State v. Gregory, 23A24

Defendant Kendrick Gregory was on trial in North Carolina for serious crimes committed during an untreated period of schizoaffective disorder.
The sole trial issue was whether Gregory’s mental illness rendered him legally insane and thus not criminally liable.
Gregory had a long, well-documented history of severe mental illness and prior psychiatric hospitalizations.
The State and defense presented conflicting expert psychiatric testimony as to Gregory’s legal sanity at the time of the offenses; Dr. Wolfe was the State’s only witness supporting sanity.
At trial, the defense sought to cross-examine Dr. Wolfe regarding her prior testimony at a Sell hearing (concerning Gregory’s need for forced medication to be competent to stand trial) but was limited by the court.
The trial court’s restriction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, with a dissent arguing that the limitation violated Gregory’s constitutional right to confront witnesses.

Issue	Gregory’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Scope of cross-examination	Limiting cross on Dr. Wolfe’s prior Sell hearing testimony (and purpose) deprived him of fair trial rights	Limitation proper to avoid undue prejudice/confusion; prior proceeding’s purpose not relevant to current issues	Affirmed conviction, holding no error in restricting cross-examination
Violation of Confrontation Clause	Right to challenge credibility and motives of a key state expert was infringed	Exclusion was justified under Rule 403 due to risk of jury prejudice	Majority found no constitutional violation; dissent would reverse
Inconsistency in expert testimony	Dr. Wolfe’s differing opinions (in Sell vs. trial) should be fully explored for jury credibility assessment	Changes in opinion based on new records; reasons for Sell hearing purpose not relevant to guilt/insanity	Affirmed exclusion; jury need not know Sell purpose
Prejudicial effect vs. probative value	Probative value of purpose behind Sell hearing outweighed possible prejudice	State argued prejudice (jury would improperly view forced medication) outweighed value	Affirmed exclusion as within discretion of trial court

State v. Legette, 292 N.C. 44 (cross-examination limits can violate Confrontation Clause)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (cross-examination to show witness bias is constitutionally protected)
State v. Jones, 293 N.C. 413 (articulates North Carolina’s legal insanity standard)
State v. Bundridge, 294 N.C. 45 (broad admissibility for evidence on mental condition in insanity pleas)
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (jury’s assessment of witness credibility is paramount to fair trial)