State v. HuntÂ
250 N.C. App. 238
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2016|
Check Treatment IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA15-1289
Filed: 1 November 2016
Durham County, No. 13 CRS 55296
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
C.D. HUNT
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 29 April 2015 by Judge James K.
Roberson in Durham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 May
2016.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Teresa M. Postell,
for the State.
Ward, Smith & Norris, P.A., by Kirby H. Smith, III, for defendant-appellant.
BRYANT, Judge.
Where the language of the indictment was sufficient to charge defendant with
burning certain buildings, the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over the
matter. Where defendant cannot establish plain error, his challenge that the trial
court abandoned its gatekeeping function must fail. Likewise, where defendant
cannot establish prejudice, his ineffective assistance of counsel claim must also fail.
However, where the amount of restitution awarded was not supported by the
evidence, we remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
On 6 January 2014, a Durham County grand jury indicted defendant C.D.
Hunt on the charge of burning certain buildings, in violation of General Statutes,
section 14-62. The matter came on for trial during the 23 March 2015 criminal
session of Durham County Superior Court, the Honorable James Roberson, Judge
presiding.
The evidence presented at trial tended to show that on 29 May 2013, Diane
Stallworth, apartment complex property manager for Lynnhaven Apartments located
in Durham, North Carolina, reported a break-in of apartment 7C. In addition to the
Durham Police Department, Stallworth contacted the apartment resident, LaTresha
Harwell, and requested that she return to the complex. At 1:00 p.m. that afternoon,
Stallworth was in apartment 7C when defendant C.D. Hunt arrived. “[H]e came
driving his vehicle. He came across the property, drove the vehicle right up into the
front door of the apartment and came inside the apartment.” Stallworth described
defendant’s mood as “angry or upset.” Stallworth asked defendant to remove his car,
a gray four-door Nissan, from the grass and take it back to the parking lot, but
defendant refused to talk with her. Defendant was not a resident of the apartment
complex, but was listed as the emergency contact for Harwell, and had been observed
with Harwell on a near-daily basis. When Stallworth returned to the apartment
complex office, she observed defendant drive his car to the parking lot in front of the
-2-
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
office and begin throwing trash from his car onto the grass in front of the building.
Stallworth asked defendant to stop and he replied.
He said somebody broke in to my apartment. All you care
about is me throwing trash. . . .
We continued to go back and forth. It was, "You got
the right one", you know, and he kind of lunged at me like
he was going to hit me, so I was like, "Come on. Hit me".
...
. . . It was not a friendly exchange of words.
Following this interaction, a law enforcement officer arrived in response to an
apartment break-in report. While he was still there, Stallworth issued defendant a
“trespassing letter” informing him he was not welcome back on the property. Early
the next morning, on 30 May 2013, Stallworth received a call notifying her of a fire
reported at the Lynnhaven Apartments complex office building.
After the fire was extinguished, Investigator Joel Gullie, with the Fire
Prevention Bureau, Fire Marshal’s Office, City of Durham Fire Department, arrived
on the scene. He had been called to the scene by the battalion chief in command on
the basis that the fire was “suspicious.” Investigator Gullie testified that he was the
lead investigator, and his observations led him to conclude that an accelerant had
been used.
On 3 June 2014, the investigation of the fire was assigned to Durham Police
Department Officer James Barr, Jr., who was working in the criminal investigation,
-3-
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
homicide division. Stallworth provided Officer Barr with video surveillance recorded
around the time of the fire which showed “a small lighter-colored four-door sedan,”
which had been parked in a dead end with no parking spaces, leaving the apartment
complex at a high rate of speed just before an explosion was recorded. No other
vehicles were recorded leaving the lot at that time. Officer Barr testified that during
his conversation with Stallworth, she informed him that on the day of the break-in
and trash-throwing incident, defendant was driving a charcoal-colored Nissan
Altima. Officer Barr also reviewed the 9-1-1 call reporting the fire made by Delanem
Makara. Officer Barr spoke with Makara, who informed him that she was outside of
her apartment on the night of the fire. That night, she noticed a dark gray vehicle
parked “all the way down at the end.” “[S]he noticed the smell of gasoline; [t]hen,
there was an explosion.”
At trial, Makara read the handwritten statement she gave to a Durham Police
Officer at 2:30 a.m. on 30 May 2013:
A. "About 2:30 a.m. May 30, I seen a gray or black car
Nissan pulled in, went to the other end of the
parking lot, and I did not see the car leave. Around
3:20, the fire happened", and my signature.
Q. And there is a notation off to the side in the margin?
A. Yes.
Q. And what does that say?
A. [Defendant] is the driver.
-4-
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
Q. There's an arrow there?
A. It's a Nissan.
Following the close of the State’s evidence, defendant proffered the testimony
of his grandmother, also a Durham resident, who testified in substance that
defendant stayed with her the evening of 29–30 May 2013 and that he did not leave.
Q. And how do you know that he didn't leave?
A. Because I've been sleeping on my sofa, and that's
between my living room and my side door . . . so
anybody come in the house and go out the house, I
would know about it.
Following the close of all of the evidence, the jury returned a guilty verdict
against defendant for burning certain buildings. The trial court entered judgment in
accordance with the jury verdict and sentenced defendant to an active term of 16 to
29 months, then suspended the sentence and imposed supervised probation for a
period of 36 months. Defendant was ordered to pay $5,000 in restitution to
Lynnhaven Apartments. Defendant appeals.
________________________________________
On appeal, defendant raises the following issues: whether (I) the indictment
against defendant was fatally defective; (II) the trial court committed plain error by
admitting testimonial evidence regarding how the fire started; (III) defendant had
ineffective assistance of counsel; and (IV) the trial court erred in ordering restitution.
-5-
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
I
Defendant argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try him for a violation
of General Statutes, section 14-62 where the indictment charging him was fatally
defective. Defendant contends that the indictment charging a violation of section 14-
62 failed to contain an essential element that defendant “wantonly” set fire to burn,
and therefore, the indictment is fatally defective. We disagree.
“On appeal, we review the sufficiency of an indictment de novo.” State v.
McKoy, 196 N.C. App. 650, 652,675 S.E.2d 406
, 409 (2009) (citation omitted).
“An indictment is sufficient if it charges all essential elements of the offense
with sufficient particularity to apprise the defendant of the specific accusations
against him and (1) will enable him to prepare his defense and (2) will protect him
against another prosecution for that same offense.” State v. Bowden, 272 N.C. 481, 483,158 S.E.2d 493
, 495 (1968); see also N.C.G.S §§ 15-153 (“Bill or warrant not quashed for informality”) and 15A-924(a)(5) (2015) (“Contents of pleadings . . . .”). “The general rule in this State and elsewhere is that an indictment for a statutory offense is sufficient, if the offense is charged in the words of the statute, either literally or substantially, or in equivalent words.” State v. Simpson,235 N.C. App. 398
, 400–01,763 S.E.2d 1
, 3 (2014) (quoting State v. Greer,238 N.C. 325
, 328,77 S.E.2d 917
, 920 (1953)). “A facially invalid indictment deprives the trial court of
jurisdiction to enter judgment in a criminal case.” State v. Haddock, 191 N.C. App.
-6-
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
474, 476, 664 S.E.2d 339, 342 (2008) (citing State v. Call,353 N.C. 400
, 429,545 S.E.2d 190
, 208 (2001)). But “[t]he trial court need not subject the indictment to hyper technical scrutiny with respect to form.”Simpson, 235 N.C. App. at 400
, 763
S.E.2d at 3 (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes, section 14-62, “[i]f any person
shall wantonly and willfully set fire to or burn . . . any . . . warehouse, office, shop . .
. [or other specified building] whether the same or any of them respectively shall then
be in the possession of the offender, or in the possession of any other person, he shall
be punished as a Class F felon.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-62 (2015).
“Willfulness” means the wrongful doing of an act without
justification or excuse. State v. Arnold, 264 N.C. 348,141 S.E.2d 473
(1965); State v. Williams,284 N.C. 67
,199 S.E.2d 409
(1973). “Wantonness” means the doing of an act
in conscious and intentional disregard of and indifference
to the rights and safety of others. Hinson v. Dawson, 244
N.C. 23,92 S.E.2d 393
(1956). “The attempt to draw a
sharp line between a ‘willful’ act and a ‘wanton’ act . . .
would be futile. The elements of each are substantially the
same.” State v. Williams, supra, 284 N.C. at73, 199 S.E.2d at 412
. State v. Oxendine,64 N.C. App. 559
, 561,307 S.E.2d 583
, 584–85 (1983); see also State v. Tew,62 N.C. App. 190
, 193,302 S.E.2d 633
, 635 (1983) (“The essential
elements of the crime . . . are that: (1) The building was used in trade; (2) a fire
occurred in it; (3) the fire was of incendiary origin; and (4) the defendants unlawfully
and wilfully started or were responsible for it. G.S. 14-62.”).
-7-
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
In the instant case, the indictment alleged that “defendant . . . unlawfully,
willfully and feloniously did set fire to, burn, cause to be burned and aid the burning
of an office and utility building located at 917 Wadesboro Street, Durham, North
Carolina 27703.” Defendant asserts that while the indictment alleges he acted
“willfully,” the failure to also allege he acted “wantonly” in setting fire to a building,
renders the indictment facially invalid and fatally defective.
As noted herein, our courts have held that “willfully” and “wantonly” are
essentially the same, and any attempt to distinguish them would be futile. See
Oxendine, 64 N.C. App. at 561, 307 S.E.2d at 584–85. Therefore, we hold the indictment in the instant case charges the essential elements of the offense in words that are substantially equivalent to those used in General Statutes, section 14-62, with sufficient particularity to apprise defendant of the specific accusations against him. SeeBowden, 272 N.C. at 483
, 158 S.E.2d at 495;Simpson, 235 N.C. App. at 400
–01, 763 S.E.2d at 3. As the indictment is sufficient, defendant’s argument is
overruled.
II
Next, defendant argues that the trial court committed plain error by allowing
non-expert opinion testimony into evidence to prove the fire at issue was intentionally
set. More specifically, defendant contends that Investigator Gullie’s testimony should
have been evaluated under the standard set out in Daubert v. Merrell Dow
-8-
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579,125 L. Ed. 2d 469
(1993), as that standard has been implemented in amended Rule of Evidence 702 (“Testimony by experts”), as acknowledged in State v. McGrady,368 N.C. 880
, 884, ___ S.E.2d ___, ___ (2016).
Defendant contends that where the trial court admitted Investigator Gullie’s opinion
testimony without examining him under the Daubert standard, the court committed
plain error. We disagree.
In 2011, our General Assembly amended Rule 702(a) of North Carolina’s Rules
of Evidence, which governs the admissibility of testimony by an expert, to mirror Rule
702(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence as that rule was amended in 2000. “It follows
that the meaning of North Carolina's Rule 702(a) now mirrors that of the amended
federal rule.” McGrady, 368 N.C. at 884, ___ S.E.2d at ___. “And when the General Assembly adopts language or statutes from another jurisdiction, ‘constructions placed on such language or statutes are presumed to be adopted as well.’ ”Id. at 887,
___ S.E.2d at ___ (quoting Sheffield v. Consol. Foods Corp.,302 N.C. 403
, 427,276 S.E.2d 422
, 437 (1981)). Thus, “the 2011 amendment [of Rule 702(a)] adopts the federal
-9-
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
standard for the admission of expert witness testimony articulated in the Daubert
line of cases.” Id. at 884, ___ S.E.2d at ___.1,2
But though Rule 702 was amended, our Supreme Court reasoned that the
precedent established by our State appellate courts prior to the 2011 amendment
should not be completely abandoned. The previous three-step inquiry established for
evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony, as set out in Howerton v. Arai
Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458,597 S.E.2d 674
, 686 (2004), while “ ‘decidedly less mechanistic and rigorous than the “exacting standards of reliability” demanded by the federal approach[,]’ ” “ ‘share[s] obvious similarities with the principles underlying Daubert[.]’ ”McGrady, 368 N.C. at 886
, ___ S.E.2d at ___ (quotingHowerton, 358 N.C. at 464
, 597 S.E.2d at 690). “The proper interpretation of Rule 702(a) remains an issue of state law[,]” and “[o]ur previous cases are still good law if they do not conflict with the Daubert standard.”Id. at 888,
___ S.E.2d at ___.
“The qualification of a witness to give an opinion as one skilled, or, as it is
usually termed, an expert, depends on matters of fact[,] and the question is addressed
1 The McGrady Court specifically acknowledged the following United States Supreme Court
opinions as describing the exacting standards of reliability expert opinion testimony must meet under
Federal Rule 702(a): Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579,125 L. Ed. 2d 469
(1993); General Electric Co. v. Joiner,522 U.S. 136
,139 L. Ed. 2d 508
(1997); and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,526 U.S. 137
,143 L. Ed. 2d 238
(1999).McGrady, 368 N.C. at 884
–85, ___ S.E.2d at ___ (citing Weisgram v. Marley Co.,528 U.S. 440
, 455 (2000)).
2“Federal courts traditionally grant a great deal of discretion to the trial court in determining
the admissibility of expert testimony under Daubert.” State v. Turbyfill, ___ N.C. App. ____, ____, 776
S.E.2d 249, 253 (citations and quotation marks omitted), review denied, ___ N.C. ___,780 S.E.2d 560
(2015).
- 10 -
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
to the trial judge, with opportunity to the objector to test the experience of the witness
by appropriate examination.” State v. Smith, 221 N.C. 278, 288–89,20 S.E.2d 313
, 319–20 (1942) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). “In Daubert, [the United States Supreme Court] held that . . . [Rule] 702 imposes a special obligation upon a trial judge to ‘ensure that any and all scientific testimony . . . is not only relevant, but reliable.’ ” Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,526 U.S. 137
, 147,143 L. Ed. 2d 238
, 249 (1999) (quotingDaubert, 509 U.S. at 589
,125 L. Ed. 2d 469
).3 This gatekeeper role also applies where an expert relies “on skill- or experienced-based observation”Id. at 151,
143 L. Ed. 2d at 252 (citation omitted). In his concurring opinion, Justice
3 A previous panel of this Court set out the Daubert factors a trial court may consider in
determining whether scientific testimony was reliable, as follows:
In the context of scientific testimony, Daubert articulated five factors
from a nonexhaustive list that can have a bearing on reliability: (1)
“whether a theory or technique . . . can be (and has been) tested”; (2)
“whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and
publication”; (3) the theory or technique's “known or potential rate of
error”; (4) “the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the
technique's operation”; and (5) whether the theory or technique has
achieved “general acceptance” in its field. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593–94,
113 S. Ct. 2786. When a trial court considers testimony based on
“technical or other specialized knowledge,” N.C. R. Evid. 702(a), it
should likewise focus on the reliability of that testimony, Kumho, 526
U.S. at 147–49,119 S. Ct. 1167
. The trial court should consider the
factors articulated in Daubert when “they are reasonable measures of
the reliability of expert testimony.” Id. at 152, 119 S. Ct. 1167. Those
factors are part of a “flexible” inquiry, Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594,113 S. Ct. 2786
, so they do not form “a definitive checklist or test,”id. at 593, 113 S. Ct. 2786
. And the trial court is free to consider other factors
that may help assess reliability given “the nature of the issue, the
expert's particular expertise, and the subject of his testimony.” Kumho,
526 U.S. at 150,119 S. Ct. 1167
.
State v. Abrams, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, ___ (2016) (No. COA15-1144).
- 11 -
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
Scalia wrote, “[the] trial-court discretion in choosing the manner of testing expert
reliability—is not discretion to abandon the gatekeeping function.” Id. at 158–59,
143 L. Ed. 2d at 256 (Scalia, J., concurring). “[Yet,] the trial judge must have considerable leeway in deciding in a particular case how to go about determining whether particular expert testimony is reliable.”Id. at 152,
143 L. Ed. 2d at 252.
Otherwise, the trial judge would lack the discretionary
authority needed both to avoid unnecessary ‘reliability’
proceedings in ordinary cases where the reliability of an
expert's methods is properly taken for granted, and to
require appropriate proceedings in the less usual or more
complex cases where cause for questioning the expert's
reliability arises.
Id. at 152, 143 L. Ed. 2d at 253.
We now consider whether an unpreserved challenge to the performance of a
trial court’s gatekeeping function is subject to plain error review in North Carolina.
Pursuant to our Rules of Appellate Procedure,
[i]n criminal cases, an issue that was not preserved by
objection noted at trial and that is not deemed preserved
by rule or law without any such action nevertheless may be
made the basis of an issue presented on appeal when the
judicial action questioned is specifically and distinctly
contended to amount to plain error.
N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(4) (2016); see also State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 515,723 S.E.2d 326
, 332 (2012) (“Federal plain error review is applied to criminal cases in ‘exceptional circumstances.’ ” (citing United States v. Atkinson,297 U.S. 157
, 160,56 S. Ct. 391
, 392 (1936)). “Furthermore, plain error review in North Carolina is
- 12 -
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
normally limited to instructional and evidentiary error.” Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 516, 723 S.E.2d at 333 (citation omitted); see alsoid. (“Like federal
plain error review, the North Carolina plain error standard of review applies only when the alleged error is unpreserved, and it requires the defendant to bear the heavier burden of showing that the error rises to the level of plain error.”). In both federal court and North Carolina state court, the unchallenged admission of opinion testimony on a subject requiring specialized knowledge by persons not admitted as experts may be reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Diaz,300 F.3d 66
, 74 (1st Cir. 2002) (“The consequence of a party's failure to make a timely objection to the admission of expert testimony is plain error review . . . .”); State v. Maready,205 N.C. App. 1
, 17,695 S.E.2d 771
, 782 (2010) (reviewing for plain error the unchallenged admission of
opinion testimony regarding the cause of an accident by persons not admitted as
experts in accident reconstruction). Thus, an unpreserved challenge to the
performance of a trial court’s gatekeeping function in admitting opinion testimony in
a criminal trial is subject to plain error review in North Carolina state courts.
For error to constitute plain error, a defendant must
demonstrate that a fundamental error occurred at trial. To
show that an error was fundamental, a defendant must
establish prejudice—that, after examination of the entire
record, the error had a probable impact on the jury's
finding that the defendant was guilty. Moreover, because
plain error is to be applied cautiously and only in the
exceptional case, the error will often be one that seriously
affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of
judicial proceedings.
- 13 -
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 518, 723 S.E.2d at 334 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Here, defendant contends that the trial court committed plain error by failing
to perform its gatekeeping function in accordance with the Daubert standard to
determine if Investigator Gullie was qualified to provide opinion testimony as an
expert in fire investigation before allowing Investigator Gullie to testify to his opinion
that the fire was intentionally set. But before we further address defendant’s
argument, we note defendant’s challenge raises some interesting issues.
In challenging the trial court’s performance of its gatekeeping function for
plain error, defendant implicitly asks this Court to hold the trial court’s failure to sua
sponte render a ruling that Investigator Gullie was qualified to testify as an expert
pursuant to Rule 702 amounted to error. And to accept defendant’s premise would
impose upon this Court the task of determining from a cold record whether
Investigator Gullie’s opinion testimony required that he be qualified as an expert in
fire investigation, where neither the State nor defendant respectively sought to
proffer Investigator Gullie as an expert or challenge his opinion before the trial court.
“[W]e can envision few, if any, cases in which an appellate court would venture
to superimpose a Daubert ruling on a cold, poorly developed record when neither the
parties nor the nisi prius court has had a meaningful opportunity to mull the
question.” Cortés-Irizarry v. Corporación Insular de Seguros, 111 F.3d 184, 189 (1st Cir. 1997) (as quoted byDiaz, 300 F.3d at 74
). While “[Rule] 702 imposes a special
- 14 -
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
obligation upon a trial judge to ensure that any and all scientific testimony . . . is not
only relevant, but reliable,” Kumho Tire Co., 526 U.S. at 147, 143 L. Ed. 2d at 249
(citation and quotation marks omitted), “Daubert did not work a seachange [sic] over
. . . evidence law, and the trial court's role as gatekeeper is not intended to serve as a
replacement for the adversary system.” Fed. R. Evid. 702 (2012) (Advisory Committee
notes) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
[As to expert testimony governed by Rule 702,] [t]he
trial court must have the same kind of latitude in deciding
how to test an expert's reliability, and to decide whether or
when special briefing or other proceedings are needed to
investigate reliability, as it enjoys when it decides whether
that expert's relevant testimony is reliable. . . . Otherwise,
the trial judge would lack the discretionary authority
needed both to avoid unnecessary ‘reliability’ proceedings
in ordinary cases where the reliability of an expert's
methods is properly taken for granted, and to require
appropriate proceedings in the less usual or more complex
cases . . . .
Kumho Tire Co., 526 U.S. at 152, 143 L. Ed. 2d at 253.
The record before us reflects that Investigator Gullie introduced himself as
employed by the Fire Prevention Bureau, Fire Marshal's Office in the City of Durham
Fire Department. “I have to do fire inspections as it relates to construction or fire
inspection for safety inspections, and then I have to do fire investigations as well.”
Investigator Gullie further testified that he was the lead fire investigator at the scene
on 30 May 2013. Following his introduction, Investigator Gullie testified without
objection to his observations of the scene on 30 May 2013, as follows: that the fire
- 15 -
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
appeared to have multiple points of origin; that shallow “crocodiling” of the wood
suggested the wood burned fast and hot; and that there was an odor of a flammable
liquid. Investigator Gullie testified that “[t]hat’s typically a sign that accelerants
were used to accelerate the fire.” Investigator Gullie was neither tendered nor
admitted as an expert in the field of fire investigation.
It may be that the trial court acted within the latitude afforded by its
discretionary authority to determine that Investigator Gullie’s testimony was of an
ordinary type and a reliability proceeding was not necessary, as, by virtue of his
position as a fire investigator, the reliability of his testimony that accelerants were
used to accelerate the fire was properly taken for granted. See id. But even if we
presumed for the sake of argument that defendant established error, defendant
cannot establish plain error.
Aside from the testimony of Investigator Gullie, there was other direct and
circumstantial evidence that an accelerant was used to start the fire. Officer Barr
gave the following testimony while video surveillance recordings made around the
time of the fire were played for the jury:
A. . . . You'll see a shadowy figure coming right here
walking, a short stature; looks like a little something
in the left hand, a little shiny and disappears, and
it'll be three or four minutes; and then, you'll see the
figure walk off, and then you'll see a flash of light
after that . . . .
...
- 16 -
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
You'll see a flash that is consistent with what I know to be fire.
...
That's consistent with a rapid expansion of a
flammable liquid or something like that, and now
you have active burning going on.
...
Q. Now, Investigator Barr, I'm going to turn your
attention to yet a third camera angle. . . .
...
Q. And what is that flashed light we just saw?
A. That would be the ignition of the fire on that
building. It indicates that it was just a rapid
acceleration of a fire indicating that an accelerant
was used.
Later, Officer Barr testified that prior to working for the Durham Police Department,
he was employed by the Durham City Fire Department. “I worked there for 18 years,
so I have multiple certifications in the investigation of fires, hazardous material,
technician specialists; hundreds and hundreds of hours of training, and hands-on and
life experience in fire training, and some college in the background of fire
investigations.”
Officer Barr also testified without objection about his interview with Makara,
who had called 9-1-1 on 30 May 2013 to report the fire.
A. She said she was outside her apartment that
- 17 -
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
morning.
...
Q. Did she say what else she noticed about that time?
A. She said while they were outside, she noticed a smell
of gasoline. Then, there was an explosion, and then
the fire consumed the building and she called 911.
Thus, given the unchallenged evidence in the form of direct testimony and
video recordings depicting that an accelerant was used to start or accelerate the fire,
we hold defendant has failed to demonstrate that any presumed error in the trial
court’s performance of its gatekeeping function would have had a probable impact on
the jury’s guilty verdict. See Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 518, 723 S.E.2d at 334; see generallyMaready, 205 N.C. App. at 17
, 695 S.E.2d at 782. Accordingly, defendant
has failed to demonstrate plain error, and this argument is overruled.
III
Defendant argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his
attorney (1) did not object to Investigator Gullie’s testimony and (2) failed to renew
the motion to dismiss at the close of all the evidence. Defendant argues those
decisions were not strategic decisions but instead were errors that amounted to
constitutionally deficient performance. Defendant then argues that if counsel had
objected to the testimony and renewed the motion to dismiss, he would have either
been acquitted or had a better case on appeal. We disagree.
- 18 -
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
Defense counsel is given wide latitude in matters of strategy, so “the burden to
show that counsel’s performance fell short of the required standard is a heavy one for
defendant to bear.” State v. Campbell, 359 N.C. 644, 690,617 S.E.2d 1
, 30 (2005)
(citation and quotation marks omitted). There is a two-part test for succeeding on an
ineffective counsel challenge:
First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance
was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made
errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the
“counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth
Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the
deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This
requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to
deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is
reliable. Prejudice is established by showing that there is
a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's
unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would
have been different. A reasonable probability is a
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the
outcome.
Id. at 690, 617 S.E.2d at 29–30 (quoting Strickland v. Washington,466 U.S. 668
, 687,80 L. Ed. 2d 674
, 693 (1984)) (quotation marks omitted). Courts generally do not second-guess trial counsel unless the counsel’s actions were unreasonable “considering the totality of the circumstances at the time of performance.” See State v. Hill,179 N.C. App. 1
, 27,632 S.E.2d 777
, 793 (2006). “[J]udicial review of counsel's performance must be highly deferential.”Id. (citation and
quotation marks omitted). There is a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable and acceptable.Campbell, 359 N.C. at 690
, 617 S.E.2d at 30.
- 19 -
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
Failure to object to Investigator Gullie’s testimony
Defendant’s first contention is that his counsel provided deficient performance
when it failed to object to the expert opinion testimony of Investigator Gullie.
Defendant argues its counsel made a critical error by not objecting and moving the
trial court to examine Investigator Gullie under Rule 702, pursuant to the Daubert
standard. This argument fails the test set out in Strickland and adopted in Campbell.
First, defendant’s theory at trial did not challenge whether the fire was
intentionally set but rather whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that
defendant was the perpetrator. Thus, the identity of the perpetrator was defendant’s
main defense. This is evidenced by defendant’s closing argument, which is almost
exclusively about the identity of the offender. It appears trial counsel made a
reasonable, strategic decision to not object to Investigator Gullie’s testimony while
advocating that defendant was not the perpetrator. Further, the substantial evidence
that an accelerant was used to accelerate the spread of the fire could have reasonably
been seen as a greater legal challenge to overcome than the identity of the
perpetrator. Judicial review is highly deferential to trial counsel’s strategic decisions,
and we presume such decisions were reasonable. See State v. Allen, 233 N.C. App.
507, 510,756 S.E.2d 852
, 856 (2014) (“A fair assessment of attorney performance
requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to
reconstruct the circumstances of counsel's challenged conduct, and to evaluate the
- 20 -
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
conduct from counsel's perspective at the time. Because of the difficulties inherent in
making the evaluation, a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's
conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance . . . .”
(quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 80 L.Ed.2d at 689) (emphasis added). There is
nothing to suggest this decision was erroneous such that defendant’s counsel provided
unconstitutionally deficient performance. Thus, this argument is overruled.
Failure to move to dismiss the charge at the close of all evidence
Defendant’s second contention is that his trial counsel provided deficient
performance when she failed to move to dismiss the charge against defendant at the
close of all of the evidence. Defendant argues there is no legitimate reason for failing
to move to dismiss at that time, and had counsel made the motion, defendant could
have preserved a sufficiency of the evidence issue for appeal.
A properly preserved appeal of a denial of a motion to dismiss for insufficient
evidence is reviewed de novo. State v. Curry, 203 N.C. App. 375, 392,692 S.E.2d 129
, 142 (2010). If substantial evidence supports a finding that the defendant committed the offense, the motion to dismiss should be denied so that the case can go before a jury.Id. Evidence is
viewed in the light most favorable to the State, and the State is given the benefit of every reasonable inference.Id. at 391–92,
692 S.E.2d at 141; see also State v. Fritsch,351 N.C. 373
, 379,526 S.E.2d 451
, 455 (2000) (“[T]he
- 21 -
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
defendant’s evidence should be disregarded unless it is favorable to the State or does
not conflict with the State’s evidence.” (citation omitted)).
However, again, defendant cannot establish prejudice. Had defense counsel
presented a motion to dismiss at the close of all evidence, the trial court could have
considered the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, leaving any
contradictions in the evidence for the jury. State v. Allen, 233 N.C. App. 507, 512,756 S.E.2d 852
, 857–58 (2014) (“In weighing the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court considers all evidence admitted at trial, whether competent or incompetent: . . . in the light most favorable to the State, giving the State the benefit of every reasonable inference that might be drawn therefrom. Any contradictions or discrepancies in the evidence are for resolution by the jury.” (citation omitted)). The only evidence defendant proffered after the close of the State’s evidence was the testimony of defendant’s grandmother, who testified that defendant spent the night of 29 to 30 May with her. This evidence stood in near direct contradiction to Makara’s testimony that defendant was driving the vehicle seen leaving the scene shortly after the fire started in the early morning hours of 30 May 2013. And because the court would have been required to leave contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence for the jury to resolve, a motion to dismiss following the close of the evidence would have been denied. Seeid. Therefore, defendant
cannot establish prejudice in trial
counsel’s failure to move to dismiss the charge of burning certain buildings at the
- 22 -
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
close of all the evidence. Accordingly, defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel
argument is overruled.
IV
In his final issue on appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred by ordering
him to pay $5,000 in restitution to Lynnhaven Apartments. Defendant argues there
was no evidence to support the award. We agree; therefore, we vacate and remand
the restitution order.
Even absent an objection, awards of restitution are reviewed de novo. State v.
McNeil, 209 N.C. App. 654, 667,707 S.E.2d 674
, 684 (2011). A trial court can “require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or the victim's estate for any injuries or damages arising directly and proximately out of the offense committed by the defendant.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.34(b) (2015). The amount of restitution awarded “must be supported by evidence adduced at trial or at sentencing.” State v. Moore,365 N.C. 283
, 285,715 S.E.2d 847
, 849 (2011) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “[A] restitution worksheet, unsupported by testimony or documentation, is insufficient to support an order of restitution.”Id. Unsworn statements
of a prosecutor also cannot support an order of restitution.McNeil, 209 N.C. App. at 668
, 707 S.E.2d at 684. When no evidence supports the award, the award of restitution will be vacated.Moore, 365 N.C. at 285
, 715 S.E.2d at 849. If there is specific testimony or documentation to support the award, the award will be affirmed.Id. - 23
-
STATE V. HUNT
Opinion of the Court
“[T]he quantum of evidence needed to support a restitution award is not high.” Id.
When a restitution award is vacated, the typical remedy is to remand the restitution portion of the sentence for a new sentencing hearing. SeeMcNeil, 209 N.C. App. at 668
, 707 S.E.2d at 684–85 (remanding when there was evidence of physical damage
to a victim’s property but no evidence as to the appropriate amount of restitution).
The trial court awarded restitution of $5,000 because the State prosecutor told
the trial court that is how much Lynnhaven Apartments had to pay as an insurance
deductible. This is an unsworn statement by the prosecutor that cannot support an
award of restitution. The State concedes there is no other specific detail in the record
supporting the $5,000 award. There is evidence of substantial damage to the office
building, but like the evidence in McNeil, that does not speak to the appropriate
amount of restitution. Accordingly, we find the restitution awarded is not supported
by the evidence adduced at trial or sentencing. We vacate the $5,000 award and,
accordingly, remand for a new restitution hearing.
NO ERROR IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
Judges TYSON and INMAN concur.
- 24 -