State v. Blake, 853 S.E.2d 838

On Dec. 30, 2016, an altercation at a party in Rowan County culminated in Altereck Shields’s death; defendant Jermain Blake was indicted for second-degree murder (later convicted of voluntary manslaughter).
At trial the jury was instructed on second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and not guilty (beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard).
The jury returned a unanimous verdict of voluntary manslaughter; during polling each juror affirmed the verdict.
After discharge but before entry of judgment, the trial judge met privately with jurors and recorded on the record that a majority told her they did not believe most State witnesses and convicted because “someone — that man died, so someone needs to go to prison.”
Defense moved to set aside the verdict; trial court denied the motion. Defendant filed a timely Motion for Appropriate Relief (MAR), which was denied by the trial court; the order also attempted to preemptively bar future MARs.
The Court of Appeals held the jurors’ statements established structural error (jury convicted on a standard less than beyond a reasonable doubt), vacated the conviction, and vacated the MAR order (including the preemptive bar); remanded for a new trial.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jurors’ post‑verdict statements (majority said they were not convinced but convicted because “someone needs to go to prison”) constituted structural error	Polling showed jurors affirmed verdict; any off‑record matters are not preserved; not one of the traditionally enumerated structural‑error categories	Jurors disregarded the reasonable‑doubt instruction and convicted on a lesser standard, infecting the trial and requiring automatic reversal	Court: Structural error — jury disregarded beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt instruction; new trial required
Whether defendant’s absence/consent for post‑verdict chambers proceedings deprived him of the right to be present	Argued premature or not dispositive given the record	Claimed right to be present at all stages was violated	Court: Did not decide because new trial is ordered; issue not reached
Whether the trial court properly denied MAR and properly imposed a preemptive bar on future MARs	Argued the MAR denial is not ripe for review / did not justify vacatur	Argued MAR denial was erroneous and trial court lacked authority to preemptively bar future MAR filings	Court: Vacated the MAR order; trial court lacked authority to impose a preemptive gatekeeping bar on future MARs

Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (a jury verdict must reflect finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; deficient reasonable‑doubt instruction is structural error)
State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382 (discusses structural error doctrine and reversible‑per‑se rule in North Carolina)
State v. Polke, 361 N.C. 65 (cataloguing instances of structural error recognized by courts)
State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506 (harmless‑error standards and burden on the State for constitutional errors)
State v. Coleman, 161 N.C. App. 224 (juror misconduct inquiry and limits on when trial court must investigate jury communications)
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (example of structural error: complete deprivation of counsel)
Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (example of structural error: denial of a public trial)