State v. Williford
767 S.E.2d 139
N.C. Ct. App.2015Background
- On March 5–6, 2010, defendant Jason Williford broke into a residence, assaulted and raped Kathy Taft; she later died from head wounds. DNA from a hospital rape kit contained male DNA.
- Raleigh PD canvassed nearby residents for DNA; Williford refused to provide a sample when approached at his home.
- Surveillance officers observed Williford discard a cigarette butt in the shared parking lot of his four-unit apartment complex; officers retrieved the butt from the lot and tested its DNA.
- The cigarette butt’s DNA matched the rape-kit DNA; Williford was indicted for first-degree murder, first-degree rape, and burglary, and the State sought death.
- Williford moved to suppress the DNA from the cigarette butt, arguing it was within his curtilage, he did not abandon it, and testing required a warrant; the trial court denied suppression.
- Jury convicted Williford of first-degree murder, first-degree rape, and misdemeanor breaking and entering; jury recommended life without parole; Williford appealed, asserting suppression error and a clerical sentencing issue.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Williford's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parking lot where the cigarette butt was recovered is within the curtilage of Williford’s apartment | Lot was common, unenclosed, and used by multiple units; no reasonable expectation of privacy | Butt was discarded on property within curtilage, so seizure was a warrantless search | Not curtilage — lot is outside curtilage; seizure lawful |
| Whether Williford retained a possessory/privacy interest in the discarded cigarette butt | By discarding in a public/shared lot, Williford abandoned any possessory interest | He did not place the butt in trash or surrender it to a third party, so he retained an interest | Discard in a public/shared area = abandonment; no protectable interest |
| Whether forensic DNA testing of the retrieved cigarette butt required a warrant under the Fourth Amendment | Once abandoned, the item and DNA may be collected and tested without a warrant | DNA testing implicates privacy in genetic information and required a warrant (citing Maryland v. King) | Once voluntarily abandoned, extraction/testing of DNA from the item did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search |
| Whether a clerical omission in the judgment (unchecked "Class A Felony" box) requires remand | Sentencing and multiple parts of the judgment indicate Class A felony and life without parole | Trial court omitted checking the box in one place | No remand needed; omission is clerical and judgment otherwise shows Class A felony sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (curtilage factors and analysis)
- United States v. Stanley, 597 F.2d 866 (4th Cir. 1979) (common parking area not curtilage of mobile home)
- Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (2013) (reasonableness of warrantless DNA collection from arrestees)
- State v. Eaton, 210 N.C. App. 142 (abandoned property not protected by Fourth Amendment)
- State v. Cromartie, 55 N.C. App. 221 (abandonment doctrine for discarded property)
- Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (government may appropriate abandoned property)