State v. ChapmanÂ, 244 N.C. App. 699

Background

On April 14, 2013, a masked man with a black hoodie and blue bandana robbed a convenience store at gunpoint; clerk Adkins described the robber as a Caucasian about six feet tall and said a black-and-silver firearm was used.
An off-duty deputy (Deputy Gross) observed a man running from the store and followed a teal Nissan Maxima, noting its plate and that the vehicle appeared to contain a female driver and male passenger.
Officers located the Maxima at a residence; a black hoodie was found in the car, the hood was warm, and officers encountered Stephanie Thibault at the door while Thomas Chapman hid behind it.
A search of Thibault’s bedroom uncovered jeans, a blue bandana, a Colt Defender CO2 air pistol, and Chapman’s wallet/ID; Chapman had cash on his person. Detective Cranford rendered the air pistol safe and recorded a test-fire video.
Both defendants were indicted for robbery with a dangerous weapon, tried together, convicted by a jury, and sentenced to prison terms (Chapman: 73–100 months; Thibault: 64–89 months).

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Admissibility of owner’s manual statements read by detective	Manual statements explained detective’s conduct in performing a test fire and were non-hearsay	Statements were hearsay and violated Confrontation Clause	Court: statements were non-hearsay (offered to explain conduct); admissible; no plain error
Jury request to review witness transcript during deliberations	Trial court properly provided available statement and jurors must recall testimony; denial harmless because other evidence corroborated witness	Trial court failed to exercise discretion by saying transcript wasn’t available, requiring new trial	Court: trial court erred by not exercising discretion, but error was not prejudicial given corroborating evidence; no new trial
Sufficiency of evidence to deny Thibault’s motion to dismiss (aider/abettor)	Evidence (Thibault in car that night, items in bedroom, Chapman hiding, cash on Chapman) supported jury inference of concerted activity	On appeal Thibault argued insufficient proof she knowingly aided/abetted (different theory than at trial)	Court: appellate argument not preserved (different ground at trial); issue not reached
Admissibility of videotape test fire and warning label from manual	Video and manual warning properly admitted to show weapon capabilities and to explain detective’s handling of test; differences in cartridge pressure go to weight, not admissibility	Video unreliable because test used a fresh CO2 cartridge; warning label hearsay and violated Confrontation Clause	Court: video admissible (substantial similarity; differences for jury to weigh); warning-label objection on different ground at trial so appellate Confrontation/hearsay claim waived

Key Cases Cited

State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506 (discusses plain-error standard and prejudice)
State v. Braxton, 352 N.C. 158 (defining hearsay and nonhearsay uses)
State v. Canady, 355 N.C. 242 (statements explaining subsequent conduct are nonhearsay)
State v. Johnson, 346 N.C. 119 (trial court must exercise discretion on jury requests to review testimony)
State v. Starr, 365 N.C. 314 (prejudice analysis where jury-request denial not exercised; corroborating witnesses can negate prejudice)
State v. Locklear, 349 N.C. 118 (experimental evidence admissible if carried out under substantially similar circumstances)
State v. Hall, 165 N.C. App. 658 (BB/pellet gun can be a dangerous weapon where capable of penetrating/ denting plywood at close range)
State v. Westall, 116 N.C. App. 534 (similar holding on pellet gun dangerousness)