State v. HicksÂ, 243 N.C. App. 628

Background

In Oct. 2012 officers investigating tips about meth use at Jennifer McCoury’s home found signs of a meth lab and saw, in plain view at defendant Eric Hicks’s residence, multiple plastic bottles with drilled holes and a white granular residue consistent with HCl generators used in the “one pot” meth method. Hicks answered, consented to an initial walkthrough, denied knowledge of the bottles, and was later arrested.
Officers obtained a search warrant; the warrant application requested authority to destroy hazardous materials after documentation, but the issued warrant did not include a destruction order. SBI agents later tested bottles for acidity, neutralized them, and ultimately destroyed the items (date unclear).
Hicks moved (Nov. 2012) for preservation of evidence; the trial court entered a preservation order in late Nov./Dec. 2012, but the court found the bottles had been destroyed before that order became effective.
Indictment charged Hicks with manufacturing meth, maintaining a dwelling for controlled substances, and possession of an immediate precursor; during trial a plea deal providing an Alford plea was presented but the judge refused to accept an Alford plea. Hicks pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial.
Jury convicted Hicks of manufacturing methamphetamine and maintaining a dwelling for controlled substances; the trial court denied Hicks’s motions for discovery sanctions (for destroyed evidence) and other challenges, and sentenced Hicks to consolidated prison term. Hicks appealed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Hicks's Argument	Held
1. Whether the trial court erred in denying discovery sanctions for destruction of seized evidence.	State argued SBI acted in good faith believing a destruction order existed and destruction addressed safety concerns; no bad faith.	Hicks argued destruction violated due process and a preservation order, requiring sanctions.	Court held no abuse of discretion: record supports finding of law‑enforcement good faith; Hicks did not show bad faith.
2. Whether NPLEx report (pseudoephedrine purchase log) and Officer Lee’s testimony were improperly admitted hearsay.	State argued Officer Lee was familiar with NPLEx and laid a sufficient business‑records foundation for admissibility.	Hicks argued the report required authentication by the database custodian and was hearsay.	Court held admissible as business record (sufficient foundation); even if error, admission was harmless.
3. Whether denying Hicks’s motion to continue after the court rejected his Alford plea violated his statutory right to a continuance.	State argued Hicks waived any continuance right by consenting to arraignment and proceeding to trial and by failing to seek continuance in apt time.	Hicks argued statute grants an absolute right to a continuance after plea rejection.	Court held statute grants the right but Hicks waived it by expressly consenting to proceed and failing to timely assert the right.

Key Cases Cited

Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (bad‑faith required to show due‑process violation when police fail to preserve potentially useful evidence)
State v. Shedd, 117 N.C. App. 122 (trial court’s discovery‑sanctions rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Moore, 152 N.C. App. 156 (definition of abuse of discretion)
State v. Springer, 283 N.C. 627 (foundation for admitting computerized business records)
State v. Sneed, 210 N.C. App. 622 (user of criminal database may lay foundation for business‑records admission)
State v. Crawley, 217 N.C. App. 509 (authentication of computerized records may be by circumstantial evidence)
State v. Williams, 362 N.C. 628 (de novo review explained)
State v. Gaiten, 277 N.C. 236 (statutory/constitutional rights may be waived by failure to assert or conduct inconsistent with insisting on them)
State v. Tyndall, 55 N.C. App. 57 (statute grants defendant continuance until next session when plea arrangement is rejected)
State v. Allen, 127 N.C. App. 182 (erroneous hearsay admission requires defendant to show prejudice)