State v. JohnsonÂ, 251 N.C. App. 260

On 23 Aug 2013 Anthony Sutton was shot multiple times outside his apartment; he was hospitalized and surgically treated for serious injuries.
Police stopped a vehicle leaving the scene containing Defendant Juston Johnson, the victim’s estranged wife, and Dwayne Robinson; officers found firearms, walkie-talkies, handcuffs, and multiple bulletproof vests; a vest was on the front passenger floor where Johnson had been seated.
Forensic evidence: pants worn by Defendant were later tested and stained with the victim’s blood; DNA and clothing were submitted to the SBI lab on 14 Nov 2013 but testing was not completed until May 2015 due to a Crime Lab backlog.
Defendant was arrested the night of the shooting, initially charged, detained on a high bond, and remained in custody for nearly 28 months before trial.
Procedural posture: Superseding indictment (Oct 2015) charged attempted first-degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury (acting in concert theory), and a bulletproof-vest enhancement; Defendant moved to dismiss for violation of the speedy-trial right and for insufficient evidence; the trial court denied the motions and the jury convicted; Defendant appealed.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the delay (≈28 months) violated Defendant’s Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right	Delay largely resulted from neutral causes (SBI Crime Lab backlog); some delay attributable to defense/counsel; Defendant did not timely assert his right	Long pretrial incarceration and delayed testing at the Crime Lab violated his right to a speedy trial	Denied — no speedy-trial violation (Barker factors weighed against dismissal)
Sufficiency of evidence for assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury (acting in concert)	Evidence supported concert liability: Defendant brought/possessed weapons, vests, walkie-talkies; aided in restraining/searching the victim; victim’s blood on Defendant’s pants	Defendant argued insufficient proof he was a perpetrator or present to assist during the shooting	Denied — evidence (direct and circumstantial) was sufficient to allow jury to infer concert participation
Sufficiency of evidence for bulletproof-vest enhancement	Vest was observed at scene/vehicle and one was on the front passenger floor where Defendant had been sitting; victim noted attackers wore vests; Defendant punched a padded chest	Defendant disputed that he wore or had immediate possession of a vest during the assault	Denied — sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer Defendant wore or had immediate possession of a bulletproof vest

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (established four-factor speedy-trial test)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (one-year delay marks point to trigger Barker inquiry)
State v. Grooms, 353 N.C. 50 (adoption of Barker factors under North Carolina law)
State v. Spivey, 357 N.C. 114 (burden-shifting when defendant makes prima facie showing of prosecutorial neglect)
State v. Hughes, 54 N.C. App. 117 (delay claim requires showing prejudice; docket congestion as a neutral justification)
State v. Hammonds, 141 N.C. App. 152 (court recognized docket/congestion/backlog as valid justification)
State v. Mann, 355 N.C. 294 (acting-in-concert/principal liability principles)
State v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373 (standard for denial of motion to dismiss premised on substantial evidence)