State v. May, 368 N.C. 112

Background

Defendant Floyd May was tried for multiple sexual offenses against his granddaughter T.M., who testified to three incidents in 2011 (bedroom, playhouse, swimming pool). Medical exams showed no definitive physical injury.
After jury deliberations began on 19 April 2012, jurors reported being deadlocked twice (note at 2:24 p.m.; later at 3:00 p.m. stating 10-2).
The trial judge reinstructed the full jury twice, using language echoing N.C.G.S. § 15A-1235(b), then asked them to deliberate another 30 minutes; the jury returned a guilty verdict on one count and deadlocked on the others.
Defense counsel did not object at trial to the reinstructions; after verdict the court declared mistrial as to deadlocked counts and sentenced defendant on the convicted count.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the 3:00 p.m. instruction violated N.C.G.S. § 15A-1235(c) and unconstitutionally coerced the jury, and required the State to prove harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt.
The State appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court, which considered whether the alleged instructional error was preserved and the correct standard of review (plain error vs. per se preservation), and whether plain error occurred.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	May's Argument	Held
Whether failure to object to allegedly coercive jury instructions preserves constitutional claim under N.C. Const. art. I, § 24	Instruction to entire jury was not the narrow Wilson type; failure to object waived issue and plain error review applies	No objection necessary; Wilson preserves unanimity-violation claims for appeal even if not objected to	Wilson applies only where less-than-full jury received instruction; here instruction was to entire panel, so claim not preserved and is reviewed for plain error
Whether alleged statutory violation of N.C.G.S. § 15A-1235(c) is preserved without objection	§ 15A-1235(b),(c) are permissive; failure to object invokes plain error review	Statutory error preserved as matter of law (per Court of Appeals)	Because subsections are permissive, statutory claim is subject to plain error review
Whether the trial court’s 3:00 p.m. instruction (asking jury to continue 30 minutes) was coercive	The instruction tracked § 15A-1235 language; any ambiguous language can be read as not forcing a verdict	The 30-minute time pressure coerced holdouts to surrender convictions	Even assuming error, a 30-minute request and brief reference to retrial/expense did not amount to plain error under totality of circumstances
Whether the trial court’s mention of trial expense/retrial coerced jury verdict	Any mention was isolated and permissive; overall instructions emphasized individual conviction	Reference to expense and retrial impermissibly pressured jurors to avoid retrial/costs	The isolated mention, read in context with repeated admonitions to adhere to conscience, was not plain error and did not unconstitutionally coerce the jury

Key Cases Cited

State v. Wilson, 363 N.C. 478 (addresses preservation when judge instructs less-than-full jury)
State v. Nelson, 341 N.C. 695 (discusses improper communication with subsets of jurors)
State v. Ashe, 314 N.C. 28 (preservation principles for jury unanimity claims)
State v. McKissick, 268 N.C. 411 (condemns coercive instructions that pressure holdouts)
State v. Aikens, 342 N.C. 567 (analyzed statutory vs. plain error review for jury instruction statutes)
State v. Bussey, 321 N.C. 92 (evaluated totality of jury instructions and found no coercion)
State v. Patterson, 332 N.C. 409 (directs analysis of trial court actions under totality of circumstances)
State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655 (plain error requires probable impact on jury’s finding of guilt)
State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506 (plain error standard and exceptional-case requirement)
State v. Cummings, 352 N.C. 600 (plain error applies to jury instructions)
State v. Greene, 351 N.C. 562 (plain error in jury instruction/evidentiary contexts)