State v. Hurt
235 N.C. App. 174
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Case involves defendant Hurt appealing a maximum aggravated sentence for second-degree murder following remand from the NC Supreme Court; prior plea and codefendant Parlier are implicated in the Cook murder (1999); DNA and blood evidence linked Hurt to the crime scene and victim; jury found the aggravator that the offense was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; trial court denied motions on suppression, subpoena, and mitigation evidence; Supreme Court previously held confrontation rights were not violated on remand; sentence imposed in aggravated range (276–341 months) after weighing statutory and non-statutory factors.
- Evidence showed Hurt participated with Parlier in beating and stabbing Cook, with Hurt’s blood on clothing and a cigarette butt with Hurt’s DNA; DNA analysis tied items to Cook; murder occurred after Hurt drove to/from scene and to girlfriend’s house.
- Mistrial occurred due to juror misconduct; remand for resentencing included consideration of aggravators with Blakely implications clarified by NC Supreme Court.
- At mitigation, trial court found three statutory mitigating factors and weighed aggravator against them; court declined to find non-statutory mitigators and imposed aggravated sentence.
- This opinion addresses four preserved issues on remand: sufficiency of evidence for aggravator, quashing a subpoena, admissibility of SBI testimony on DNA match percentages, and denial of admitting a mitigation notebook; court affirms the sentence as fair and free from prejudicial error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravating factor | Hurt argues the State failed to show his active participation. | Hurt contends no direct participation was proven. | Evidence, viewed in State’s favor, supports aggravator submission. |
| Quashing of subpoena of former prosecutor | State relied on lack of compelling need for live testimony. | Parker’s statements were necessary to elicit admissions. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; substitute means available for admissions. |
| Admission of SBI DNA testimony on general match rates | DNA testimony relevant to weight of evidence. | Testimony was irrelevant/unduly prejudicial. | No prejudicial error; testimony was preliminary and not binding on outcome. |
| Refusal to admit Defendant’s mitigation notebook | Notebook contained corroborative mitigation materials. | Notebook essential to mitigation case. | Trial court did not abuse; live testimony permitted and notebook partially admitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brewington, 352 N.C. 489 (2000) (presence at scene not required for aggravator; weight appropriate)
- State v. Butler, 356 N.C. 141 (2002) (lack of participation does not preclude aggravator submission)
- State v. Demery, 113 N.C. App. 58 (1993) (circumstantial evidence can establish perpetrator status)
- State v. Mabry, 217 N.C. App. 465 (2011) (sentencing discretion; evidentiary standards in mitigation)
- State v. Reed, 93 N.C. App. 119 (1989) (reliability of hearsay in sentencing; credibility concerns)
- Jones v. Durham Anesthesia Assocs., P.A., 185 N.C. App. 504 (2007) (judicial admissions vs. statements at plea)