State v. Blackmon
208 N.C. App. 397
N.C. Ct. App.2010Background
- Defendant Blackmon was charged with felonious breaking and entering, larceny after breaking and entering, and being an habitual felon for June 13, 2008 burglary at Sonya Sullivan’s home.
- Sullivan found her home burglarized; valuables including computer equipment and a camcorder were missing; the scene showed broken glass and displaced meter equipment.
- AFIS-quality fingerprint found on the outside computer tower matched Blackmon’s left ring finger; Sullivan testified she never met Blackmon.
- Blackmon testified he walked to a nearby Food Lion and that the computer fingerprint was from handling the computer earlier or discarded property he encountered.
- At trial, the jury acquitted on breaking and entering (mistrial for that count), but convicted on felonious larceny and habitual felon; restitution was ordered.
- Defendant appealed asserting denial of motion to dismiss, ineffective assistance of counsel, and inconsistencies in verdicts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant waived appellate review on the motion to dismiss | State urged Rule 10 waiver applies | Blackmon preserved issue by motion to dismiss at State’s close | Waived under Rule 10(a)(3) |
| Whether counsel’s failure to renew the motion to dismiss was ineffective assistance | Ineffective assistance because failure to renew affected outcome | Counsel’s renewal would not have changed result | No ineffective assistance; result unchanged |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict on identity and larceny after breaking and entering | Fingerprint match plus circumstantial evidence established identity and possessory elements | Evidence insufficient to prove identity beyond reasonable doubt | Sufficient evidence supported guilt on both elements |
| Whether inconsistent verdicts required reversal or a new trial | Inconsistent verdicts permissible if evidence supports each conviction | Verdicts mutually exclusive; should grant JNOV | Inconsistency not mutual exclusivity; no error in denying JNOV |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stocks, 319 N.C. 437, 355 S.E.2d 492 (1987) (Rule 10 controls appellate review; some errors reviewable nonobjectively)
- State v. Cross, 345 N.C. 713, 483 S.E.2d 432 (1997) (Substantial evidence standard for motion to dismiss)
- State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 265 S.E.2d 164 (1980) (Evidence may be sufficient if reasonable mind accepts evidence)
- State v. Mumford, 364 N.C. 394, 699 S.E.2d 911 (2010) (Inconsistent verdicts; distinction between merely inconsistent and mutually exclusive)
- State v. Toole, 106 N.C. 564, 11 S.E. 168 (1890) (Foundational rule that each count is a separate indictment; verdicts may be inconsistent)
- State v. Williams, 95 N.C.App. 627, 383 S.E.2d 456 (1989) (Circumstantial evidence can support guilt in fingerprints context)