State v. MesserÂ
255 N.C. App. 812
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Decedent Billy Strickland was found shot to death on 16 December 2013; a .38 revolver was recovered near the body and a gold 2005 Chevrolet Malibu from his property was missing and later located abandoned.
- Anthony Messer (Defendant) was arrested later that day; in a custodial, Mirandized interview he admitted shooting Billy, taking $104, and abandoning the car and gun.
- Investigators seized the shirt Messer wore at arrest and later obtained a warrant for a saliva DNA sample; testing showed Billy’s blood on Messer’s shirt and in the recovered Malibu.
- Messer moved to suppress (1) his custodial statement, (2) his clothing, and (3) his DNA results; he also moved to dismiss robbery with a dangerous weapon for lack of corpus delicti.
- The trial court denied the suppression motions and denied the motion to dismiss; a jury convicted Messer of first‑degree (felony) murder and robbery with a dangerous weapon, and the court arrested judgment on the robbery and imposed life without parole for murder.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Messer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether corpus delicti for robbery (corroboration of confession) was established | Messer’s confession was corroborated by independent evidence (gun at scene, murdered victim, missing/located Malibu, blood on Messer’s shirt), so Parker trustworthiness rule satisfied | The State relied solely on Messer’s confession; no independent evidence showed Messer took $104, so corpus delicti not shown and dismissal required | Denied. Court applied Parker: confession supported by substantial independent evidence tending to establish trustworthiness; corpus delicti satisfied |
| Whether custodial statement, seized clothing, and DNA should be suppressed as fruits of an unlawful arrest (probable cause) | Probable cause existed based on totality: Messer stayed at victim’s home, victim missing, weapon missing and found at scene, missing Malibu later found, witness saw Messer using victim’s phone and driving a matching car | Arrest lacked probable cause; without probable cause the statement and derivative evidence are fruits of poisonous tree and must be suppressed | Denied. Court found findings supported by competent evidence and, on the totality, detectives had probable cause to arrest |
| Whether specific factual findings supporting the suppression ruling were supported by evidence (e.g., make/model of gun and car reported by witnesses) | Minor inaccuracies did not undermine the totality or probable cause determination | Some findings overstated witness testimony (e.g., witness did not specify gun manufacturer or precise car make/model) and should be stricken | Partially. Court struck limited, unsupported recital language but held the errors were nonprejudicial and did not defeat probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222 (adopted trustworthiness doctrine for corpus delicti in non‑capital cases)
- State v. Cox, 367 N.C. 147 (clarified Parker did not abolish traditional corpus delicti rule; State may satisfy either formulation)
- State v. Smith, 362 N.C. 583 (discussed corpus delicti history and Parker’s impact)
- State v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373 (describing the standard for ruling on motions to dismiss)
- State v. Teate, 180 N.C. App. 601 (probable cause requires a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity)
- State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132 (standard of review for suppression hearing findings)