243 N.C. App. 394
N.C. Ct. App.2015Background
- Two murder cases against Carvalho: Kastansis killed April 28, 2000 at Avondale Grocery; Long killed earlier, with indictments for both on January 3, 2005.
- Indictment and later non-capital trials; multiple mistrials for Long murder due to hung juries, and eventual trial sequence for Kastansis in 2013–2014.
- Key State witness Anderson testified at first Kastansis trial but invoked Fifth Amendment at the second Long trial; audiotape of Anderson-Defendant conversation was clarified by forensic experts.
- SBI, FBI, and Target Forensic collaborated to clarify the inaudible portions of the audiotape; transcripts and notes were prepared.
- Speedy-trial motion filed December 3, 2012 alleging violation due to lengthy pretrial delay; trial court ruled delay did not violate Barker factors.
- Defendant convicted by jury of first-degree murder and robbery with a firearm for Kastansis; judgment arrested on robbery conviction; life sentence without parole for Kastansis conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy trial violation under Barker v. Wingo | Carvalho | Carvalho | Speedy-trial rights not violated; factors not met |
| Admission of audiotape/transcript under Rule 404(b) and 403 | State | Audiotape irrelevant and prejudicial | Admissible under 404(b) for credibility and context; not abuse of discretion under 403 |
| Propriety of State closing arguments given challenged evidence | State | Closing improper | Not grossly improper; no new trial warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barker, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (balancing factors for speedy-trial claims (Barker))
- Flowers v. Bowersox, 347 N.C. 1 (1997) (presumptive prejudice and Barker analysis)
- McKoy v. North Carolina, 294 N.C. 134 (1978) (speedy-trial prejudice and balancing factors)
- Webster v. State, 337 N.C. 674 (1994) (delay requires Barker analysis when presumptively prejudicial)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (standard for prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments)
- Beckelheimer v. State, 366 N.C. 127 (2012) (distinct Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 analysis; abuse-of-discretion review)
- White v. State, 340 N.C. 264 (1995) (context/relationship evidence admissible under 404(b) where necessary to credibility)
- Cashwell v. State, 322 N.C. 574 (1988) (irrelevance of certain 404(b) evidence; need for proper purpose)
- Coffey v. State, 326 N.C. 268 (1990) (404(b) rule is inclusionary; admissible for purposes beyond character)
- Lyons v. State, 340 N.C. 646 (1995) (propensity evidence not sole basis for admissibility)
- Stokes v. State, 357 N.C. 220 (2003) (limiting instructions and closing argument considerations)