264 N.C. App. 566
N.C. Ct. App.2019Background
- On Nov. 5–6, 2013, Jeff David Steen’s (defendant) mother Sandra was violently assaulted at the family farm and later identified her son as the attacker; her 87‑year‑old grandfather Furr was found murdered nearby with a garden hoe that had Furr’s blood on it.
- Sandra sustained skull fracture, multiple rib fractures, collapsed lung, and traumatic brain injury; she initially gave several statements to police denying defendant was the attacker, then later identified him while hospitalized.
- Physical evidence: garden hoe and wallet contained Furr’s DNA; no latent fingerprints on the hoe; DNA from Sandra’s fingernail scrapings excluded defendant and matched Sandra (plus one unknown contributor); defendant had scratches on his arms but no blood was found in his vehicle and his clothing was not tested.
- Defense retained Dr. George Corvin to explain “confabulation” (false memories after head trauma); trial court permitted general testimony about confabulation risk but barred expert opinion tying specific police questions to induced confabulation.
- Jury convicted defendant of first‑degree murder (felony‑murder predicated on attempted first‑degree murder), attempted first‑degree murder, and robbery with a dangerous weapon; court arrested judgment on attempted murder and sentenced defendant to life without parole for first‑degree murder. Defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Steen's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by limiting expert testimony on whether specific police questions induced confabulation | Expert could testify generally on confabulation risk; specific linkage to particular questions was unnecessary and properly excluded | Exclusion of testimony about specific leading questions prevented jury from fully evaluating reliability of Sandra’s ID; possible prejudice | No abuse of discretion; general confabulation testimony and defense argument to jury sufficed; any error not prejudicial. |
| Whether hands/arms may be treated as a "deadly weapon" for felony‑murder (attempted murder predicate) | Jury may consider hands/arms as deadly weapon based on nature/use and size disparity between parties | Allowing hands/arms expands felony‑murder scope improperly; hands/arms should not qualify absent an external weapon | Hands/arms can be deadly weapons depending on use and relative size; instruction proper given evidence of violent attack and size disparity. |
| Whether the jury instruction mentioning the garden hoe as an alternative deadly weapon was improper because no evidence tied the hoe to Sandra’s assault | Reference to the hoe was either supported by circumstantial evidence or harmless because the jury plainly relied on other evidence (Sandra’s ID); State’s case strong on supported theory | Mentioning the hoe invited conviction on an unsupported theory and required reversal under precedent barring instruction on non‑supported theories | Any error in mentioning the hoe was harmless under Malachi; jury’s verdict rested on supported theory (hands/arms and Sandra’s ID) so no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McGrady, 368 N.C. 880 (discretionary standard for admissibility of expert testimony and Rule 702 review)
- State v. Malachi, 821 S.E.2d 407 (harmless‑error analysis applies where jury instructed on unsupported theory; close scrutiny required but reversible error only if reasonable possibility verdict rested on unsupported theory)
- State v. Pierce, 346 N.C. 471 (hands may be deadly weapons when a strong/mature person attacks a small child; jury may infer hands used as deadly weapon)
- State v. Hinton, 361 N.C. 207 (robbery‑with‑dangerous‑weapon statute requires an external dangerous weapon; statutory text matters for limiting scope)
- State v. Allen, 193 N.C. App. 375 (hands, arms, feet can be deadly weapons depending on manner of use and relative size/condition of parties)
- State v. Gibbs, 335 N.C. 1 (felony‑murder elements and deadly‑weapon predicate explained)