State v. MadonnaÂ, 256 N.C. App. 112

Background

Defendant Joanna Madonna and victim Jose Perez were married; Perez died in June 2013 during an altercation with Madonna. Madonna claimed self-defense; Perez did not survive to testify.
Madonna’s trial testimony: after a dispute about divorce, Perez pointed a gun at both of them; the gun allegedly discharged, wounding Perez; a subsequent struggle occurred during which Madonna stabbed Perez multiple times and then left the scene.
State’s contrary evidence: Perez had serious health and physical impairments making use of a gun or knife unlikely; Madonna had comparatively minor injuries; Perez was shot and then stabbed approximately 12 times; Madonna disposed of bloodstained clothes and misled others about Perez’s whereabouts.
Other evidence: Internet searches on Madonna’s home computer about death, tasers, and cheap handguns; Madonna received a gun and knife from a relative earlier the same day; post-event texts (e.g., “it’s almost done”) and other steps to conceal the death.
Procedural posture: Madonna convicted by jury of first-degree murder; she appealed, raising (1) denial of motions to dismiss (insufficiency on premeditation and disproving self-defense), (2) prosecutorial misconduct in closing (mistrial / ex mero motu intervention), and (3) admission of certain witness testimony.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Madonna's Argument	Held
Sufficiency re: premeditation/deliberation	Evidence (weapons, internet searches, post-crime concealment, multiple stab wounds) supports premeditation and deliberation	Insufficient evidence of premeditation/deliberation	Court: substantial evidence supports premeditation and deliberation; denial of dismissal affirmed
Sufficiency re: self-defense	State presented substantial evidence that Madonna did not act in self-defense (victim’s frailty, extent of wounds, number of stab wounds, discrepancy in injuries)	Madonna acted in self-defense; State failed to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt	Court: State presented substantial evidence disproving self-defense; denial of dismissal affirmed
Prosecutor’s closing argument (mistrial / ex mero motu)	Arguments, though some improper, did not so infect trial as to deny due process given overwhelming evidence	Prosecutor made grossly improper, abusive comments (calling defendant a liar, name-calling, referencing promiscuity) warranting mistrial or sua sponte intervention	Court: Many statements were improper (calling witness a liar, name-calling), but not so prejudicial given the evidence; no mistrial or sua sponte intervention required
Admission of witness testimony	Admission of contested statements and letters was permissible or, if error, harmless in light of overwhelming evidence	Certain admissions (invocation of counsel, pregnancy/abortion questions, therapist statements) were improper and prejudicial	Court: Objections largely unpreserved or waived; any erroneous admissions were not prejudicial given the weight of the evidence; no reversible error

Key Cases Cited

State v. Barnett, 368 N.C. 710 (standard for de novo review of dismissal for insufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Vause, 328 N.C. 231 (elements of first-degree murder include malice, premeditation, and deliberation)
State v. Robbins, 275 N.C. 537 (definition of premeditation)
State v. Buffkin, 209 N.C. 117 (definition of deliberation; jury determines deliberation from circumstances)
State v. Hamlet, 312 N.C. 162 (factors relevant to premeditation and deliberation)
State v. Presson, 229 N.C. App. 325 (test on motion to dismiss when defendant asserts self-defense)
State v. Sexton, 336 N.C. 321 (prosecutor may not assert a witness is lying; limits on arguing personal belief)
State v. Solomon, 340 N.C. 212 (credibility is for the jury to decide)