State v. Hembree, 368 N.C. 2

Background

Defendant Danny Robbie Hembree, Jr. was tried capitally for the 2009 murder of Heather Catterton; jury convicted and recommended death after finding two statutory aggravators and multiple mitigators. Conviction and sentence appealed.
Hembree gave multiple recorded confessions (Dec. 5, 2009) admitting to killing Catterton and Randi Saldana; he later recanted and testified at trial that some confessions were fabricated to gain leverage on robbery charges.
Catterton’s cause of death was forensically undetermined (defense experts testified cocaine toxicity was most probable); Saldana’s autopsy showed strangulation and included graphic burned-body photographs.
The trial court denied consolidation of the Catterton and Saldana prosecutions but admitted extensive Rule 404(b) evidence about Saldana to show common plan/scheme; the State presented numerous witnesses and many autopsy/scene photos of Saldana.
Trial errors identified on appeal: (1) admission of excessive 404(b) evidence (including many photos) about Saldana; (2) admission of Saldana’s sister’s testimony about Saldana’s good character; (3) prosecutor’s closing remarks implying defense counsel suborned perjury. The majority found cumulative prejudice and ordered a new trial.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Saldana evidence under Rule 404(b)	Evidence of Saldana shows common plan, scheme, system or design (similar victims, storage in basement closet, disposal in York County).	404(b) evidence was more inflammatory than probative; differences between deaths (burning, autopsy results) made evidence unfairly prejudicial.	404(b) admission proper on plan/scheme ground, but trial court abused discretion under Rule 403 by admitting an excessive amount (especially gruesome photos) that risked inflaming/confusing jury.
Admission of Saldana sister’s character testimony	Testimony was marginally relevant or harmless given other evidence.	Irrelevant to Catterton murder; probative value nil and prejudicial; should be excluded under Rules 401/403.	Error to admit testimony about Saldana’s good character; it lacked relevance to Catterton charge and was prejudicial.
Prosecutor comments suggesting defense counsel suborned perjury	Closing argument within wide latitude; accused defendant (not counsel) of manipulation; comments permissible inference.	Statements imputed improper conduct (suborning perjury) to defense counsel without evidence and were grossly improper.	Prosecutor’s argument implying defense counsel engineered lies was grossly improper; trial court should have intervened sua sponte.
Cumulative-prejudice standard and relief	Alleged individual errors harmless in context of strong confession evidence.	Combined errors deprived defendant of fair trial; new trial required.	Cumulative effect of the three errors denied fair trial; conviction and death sentence vacated and remanded for new trial.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Canady, 355 N.C. 242 (N.C. 2002) (cumulative-error analysis can require new trial)
State v. Beckelheimer, 366 N.C. 127 (N.C. 2012) (standards for reviewing 404(b) and 403 rulings)
State v. Al-Bayyinah, 356 N.C. 150 (N.C. 2002) (404(b) is broadly inclusive but requires strict scrutiny)
Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1948) (danger that other-crimes evidence invites decision on character)
Flowers v. State, 773 So. 2d 309 (Miss. 2000) (reversal where prosecution used extensive 404(b) evidence of other murders to inflame jury)
State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279 (N.C. 1988) (discusses limits on gruesome or cumulative photographic evidence)
State v. Robinson, 327 N.C. 346 (N.C. 1990) (deference to trial court on number of autopsy/scene photos when each is illustrative)