argue to the jury regarding the impact of any
alleged agreement upon [the witness’] credibility” and “the jury had before it evidence
of [the witness’] arrest, the charges pending against [the witness], his cooperation
with police, his plea agreement, and his pending sentencing hearing.” State v.
Mewborn, 178 N.C. App. 281, 293, 631 S.E.2d 224, 232, disc. review denied, 360 N.C.
652, 637 S.E.2d 187 (2006).
Here, the jury was presented evidence of Brown’s conviction and sentence for
trafficking heroin, his testimony that he contacted the prosecution about the
information he gained from Defendant because he “wanted to get substantial
assistance for talking to them about the murder,” and the details of the resulting
agreement to reduce Brown’s prison sentence.
Defendant has failed to show that the trial court’s refusal to give the requested
instruction had a likely impact on the jury’s verdict or misled the jury. See id.
- 20 -
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
Defendant asserts the trial court’s omission of the requested instruction was
prejudicial because “[n]o physical evidence placed [Defendant] inside the apartment,
much less implicate[s] him as an assailant.”
The evidence showed there were clothes dryer vents on each side of Huggins-
Jones’ apartment balcony. Investigators found partial shoe prints atop the dryer vent
on the right side of Huggins-Jones’ balcony. City County Bureau of Investigation
Agent Tracy Davis was admitted as an expert witness in the field of footwear
examination at trial. Agent Davis testified the partial shoe prints atop the dryer vent
had characteristics consistent with the black and red Nike tennis shoes Defendant
was wearing on the night of the murder.
Redden observed Defendant standing on Huggins-Jones’ apartment balcony,
appearing to wipe off the railing. Redden testified she observed specks of blood on
Defendant’s shirt. A swabbing sample taken from Huggins-Jones’ balcony railing
tested positive for her blood. Redden recounted that Defendant and Anthony had a
conversation the night of the murder that they were “happy that the little girl
[Huggins-Jones’ daughter] did not wake up.”
Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, there was substantial evidence, apart from
Brown’s testimony, from which the jury could have found Defendant was present
inside Huggins-Jones’ apartment with Anthony and participated in her murder which
caused her blood to be upon his shirt.
- 21 -
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
We find no error in the trial court’s ruling to omit Defendant’s requested
instruction. Presuming, arguendo, the trial court erred, Defendant cannot show the
jury was misled by the omission of the requested instruction or that he was
prejudiced. Defendant’s argument is without merit and overruled.
V. Testimony On Jailhouse Attack
Defendant also argues the trial court abused its discretion by permitting, over
his objection, Brown ‘s testimony about a jailhouse attack.
Brown testified he was transferred to the Wake County Courthouse to testify
for the State at a pretrial hearing in November 2015. Brown said that when he
arrived at the courthouse, Defendant was present inside a holding cell. Brown stated
Defendant threatened him and made a motion with his hands “like he was going to
cut me. He was telling me I was dead.”
After Brown testified at the pretrial hearing, he was taken back to the jail next
door to the courthouse. Brown was placed in a pod across from Defendant, but
separated by a glass window. Brown stated Defendant was staring at him through
the window and appeared to be “talking trash.” A few moments later “somebody came
to him and threatened him” for testifying against Defendant. Brown returned to his
cell. Shortly thereafter, the same person who had threatened him moments earlier
came into the cell and assaulted Brown. Brown testified the assailant asked him if
he was telling on “Tray.” Brown stated “Tray” was a nickname for Defendant.
- 22 -
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
Defendant argues the evidence of the jailhouse attack, but not the threats
made by Defendant, was both irrelevant and unduly prejudicial under Rules 401, 402,
and 403 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rules 401,
402, 403 (2017).
Rule 401 defines relevant evidence as “evidence having any tendency to make
the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action
more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1,
Rule 401. Irrelevant evidence is evidence “having no tendency to prove a fact at issue
in the case.” State v. Hart, 105 N.C. App. 542, 548, 414 S.E.2d 364, 368, disc. review
denied, 332 N.C. 348, 421 S.E.2d 157 (1992). Under Rule 402, relevant evidence is
generally admissible at trial while irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 402.
“Although a trial court’s rulings on relevancy are not discretionary and we do
not review them for an abuse of discretion, we give them great deference on appeal.”
State v. Grant, 178 N.C. App. 565, 573, 632 S.E.2d 258, 265 (2006) (citation omitted),
disc. review denied, 361 N.C. 223, 642 S.E.2d 712 (2007).
In challenging the relevancy of Brown’s testimony regarding the jailhouse
attack under Rules 401 and 402, Defendant asserts “The State presented no evidence
tending to show that [Defendant] knew about, suggested or encouraged the attack on
Brown; [Defendant] was in a different cell block from Brown at the time of the assault.
- 23 -
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
The testimony was therefore without proper foundation and irrelevant[.]” We
disagree.
Brown testified Defendant was staring at him through a glass window in the
jail immediately before the assailant approached Brown and threatened him. The
same assailant returned several minutes later, asked if he was telling on “Tray,” and
assaulted him. This testimony clearly suggests Defendant was, at minimum, aware
of the attack upon Brown or may have encouraged it.
“Generally, evidence tending to show a defendant has attempted to induce a
witness to testify falsely in his or her favor is relevant and admissible against the
defendant.” State v. Mebane, 106 N.C. App. 516, 529, 418 S.E.2d 245, 253 (1992)
(citing State v. Minton, 234 N.C. 716, 725, 68 S.E.2d 844, 850 (1952)). This evidence
may consist of attempts to influence a witness by threats or intimidation. State v.
Smith, 19 N.C. App. 158, 159, 198 S.E.2d 52, 53 (1973).
Evidence of threats against a witness may be relevant because it “may be
construed as an awareness of guilt on the part of the defendant.” State v. Larrimore,
340 N.C. 119, 151, 456 S.E.2d 789, 806 (1995) (citing State v. Hicks, 333 N.C. 467,
428 S.E.2d 167 (1993) and Minton, 234 N.C. at 716, 68 S.E.2d at 844).
Brown testified he did not want to be at trial because he had concerns for his
safety. Our Supreme Court has held a witness may testify about his fear of a
defendant and the reasons for his fear, as this is relevant to the issue of the witness’
- 24 -
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
credibility. State v. Lamb, 342 N.C. 151, 158, 463 S.E.2d 189, 193 (1995) (“Where, as
here, the witness has been the subject of past acts of violence and thereby has reason
to fear another individual, those past acts are relevant to the issue of the witness’
character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.” (quoting Larrimore, 340 N.C. at 152,
456 S.E.2d at 807)).
The challenged testimony was clearly relevant under Rules 401 and 402
because it was probative to both issues of Defendant’s guilt and Brown’s credibility.
See id.; Larrimore, 340 N.C. at 152, 456 S.E.2d at 807; Hicks, 333 N.C. at 467, 428
S.E.2d at 167; Minton, 234 N.C. at 716, 68 S.E.2d at 844. Defendant has failed to
show the testimony at issue is irrelevant under Rule 401. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule
401.
Defendant additionally argues the trial court abused its discretion by
admitting the challenged testimony under Rule 403 because its probative value was
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. 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 . . . .” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1,
Rule 403.
A trial court’s ruling under Rule 403 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
State v. Triplett, 368 N.C. 172, 178, 775 S.E.2d 805, 809 (2015). This Court will find
an abuse of discretion only where a trial court’s ruling “is manifestly unsupported by
- 25 -
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
reason or is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.”
Id. (citations omitted).
Defendant asserts: “Without Melvin Brown’s irrelevant testimony that
[Defendant] may have had something to do with some sort of assault on Brown, there
is a reasonable likelihood the jury would have acquitted [Defendant] of first degree
murder.” “Certainly, the evidence was prejudicial to the defendant in the sense that
any evidence probative of the State’s case is always prejudicial to the defendant.”
State v. Stager, 329 N.C. 278, 310, 406 S.E.2d 876, 895 (1991) (citation omitted).
Defendant only challenges the portion of Brown’s testimony regarding the
threats and attack in the jail cell by the unknown assailant. Defendant does not
challenge Brown’s testimony that Defendant was “going to cut [Brown] . . . [and that
Brown] was dead.” Defendant cannot show he was prejudiced by the challenged
testimony, much less that he was unfairly prejudiced in light of the similar
unchallenged evidence of his threats to intimidate Brown.
The challenged testimony was relevant and its probative value significant to
both the issues of Defendant’s knowledge of his guilt and Brown’s credibility, and
was not substantially outweighed by any undue prejudice. Defendant has failed to
demonstrate how the challenged testimony was unfairly prejudicial or how its
prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. Defendant has failed to show the
trial court abused its discretion by admitting the challenged testimony.
- 26 -
STATE V. SMITH
Opinion of the Court
VI. Conclusion
The trial court did not err in providing the jury instruction as given and
omitting the instruction requested by Defendant. Defendant has failed to
demonstrate how Brown’s challenged testimony was irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial,
or how its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value under Rules 401, 402 or
403. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rules 401, 402, 403.
Defendant has not shown any abuse of discretion from the admission of
Brown’s testimony regarding the jailhouse attack. Defendant received a fair trial,
free from prejudicial errors he preserved and argued. We find no error in the jury’s
verdict or in the judgment entered thereon. It is so ordered.
NO ERROR.
Judges BERGER and ARROWOOD concur.
- 27 -