North Carolina Criminal Knife Prior Assault Error Motive Prejudicial Effect Admissible Limine Inside Prior Act Balancing Test Lawyers Attorneys

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JESSIE WADE SLYCORD

COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

February 25, 2010, Heard in the Court of Appeals

August 3, 2010, Filed

The State conducted a voir dire examination of Cox at trial, and defendant objected to Cox's being allowed to testify about defendant's cutting him. After hearing both parties' arguments, the trial court overruled defendant's objection and motion in limine and allowed the testimony.

On 6 March 2009, a jury found defendant guilty of second-degree murder. The trial court entered judgment sentencing defendant to 220 to 273 months imprisonment. Defendant appeals.

Issues:

(1) Whether the trial court erred by denying defendant's motion in limine and allowing Cox's testimony of defendant's prior assault on Cox into evidence?

(2) Whether the trial court erred by overruling defendant's objection and allowing Myrick's testimony regarding defendant's prior assault on Cox?

(3) Whether the trial court committed plain error by giving the jury conflicting instructions regarding the North Carolina Rules of Evidence?

(4) Whether the trial court committed plain error by "failing to make findings of fact, conclusions of law, or perform a balancing test" after defendant's objection and allowing testimony by Myrick concerning defendant's prior assault in violation of North Carolina Rules of Evidence, Rules 403 and 404(b)?

Observation and Holding:

Defendant's first and second arguments concern North Carolina Rules of Evidence, Rules 403 and 404(b). The facts in this case support the trial court's reasoned conclusion that the two events were similar; they tended to show a common plan, scheme, and intent; and their temporal proximity was not too remote. In the case sub judice, defendant's assault on Cox shows a similar intent. In defendant's altercation with Cox, only six months earlier, Cox entered into a physical confrontation with defendant when he found defendant in a car with his wife. Defendant cut Cox's face severely enough that Cox required approximately 100 stitches. Defendant told his friends of the confrontation, saying he "cut [Cox] from asshole to appetite" while showing off his knives. In the present case, Tate explained that, after learning that his money had been stolen, he would "kick [defendant's and Michael's] butts." Tate's statement and the fact that he ran outside when he heard a knock suggests that he, like Cox, entered into a physical confrontation with defendant. In both instances, defendant responded by cutting Cox and Tate. Moreover, any prejudice that may have resulted from this evidence did not substantially outweigh its probative value. The trial court gave the jury a limiting instruction, explaining that the evidence was to be considered "for the limited purpose of showing the defendant'splan, motive, and intent in the case you are considering. If you believe this evidence, you may consider it but only for the limited purpose I just described."

In this case, the trial court's instruction does not involve a misrepresentation of the law, but rather omits the word "identity" in listing proper purposes for which the evidence presented may be considered. We cannot say that the omission of this single word altered the outcome of the jury's verdict. See Jones 355 N.C. at 126, 558 S.E.2d at 103. Accordingly, we hold no error.

The trial court clearly explained that Myrick's testimony was relevant after Cox testified. The "balancing test" required by Rule 403 requires comparing evidence's probative value with its prejudicial effect on the defendant. We conclude that the trial court's decision to overrule defendant's objection and allow Myrick's testimony regarding a prior assault by defendant was a proper exercise of the trial court's discretion and did not prejudice defendant in the outcome of his case.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

North Carolina Criminal Knife Prior Assault Error Motive Prejudicial Effect Admissible Limine Inside Prior Act Balancing Test Lawyers Attorneys

By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

POST COMMENT

QC Software Focuses on Services and Customer Commitment New Low Cost GPS Golf Range Finder Software POSqx - What Software for Delivery Service can do? SEO Power Suite Software Made All The Difference The Need For A Software Tracking Software Forex Bulletproof is Forex Software that you can trust PS3 Error Code Of Death Fix - 3 Powerful Methods Symbian Spy Software To Easily Spy On Any Symbian Phone Symbian Tracking Software To Easily Track Any Symbian Phone Sim Card Spy Software To Easily Spy On Any Sim Card Where Can I Watch Streaming Tv Using Satellite TV Software? Myob and QuickBooks Software: What makes them different IKernel.dll Error --- 5 Advantages To Fix IKernel.dll Error