219 N.C. App. 599
N.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- Rhodes was convicted by jury in 2010 for possession with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver cocaine and for possessing drug paraphernalia.
- Evidence at trial showed drugs and paraphernalia were found during a 6 February 2008 search of Rhodes and his parents' residence.
- Defendant testified he was not living at the residence on the night in question; his mother and father testified to his limited presence or non-ownership of the drugs.
- Rhodes allegedly confessed to a probation officer after the trial that the drugs belonged to him, not Rhodes.
- In May 2010 Rhodes moved for appropriate relief based on newly discovered evidence; the trial court granted a new trial and set aside the convictions.
- The State appeals the trial court’s order granting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rhodes' confession is newly discovered evidence | Rhodes' confession was not known at trial despite due diligence | Confession was newly discovered and admissible to show ownership | Yes, confession qualifies as newly discovered evidence |
| Whether the confession was probably true | Trial court erred in finding confession probably true | Judge Stone, familiar with the case, could credibly assess credibility | Confession was probably true |
| Whether the new evidence would have changed the trial result | Evidence would not affect guilt if ownership remained uncertain | New evidence would affirm Mr. Rhodes alone possessed the drugs | Yes, likely would produce a different result at a new trial |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion | Order granting new trial shows abuse of discretion | Court properly weighed seven Beaver factors | No abuse of discretion; order affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beaver, 291 N.C. 137 (1976) (establishes seven-factor test for newly discovered evidence)
- State v. Nickerson, 320 N.C. 603 (1987) (new evidence is evidence in existence but not known at trial)
- State v. Stukes, 153 N.C.App. 770 (2002) (abuse of discretion standard and factual findings binding on appeal)
- State v. Wiggins, 334 N.C. 18 (1993) (limitations on review of evidentiary rulings in new-trial context)
- Namet v. United States, 373 U.S. 179 (1963) (Fifth Amendment inferences cannot be drawn against defendant in criminal trials)
- Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976) (Fifth Amendment privilege impacts inference of ownership in trial)
- State v. Pickens, 346 N.C. 628 (1997) (limits on drawing inferences about ownership from defendant's silence)