State v. LittleÂ, 253 N.C. App. 159

Background

On 13 May 2015 a 14-year-old (Randy Garcia) had his Honda motorcycle taken at gunpoint; defendant Laquan Tirik Little was later indicted for robbery with a dangerous weapon (and initially for possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of a controlled substance in a confinement facility). At trial the firearm-by-a-felon charge was dismissed and the controlled-substance charge postponed.
Prosecution witnesses (the victim and a neighborhood witness) identified Little in court and from photographic lineups; witnesses described tattoos and the gun. Photographs from Facebook/Instagram (including images of the bike and Little holding a handgun) were used to illustrate witness testimony.
After the State rested, the trial court conducted an on-the-record colloquy with Little (outside the jury) explaining his right not to testify and warning that, if he testified, the prosecutor could cross-examine him and impeach him with prior convictions occurring within the last ten years.
The jury convicted Little of robbery with a dangerous weapon; he received 72–99 months’ imprisonment and appealed, challenging (1) the court’s colloquy about scope of cross-examination if he testified and (2) admission of social-media photographs used to illustrate testimony.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the colloquy did not impermissibly chill Little’s right to testify and that the illustrative photographs were properly admitted without the stricter authentication required for substantive evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s on-the-record admonition improperly chilled defendant’s right to testify by misstating scope of cross-examination and limiting-instruction effect	State: Court correctly explained defendant could be impeached by prior convictions and would instruct jury to consider convictions only for credibility	Little: Colloquy misadvised and intimidated him, overstated scope of permissible cross-examination and mischaracterized the limiting instruction, chilling his right to testify	Court: No reversible error — admonition accurately described impeachment by convictions within 10 years, the limiting-instruction comment was not prejudicial, and defendant had counsel to consult (Autry precedent supports harmlessness)
Whether photographs taken from Facebook/Instagram were improperly admitted without authentication	State: Photographs were shown only to illustrate witnesses’ testimony and a witness with knowledge said they would help the jury; illustrative use requires only a witness’s identification	Little: State failed to authenticate source/time/photographer for social-media images; needed stricter foundation before admission	Court: No error — photographs admitted solely for illustrative purposes were properly authenticated by witnesses with knowledge and accompanied by a limiting instruction; stricter authentication for substantive admission was not required

Key Cases Cited

State v. Call, 349 N.C. 382 (establishes broad trial-court discretion over scope of cross-examination and impeachment rules)
State v. Edmonds, 236 N.C. App. 588 (recognizes trial court’s broad discretion over cross-examination scope)
State v. Fair, 354 N.C. 131 (defendant who testifies is subject to impeachment like any other witness)
State v. Autry, 321 N.C. 392 (trial-court misstatements about testifying can be harmless where defendant consults counsel)
State v. Carroll, 356 N.C. 526 (no mandatory on-the-record waiver colloquy required concerning right not to testify)
State v. Murray, 229 N.C. App. 285 (Rule 901 authentication requirement for exhibits)
State v. Lee, 335 N.C. 244 (photograph must be authenticated by witness with knowledge to be admitted)
State v. Robinson, 355 N.C. 320 (photographs may be used to illustrate witness testimony)
State v. Thibodeaux, 341 N.C. 53 (photograph admissible to illustrate possession/control when witness identifies it)