State v. CurryÂ
256 N.C. App. 86
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Reuben Curry was tried for first-degree murder (Feb 25, 2013 death of Ronny Steele) and convicted; sentenced to life without parole.
- Shortly before opening, Curry told counsel three facts he wanted conceded (present at scene; had/fired a gun; part of attempted robbery), then retracted and agreed counsel should not include them in opening.
- Counsel, having represented Curry for years, told the court he no longer believed the client and that the client’s shifting statements created a “personal conflict” and ethical concerns; he contacted State Bar ethics counsel and moved to withdraw during trial.
- Trial court denied the motion to withdraw; counsel continued, gave an opening inconsistent with the client’s earlier admissions, and cross-examined key witness Tarod Ratlif but did not re-question him a third time about who fired the fatal shot.
- Jury asked during deliberations whether a killing by co-participant Brandon Thompson would satisfy the second element; court instructed jury a killing must be by the defendant or by someone acting in concert with him; Curry was convicted on theories including felony murder and lying in wait.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Curry) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying counsel’s motion to withdraw | Trial court’s denial was proper; withdrawal not required absent good cause | Counsel’s inability to believe client and ethical concerns required withdrawal | Denial was not an abuse of discretion; court acted reasonably |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to articulate an impasse on the record | No prejudice; no actual conflict or tactical disagreement requiring client control | Counsel failed to articulate a specific impasse, so client’s wishes should have controlled | No impasse existed; counsel’s conduct not professionally deficient; IAC claim denied |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not further cross-examining Ratlif about who shot Steele | Cross supported defense theory that someone else (Thompson) may have shot Steele; jury was instructed on concert liability | Additional questioning would have better supported alternative-shooter theory and prejudiced outcome | No prejudice shown; jury considered alternative-shooter issue and received proper instruction; IAC claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. State, 103 N.C. App. 87 (discretionary standard for counsel withdrawal)
- Hennis v. State, 323 N.C. 279 (abuse of discretion definition)
- Thomas v. State, 350 N.C. 315 (prejudice requirement from denial of withdrawal tied to IAC)
- Mills v. State, 205 N.C. App. 577 (IAC normally raised post-conviction; direct review allowed when record is complete)
- Braswell v. State, 312 N.C. 553 (adopting Strickland standard under NC Constitution)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong deficient performance and prejudice test)
- Wilkinson v. State, 344 N.C. 198 (no impasse where no conflict between defendant and counsel)
- McCarver v. State, 341 N.C. 364 (no impasse when defendant fails to complain about counsel’s tactics)
- Bonner v. State, 330 N.C. 536 (jury instruction principles regarding alternative perpetrator/concert liability)
- Oxendine v. State, 187 N.C. 658 (principles concerning responsibility for killing by co-participant)