246 N.C. App. 121
N.C. Ct. App.2016Background
- Givens and the victim Gist became acquainted in fall 2014 while staying at Schameka Earl’s home; tensions later arose between Gist and both Earl and Givens.
- On 6 December 2013, the day of Gist’s murder, Earl, Givens, and Tonya McCaster were at Earl’s house; McCaster testified Givens stated he was going to murder Gist.
- Near Queens Mini Mart surveillance footage captured Givens at the scene; video showed Gist unarmed, walking away, and Givens shooting him multiple times.
- Forensic evidence showed Gist died from gunshot wounds to head and chest; no weapon was found on Gist; a crack pipe was found on Gist’s clothing.
- Defendant pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon; trial proceeded on murder charges with defense asserting self-defense and requesting a Harbison inquiry.
- At trial, defense opened by claiming the evidence would show the shooting was justified; the court denied self-defense instruction and gave first- and second-degree murder instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Promised evidence and ineffective assistance | Givens contends counsel’s opening-statement promise to show justification was unfulfillable and ineffective. | Givens argues counsel’s performance was deficient for not delivering justification evidence promised to the jury. | No deficient performance; record shows defense delivered evidence and no prejudice proven. |
| Prejudice under Strickland standard | State argues overwhelming evidence supported guilt beyond a reasonable doubt regardless of concessions. | Givens argues that the promised defense could have altered the outcome if not fulfilled. | Prejudice not shown; overwhelming independent evidence supported first-degree murder verdict. |
| Harbison inquiry sufficiency | State asserts proper Harbison inquiry confirmed defendant knowingly consented to concessions. | Givens contends the Harbison process failed to establish informed consent or undermine coercion. | Harbison inquiry adequate; defendant knowingly consented to concessions. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompson, 359 N.C. 77 (2004) (ineffective-assistance standard on direct review permits merits-based decision)
- State v. Fair, 354 N.C. 131 (2001) (establishes standard for evaluating ineffective assistance claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (deficiency plus prejudice framework for ineffective assistance)
- State v. Allen, 360 N.C. 297 (2006) (strong presumption of reasonable professional assistance)
- State v. Harbison, 315 N.C. 175 (1985) (Harbison inquiry to ensure knowing and voluntary guilty plea)
- Moorman v. State, 320 N.C. 387 (1987) (promised defense and other failures examined for prejudicial impact)
- Anderson v. Butler, 858 F.2d 16 (1988) (bright-line rule rejected; rule is fact-specific for prejudice)
- Turner v. Williams, 35 F.3d 872 (1994) (rejects bright-line rule; emphasizes assessing strategy changes)
- United States v. McGill, 11 F.3d 223 (1993) (supports fact-specific evaluation of ineffective assistance)
- O’Dell v. Netherland, 95 F.3d 1214 (1996) (meaning of strategy changes in trial amid counsel decisions)
- State v. Mason, 337 N.C. 167 (1994) (rejects bright-line opening-remarks rule; favors case-by-case analysis)