Preview:

An  unpublished  opinion  of  the  North  Carolina  Court  of  Appeals  does  not  constitute
controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
NO. COA8-850
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed:  21 April  2009
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.                                                                                              Buncombe County
                                                                                                Nos.  07CRS00412,  051429-30
MELVIN CORNELIUS DAVIDSON
peal by defendant from judgment entered  5 November  2007 by
Judge James U. Downs in Buncombe County Superior Court.    Heard in
the Court of Appeals  23 March  2009.
Attorney  General  Roy  A.  Cooper,  III,  by  Assistant  Attorney
General Vaughan S. Monroe, for the State
J. Clark Fischer for defendant-appellant.
HUNTER, Robert C., Judge.
Melvin  Cornelius  Davidson                                                                     (“defendant”)  appeals  from  his
judgment  upon  conviction  on  the  charges  of  felonious  breaking  or
entering, felonious larceny, injury to personal property, and being
an habitual felon.    We find no error.
On  6 February  2007, Richard Metz lived at  32 Thurland Avenue
in  Asheville,  North  Carolina.    His  father-in-law,  George  Gibson,
owned  the  home  adjacent  to  Metz’s  home,  but  did  not  live  there.
Just  before  11:00  a.m.  on  the  6th,  Metz  watched  defendant  exit  a
green  car  and  enter  Gibson’s  home  through  the  basement.     Metz
called Gibson and asked if anyone was supposed to be working at the




-2-
residence.  When  Gibson  said  no,  Metz  called  the  police  to  the
scene.
Officer  Charles  Wells  of  the  Asheville  Police  Department
responded  to  the  call.    Upon  arriving,  Officer  Wells  spoke  with
both Metz and Gibson.   Gibson told Officer Wells that he owned the
house, was trying to renovate it in order to rent it out, and that
nobody  should  be  in  the  residence.    Metz  then  told  Officer  Wells
that he had seen a green car drop a person off, and that the person
entered the house without permission.   Officer Wells approached the
house and heard rattling coming from the basement.   Defendant soon
exited  the  basement  with  a  blue  and  gray  backpack  that  contained
copper  piping  from  the  furnace  of  the  residence.    Officer  Wells
ordered defendant to the ground and placed him under arrest.
At trial, testifying on his own behalf, defendant claimed that
he  had  been  hired  to  perform  PVC pipe  work  at  the  house  by a  man
named Jason.   Defendant further testified that Jason gave him a bag
with  tools  in  it,  and  dropped  him  off  in  front  of  Gibson’s  home.
Defendant  stated  that  his  job  was  to  “tear  out  all  the  pipings,
tear  down  the  furnace,                                                      [and]  bring  everything  to  the  door.”
Defendant claimed that he was doing this work when he was arrested.
Defendant  was  convicted  of  felonious  breaking  or  entering,
felonious larceny, and injury to personal property.   Defendant also
pled   guilty   to   being   an   habitual   felon.                            The   trial   court
consolidated the convictions and sentenced defendant to a term of
120 to  153 months imprisonment.    Defendant appeals.




-3-
Defendant  argues  that  the  trial  court  erred  by  allowing  the
State  to  present  inadmissible  hearsay  evidence.     Defendant  had
testified that he had been to Asheville Metal Recycling previously,
but had not been there the day before he entered Gibson’s home.   On
cross-examination, defendant was presented with a receipt that an
employee  of  Asheville  Metal  Recycling  had   given  to  police.
Defendant    continued  to  deny  that  he  had  visited  the  recycling
center  the  day  before  he  entered  Gibson’s  home.    Subsequently,
Detective  Janice  Hawkins  of  the  Asheville  Police  Department
testified as follows:
Q.  Now,  did  you  also,  after  speaking  to  the
Defendant,  did  he  tell  you  he  took  things  on
occasion to Asheville Metal Recycling?
A. He did.
Q.  Did  you  go  to  Asheville  Metal  recycling
with his picture?
A. I did.
Q. Were they familiar with him?
[DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY]: Object, hearsay.
THE COURT: Let me hear it again.
[THE  STATE]:  Were  they  familiar  with  the
Defendant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. After showing, I believe it’s Ms. Shipley,
after showing her the Defendant's photo
-
A. Yes.
Q.  I'll  show  you  State's  Exhibit  3.  Did  she
give you that receipt?
A. Yes, she did. She did.




-4-
Q. Dated February  5th, '07?
[DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY]: Object, hearsay.
THE  COURT:  Overruled,  about  that  particular
transaction.
A. Yes, she did.
Q.  That’s  what  she  gave  you  after  you  showed
her the Defendant's picture?
A. Yes, she said,  “That man”  -  -
[DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY]: Objection to what she
said, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes, she did.
Defendant argues that because no employee of Asheville Metal
Recycling appeared to testify regarding the purported transaction
or  to  authenticate  the  receipt,  Detective  Hawkins’s  testimony
constituted inadmissible hearsay.   Defendant further contends that
the  testimony  was  prejudicial  because  the  effect  of  the  evidence
was to show the jury that he was engaged in selling scrap metal in
the period immediately preceding the break-in at Gibson’s home, and
thus  the  jury  would  conclude  that  he  had  a  dishonest  motive  for
being at Gibson’s home.
After careful review of the record, briefs and contentions of
the  parties,  we  find  no  error.     Even  assuming,  arguendo,  that
admission  of  the  evidence  was  error,  we  conclude  it  was  harmless
error in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.
“The erroneous admission of evidence requires a new trial only when
the  error  is  prejudicial.”    State  v.  Chavis,  141  N.C.  App.  553,
566, 540 S.E.2d 404, 414 (2000) (citing State v. Locklear, 349 N.C.




-5-
118,  149, 505 S.E.2d 277, 295 (1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1075,
143 L. Ed. 2d 559 (1999)).                                                     “To show prejudicial error, a defendant
has the burden of showing that ‘there was a reasonable possibility
that  a  different  result  would  have  been  reached  at  trial  if  such
error  had  not  occurred.’”  Id.  (citing  Locklear,  349  N.C.  at  149,
505 S.E.2d at  295; N.C. Gen. Stat.  §  15A-1443(a)  (1999)).
Here, defendant was arrested while in the act of removing the
copper piping from Gibson’s residence.   Defendant testified that he
was  hired  to  remove  the  piping.    However,  when  Detective  Hawkins
interviewed  defendant  after  his  arrest,  defendant  did  not  tell
Detective Hawkins he was working there.   Instead, he told her that
“they were demolishing the house” and he  “had gone there that day
to  retrieve  the  copper  piping.”                                            [T.  p.                                   47]     Moreover,  Gibson
testified  that  defendant  did  not  have  permission  to  be  in  the
residence or to remove the copper piping, and that he had not hired
anybody to perform such work.
In addition to the above evidence, defendant claimed that he
had  been  hired  to  remove  the  piping  by  someone  named  Jason,  and
that Jason dropped him off in a truck.    However, defendant failed
to  provide  any  contact  information  for  Jason,  nor  did  he  know
Jason’s last name.    Furthermore, Metz testified that he witnessed
defendant  being  dropped  off  in  front  of  the  residence  by  a  green
car, not a truck as testified to by defendant.   After defendant was
arrested,  a  green  car  driven  by  Sandra  Jennings  returned  to  the
scene.    Metz  testified  that  it  was  the  same  car  that  had  dropped
the defendant off.   Defendant was familiar with Jennings, although




-6-
he denied seeing her that day.   A sticker on the back of the green
car   said                                                                   “Destiny   Auto   Sales.”   Later,   while   interviewing
defendant, Detective Hawkins observed a phone number written on the
palm of defendant’s hand.   When she asked defendant about the phone
number,  he  dismissed  it,  stating,  “Oh,  I  don’t  know.”    Detective
Hawkins later called the number and learned it was the number for
Destiny  Auto  Sales.    Finally,  later  that  day,  Detective  Hawkins
drove by Destiny Auto Sales and found the same green car parked at
the dealership.  [T. pp.  50-51]
In light of the above evidence, we conclude that defendant has
failed to demonstrate prejudice.   See State v. Grant, 178 N.C. App.
565,                                                                         576,                        632  S.E.2d                     258,   266   (2006)   (“‘Erroneous  admission  of
evidence  may  be  harmless  where  there  is  an  abundance  of  other
competent evidence to support the state's primary contentions, or
where there is overwhelming evidence of [the] defendant's guilt’”)
(alteration  in  original)  (quoting  State  v.  Weldon,  314  N.C.  401,
411,  333  S.E.2d  701,  707  (1985)),  disc.  review  denied  and  appeal
dismissed,  361  N.C.  223,  642  S.E.2d  712  (2007).    Accordingly,  we
find no error.
No error.
Judges McGEE and JACKSON concur.
Report per Rule  30(e).

Download 08-850-5.pdf

South Carolina Law