State v. Trogdon
216 N.C. App. 15
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Tre'Shaun Williams, 16 months old, died from acute brain injury due to blunt force trauma while in defendant's sole care.
- Dr. Riemer performed the autopsy; Dr. Nakagawa agreed the manner of death was homicide; death certificate and autopsy report labeled death as homicide.
- Defendant admitted to various actions after Tre'Shaun's collapse and gave inconsistent versions to police about contacting 911 and what happened.
- Medical experts testified the injuries were non-accidental and not explained by prior medical conditions or a fall.
- Jury was instructed on first and second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter; verdict returned: second degree murder; sentence 189–236 months.
- Defendant appeals arguing plain error from admission of expert testimony and death-related exhibits, bite-mark testimony, and sufficiency of evidence for malice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 'homicide' references | Parker permits medical witnesses to describe manner as homicide. | Admission of 'homicide' language was legal conclusion; plain error. | No plain error; testimony used factual mechanism, admissible under Parker. |
| Bite-mark testimony admissibility and impact | Dr. Shoaf's analysis linked bite marks to defendant; overlays shown to jury. | Testimony invaded jury's province by asserting defendant caused bite. | No reversible error; substantial other evidence allowed jury to assess overlays and conclusion. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for second degree murder | Evidence showed wanton, conscious attack with malice; supports second degree murder. | Insufficient evidence that hands or other means were deadly weapon; misdirection to involuntary manslaughter. | Evidence sufficient; jury could find malice and non-accidental head injuries, supporting second degree murder. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Parker, 354 N.C. 268 (2001) (expert use of 'homicide' as factual term, not legal conclusion)
- State v. Flippen, 344 N.C. 689 (1996) (homicide not a legal term of art when used by examiner)
- McNeil v. Pilot Life Ins. Co., 19 N.C. App. 348 (1973) (homicide defined as human act; death context)
- State v. Morgan, 359 N.C. 131 (2004) (three-step test for admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702)
- State v. Reynolds, 307 N.C. 184 (1982) (malice types and inference in murder cases)
- State v. Murphy, 172 N.C. App. 734 (2005) (malice may be inferred in certain attacks on children)
- State v. Elliott, 344 N.C. 242 (1996) (malice and deadly force considerations in murder analysis)
- State v. Foust, 258 N.C. 453 (1963) (definition of malice and intent in homicide context)
- Odom, State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655 (1983) (plain error standard and reviewing for fundamental errors)