State v. HuntÂ, 250 N.C. App. 238

Background

Defendant C.D. Hunt was indicted for burning an office/utility building at Lynnhaven Apartments (G.S. § 14‑62) after a May 30, 2013 fire; jury found him guilty and the trial court sentenced him to probation and ordered $5,000 restitution.
Surveillance video showed a dark four‑door sedan leaving the lot at high speed just before an explosion; witnesses reported smelling gasoline.
Fire investigator (Investigator Gullie) testified he observed multiple points of origin, rapid burning, and an odor of a flammable liquid and opined an accelerant was used; he was not tendered or admitted as an expert.
Defense produced alibi testimony from defendant’s grandmother saying he stayed with her that night.
On appeal defendant challenged (I) sufficiency of the indictment, (II) admission of non‑expert opinion about cause of fire (claimed Daubert gatekeeping error), (III) ineffective assistance for failure to object/renew motion to dismiss, and (IV) restitution amount.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
I. Indictment sufficiency (G.S. § 14‑62)	State: indictment in words substantially equivalent to statute is sufficient	Hunt: indictment alleged “willfully” but not “wantonly,” so fatally defective	Indictment sufficient; “willfully” and “wantonly” are substantially equivalent; no jurisdictional defect
II. Admission of fire‑cause opinion (gatekeeping/Daubert)	State: investigator’s observations admissible; trial court within discretion; other evidence supported incendiary origin	Hunt: trial court failed to apply Daubert/Rule 702 gatekeeping to admit non‑expert opinion; plain error	No plain error. Even if gatekeeping was not performed, other unchallenged evidence (video, witness smell of gasoline, officer testimony) negated any probable impact on verdict
III. Ineffective assistance of counsel	State: counsel’s choices were strategic and reasonable given identity was central defense; no prejudice	Hunt: counsel erred by not objecting to investigator’s testimony and by not renewing motion to dismiss after all evidence	Denied. Strategic decision not to object was reasonable; motion to dismiss would have failed because evidence (including surveillance and witness statements) created conflicts for the jury; no prejudice shown
IV. Restitution amount ($5,000)	State: prosecutor told court $5,000 was insurer’s deductible for Lynnhaven	Hunt: no admissible evidence supported the $5,000 figure	Restitution vacated and remanded. Unsigned prosecutor statement/worksheet insufficient; amount must be supported by testimony or documentation at sentencing

Key Cases Cited

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (trial judge must ensure proffered scientific testimony is relevant and reliable)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert gatekeeping applies to technical/experience‑based expert testimony; trial court has gatekeeping discretion)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. McGrady, 368 N.C. 880 (North Carolina’s Rule 702 mirrors amended federal Rule 702 and incorporates Daubert principles)
State v. Moore, 365 N.C. 283 (restitution awards must be supported by evidence at trial or sentencing)
State v. McNeil, 209 N.C. App. 654 (unsworn prosecutor statements and unsupported worksheets cannot support restitution)