Preview:

NO. COA12-954
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed:  5 February  2013
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.                                                                    Mecklenburg County
                                                                      No.  09 CRS  257846
JOMRI JARELLE WILSON
1.                                                                    Larceny                                 -  after  breaking  or  entering                                               -  findings  of  fact   -
                                                                      conclusions   of   law                                                     -   immediately   after   conclusion   of
suppression hearing not required
The   trial   court   did   not   err   in   a   larceny   after
breaking  or  entering  case  by  failing  to  make  findings  of
fact  and  conclusions  on  the  record  immediately  at  the
conclusion  of  the  suppression  hearing.     The  trial  court
complied  with  N.C.G.S.                                              §  15A-977(f)  and  did  not  err  by
entering its written order.
2.                                                                    Identification   of   Defendants        -   motion   for   mistrial        -
                                                                      smaller   photograph   of   defendant   -   not   impermissibly
suggestive  - due process
The   trial   court   did   not   err   in   a   larceny   after
breaking  or  entering  case  by  denying  defendant’s  motion  for
a  mistrial.    There  was  no  case  supporting  the  proposition
that  admission  of  an  identification  based  on  a  smaller
photograph   was   an   error   resulting   in   substantial   and
irreparable   prejudice   requiring   mistrial.                       The   size
discrepancy  was  not  impermissibly  suggestive.    Because  the
procedure  was  not  impermissibly  suggestive,  the  due  process
analysis ended.




NO. COA12-954
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed:  5 February  2013
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.                                                                          Mecklenburg County
                                                                            No.  09 CRS  257846
JOMRI JARELLE WILSON
Appeal  by  Defendant  from  judgment  entered                              13  January                                                                2012
by   Judge   Yvonne   Mims   Evans   in   Superior   Court,   Mecklenburg
County.    Heard in the Court of Appeals  28 January  2013.
Attorney  General  Roy  Cooper,  by  Special  Deputy  Attorney
General V. Lori Fuller, for the State.
Heather L. Rattelade for Defendant.
McGEE, Judge.
Jomri   Jarelle   Wilson                                                    (Defendant)   filed   a   motion   on                                      5
                                                                            December  2011  to  suppress  the  identification  of  Defendant,  based
                                                                            on  violations  of  his  due  process  rights  and  the  Eyewitness
Identification  Reform  Act,  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                                                                                                        §  15A-284.52.     The
trial   court   entered   an   order   on                                   13   January                                                               2012   denying
                                                                            Defendant's  motion  to  suppress.    A  jury  found  Defendant  guilty
of  larceny  after  breaking  or  entering  on                              13   January                                                               2012.
Defendant appeals.




-2-
Defendant's  first  argument  on  appeal  is  that  the  trial
court  erred  by  failing  "to  make  findings  of  fact  and  conclusions
on  the  record  at  the  conclusion  of  the  suppression  hearing."    We
disagree.
N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                                                             §  15A-977(f),  which  governs  procedures  for
motions  to  suppress,  requires  that  the  judge  "set  forth  in  the
record  his  findings  of  facts  and  conclusions  of  law."    N.C.  Gen.
Stat.                                                                         §  15A-977(f)                                     (2011).   Defendant  appears  to  contend  that
the  trial  court  should  make  findings  immediately  after  the
suppression  hearing.    However,  the  statute  does  not  require  the
trial  court  to  do  so.    "The  statute  does  not  require  that  the
findings   be   made   in   writing   at   the   time   of   the   ruling.
Effective  appellate  review  is  not  thwarted  by  the  subsequent
order."    State  v.  Lippard,                                                152  N.C.  App.                                   564,      572,                                    568  S.E.2d
657,  662  (2002).    The  trial  court  complied  with  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.
§  15A-977(f),  and  did  not  err  by  entering  its  written  order  on
13 January  2012.
Defendant's  second  argument  on  appeal  is  that  the  trial
court  erred  in  denying  his  motion  for  a  mistrial.     A  "trial
court's  decision  concerning  a  motion  for  mistrial  will  not  be
disturbed  on  appeal  unless  there  is  a  clear  showing  that  the
trial  court  abused  its  discretion."    State  v.  Horton,                 200  N.C.
App.                                                                          74,                                               81,       682  S.E.2d                             754,          759   (2009).   "The  judge  must




-3-
declare  a  mistrial  upon  the  defendant's  motion  if  there  occurs
during    the    trial    an    error    or    legal    defect    in    the
proceedings  .  .  . resulting    in    substantial    and    irreparable
prejudice  to  the  defendant's  case."    N.C.  Gen.  Stat.  §  15A-1061
(2011).
Defendant  contends  that  the  procedure  was  impermissibly
suggestive  because  Defendant's  photograph  was  smaller,  officers
failed  to  ensure  the  photograph  resembled  Defendant  at  the  time
of   the   offense,   and   officers   failed   to   ensure   the   other
photographs resembled the eyewitness's description.
Defendant  conflates  two  separate  arguments.    The  failure  to
ensure  that  the  photograph  resembled  Defendant  and  that  the
other   photographs   resembled   the   witness's   description   is
relevant   to   N.C.   Gen.   Stat.                                           §  15A-284.52,   the   Eyewitness
Identification  Reform  Act.     Remedies  for  statutory  violations
are  specifically  provided  in  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                            §  15A-284.52(d).
In  accordance  with  that  subsection,  the  trial  court  in  this  case
instructed  the  jury  that  it  "may  consider  what  evidence               [it]
find[s]  to  be  credible  concerning  compliance  or  non-compliance
with   such   requirements   in   determining   the   reliability   of
eyewitness identification."
The   size   of   the   photographs   is   relevant   to   a   second
argument,  a  due  process  challenge.    Our  Supreme  Court  held  that




-4-
"identification  procedures  which  are  so  impermissibly  suggestive
as   to   give   rise   to   a   very   substantial   likelihood   of
misidentification  violate  a  defendant's  right  to  due  process."
State  v.  Hannah,  312  N.C.  286,  290,  322  S.E.2d  148,  151  (1984).
We  employ  a  two-step  analysis  to  review  this  type  of  challenge.
First,   we   determine   "whether   an   impermissibly   suggestive
procedure                                                                    was                                                                          used   in                      obtaining     the   out-of-court
identification."    Id.    The  "test  is  whether  the  totality  of  the
circumstances   reveals   a   pretrial   procedure   so   unnecessarily
suggestive  and  conducive  to  irreparable  mistaken  identity  as  to
offend fundamental standards of decency and justice."    Id.
In  challenges  to  photographic  lineup  identifications,  our
Supreme  Court  "has  considered  pertinent  aspects  of  the  array,
such  as  similarity  of  appearance  of  those  in  the  array  and  any
attribute  of  the  array  tending  to  focus  the  witness'  attention
on  any  particular  person  therein,  as  factors  in  determining
whether    the    identification    procedures    are    impermissibly
suggestive."     State  v.  Rogers,                                          355  N.C.                                                                    420,   432,                    562  S.E.2d
859,  868  (2002).
                                                                             The  trial  court  found  that  the  officer  "used  fillers  for
                                                                             the  line-up  of  young  black  men  with  similar  hair  styles,  height,
weight   and   facial   expressions.  .  .                                                                                                                       The   photograph   of




-5-
[D]efendant   was   smaller   than   the   photographs   of   the   five
fillers."
Defendant  cites  no  case  in  support  of  the  proposition  that
admission  of  an  identification  based  on  a  smaller  photograph  is
an  error  resulting  in  substantial  and  irreparable  prejudice
requiring  mistrial,  and  our  research  reveals  no  such  case.    The
size discrepancy was not impermissibly suggestive.
Because  we  have  determined  that  the  procedure  was  not
impermissibly  suggestive,  our  due  process  analysis  ends  here.
State  v.  Stowes,                                                           ___  N.C.  App.   ___,   ___,   727  S.E.2d   351,   357
(2012);  Rogers,  355  N.C.  at  433,  562  S.E.2d  at  869.    Therefore,
we  need  not  determine,  under  the  second  step  in  the  due  process
review,  whether  the  procedure  created  a  substantial  likelihood
of  irreparable  misidentification  by  weighing  the  factors  of  the
identification's  reliability  against  the  "corrupting  effect  of
the  suggestive  identification  itself"  set  out  in  Manson  v.
Brathwaite,  432 U.S.  98,  114,  53 L. Ed.  2d.  140,  154  (1977).
The  trial  court  did  not  abuse  its  discretion  in  denying
Defendant's motion for a mistrial.
No error.
Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge CALABRIA concur.

Download 12-954.pdf

North Carolina Law