State v. GulletteÂ, 252 N.C. App. 39

On April 8, 2014 Officer Charlie Davis (undercover) bought heroin from Mario Gullette and spent several minutes in close proximity to him during the sale.
The next day an officer showed Davis a single photograph of Gullette; Davis confirmed it depicted the person who sold him the drugs and later identified Gullette at trial.
Gullette was indicted for trafficking in heroin (Oct. 2014) and later for habitual felon status; trial occurred January 18, 2016.
Gullette moved pretrial to suppress both in-court and out-of-court identification evidence, arguing the photographic show-up violated the Eyewitness Identification Reform Act (EIRA).
The trial court denied the suppression motion, ruling the version of EIRA in effect at the time of the show-up did not apply; Gullette did not object at trial when Davis testified or when the photo was admitted.
Jury convicted Gullette of trafficking; he pled guilty to habitual felon; sentence imposed and appeal followed, raising only the suppressed-identification claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Gullette)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying suppression of in-court and out-of-court identification under the Eyewitness Identification Reform Act	EIRA as enacted at the time (pre-amendment) did not cover a single-photo show-up; later amendment (effective Dec. 1, 2015) expressly applies only prospectively	EIRA’s protections should be applied equitably despite timing; the trial court should apply the amended statute and suppress identifications	Court held the issue was not preserved for appellate review because Gullette failed to object contemporaneously at trial; therefore the appellate court did not reach the merits and found no reversible error

State v. Oglesby, 361 N.C. 550 (addresses preservation of suppression issues and need to renew objections at trial)
State v. Ray, 364 N.C. 272 (contemporaneous objections required for admission of testimony at trial)
State v. Ashe, 314 N.C. 28 (statutory mandates can preserve appellate review despite failure to object)
State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506 (preservation and plain-error rules in criminal appeals)
State v. Joyner, 777 S.E.2d 332 (failure to raise plain error in brief waives that review)