State v. Boyd
207 N.C. App. 632
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- May 1, 1998: T.S., UNCC student, home invasion rape; DNA from defendant matched and linked him to the assaults.
- May 14, 1998: J.J., UNCC student, assaulted; DNA evidence linked defendant; J.J. testified she did not know defendant.
- June 2007–August 2009: multiple indictments for J.J. and T.S. offenses; charges joined for trial.
- Pretrial: defendant moved to suppress DNA evidence; DNA sample taken in Ohio with consent form signed; court denied suppression.
- During trial: juror one submitted a note seeking a DVD and commented on defendant’s accent; court conducted inquiry but denied motion to replace juror.
- Sentencing: State argued prior record level III; disputes over Ohio convictions and a post-sentencing trafficking conviction; judgment later remanded for new sentencing due to improper prior record calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of DNA consent | State contends consent was voluntary; no deception. | Boyd claims consent was involuntary due to concealment of charges. | Consent voluntary; suppression denied. |
| Denial of replacing juror | Court properly investigated and exercised discretion; no misconduct. | Juror should have been replaced due to potential prejudice. | No abuse of discretion; juror not replaced. |
| Prior record level calculation | Worksheet and in-court statements sufficient to prove convictions. | Convictions not proven by proper records; errors require new sentencing. | Remand for new sentencing due to improper proof of convictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barkley, 144 N.C.App. 514 (2009) (DNA consent voluntariness analyzed; consent valid despite limited disclosure)
- State v. Drake, 31 N.C.App. 187 (1976) (Juror misconduct inquiry; abuse of discretion standard for replacement)
- State v. Jeffery, 167 N.C.App. 575 (2004) (Prior record proof requirements; unverified worksheet insufficient)
- State v. Mack, 188 N.C.App. 365 (2008) (Catchall provision cannot substitute for proof of prior convictions)
- State v. Riley, 159 N.C.App. 546 (2003) (Need for reliable proof of prior convictions beyond worksheet)