State v. Pender, 218 N.C. App. 233

Defendant Herbert Pender was indicted for first‑degree murder in 2009; the first trial ended in mistrial and a second trial began in 2010.
Evidence showed a gang confrontation on Aug. 16, 2008, leading to the killing of Curtis Wellington during a drive‑by shooting.
Defendant’s group pursued targets with firearms after a gunfire incident earlier that morning; a hand signal “One‑Eye Willie” identified a target.
Defendant and his associates fired multiple shots, left shell casings at the scene, and defendant was later captured in Virginia with a .9 mm rifle.
On December 15, 2010, a jury convicted defendant of first‑degree murder and sentenced him to life without parole; defendant appeals asserting four errors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not excusing Juror 8 for cause.	State contends Juror 8 could be fair and impartial.	Pender argues Juror 8 was biased due to prior knowledge.	No abuse of discretion; Juror 8 could follow instructions.
Whether the State violated Batson by striking African‑American jurors.	State gave race‑neutral explanations for strikes.	Pender asserts purposeful discrimination.	No error; court found race‑neutral reasons and no purposeful discrimination.
Whether the trial court should have granted a mistrial for discovery violations.	State’s actions warranted discovery remedies; no mistrial.	Remedies were insufficient and mistrial justified.	No abuse of discretion; remedies and continuance were appropriate, no mistrial required.
Whether the court erred by denying an imperfect self‑defense instruction.	State opposed voluntary manslaughter instruction.	Defendant sought imperfect self‑defense instruction.	No error; defendant was the aggressor and evidence did not support the instruction.

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (racial discrimination in jury selection (three‑step framework))
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1991) (race‑neutral explanations govern Batson inquiry)
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1985) (standard for deciding juror exclusion for cause)
State v. Reed, 355 N.C. 150 (N.C. 2002) (abuse of discretion standard for juror challenges for cause)
State v. Green, 336 N.C. 142 (N.C. 1994) (courts discretion to determine impartiality based on voir dire)
State v. Dickens, 346 N.C. 26 (N.C. 1997) (trial court credibility in juror impartiality determination)
Purkett v. Elem., 514 U.S. 765 (U.S. 1995) (race‑neutral explanations suffice unless discriminatory intent shown)
State v. Lemons, 348 N.C. 335 (N.C. 1998) (prosecution’s burden after race‑neutral explanations; appelate review deference)
State v. Jaaber, 176 N.C. App. 752 (N.C. App. 2006) (discovery sanctions and cross‑examination as remedy)
State v. Hocutt, 177 N.C. App. 341 (N.C. App. 2006) (sanctions for discovery violations; continuance appropriate)
State v. Remley, 201 N.C. App. 146 (N.C. App. 2009) (discovery violation remedies; protect defendant’s rights)
State v. Mize, 316 N.C. 48 (N.C. 1986) (imperfect self‑defense instruction when aggressor or lack of reasonable belief)
State v. Osorio, 196 N.C. App. 458 (N.C. App. 2009) (de novo review of jury‑instruction assignments)