Preview:

NO. COA09-823
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed:  17 August  2010
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
                                                                            New Hanover County
v.                                                                          Nos.  06 CRS  7524
06 CRS  50986
LAKENDRA SHERRELL GRADY,
Defendant.
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered  10 October  2008 by
Judge  Jerry  Cash  Martin  in  New  Hanover  County  Superior  Court.
Heard in the Court of Appeals  14 January  2010.
Attorney  General  Roy  Cooper,  by  Special  Deputy  Attorney
General Steven M. Arbogast, for the State.
Glover  &  Petersen,  P.A.,  by  James  R.  Glover,  for  defendant-
appellant.
GEER, Judge.
Defendant  Lakendra  Sherrell  Grady  appeals  her  conviction  of
first  degree  murder  and  first  degree  burglary.    Defendant's  sole
contention  on  appeal  is  that  the  trial  court  erred  in  admitting
testimony by an SBI special agent about the results of DNA testing
that  had  been  conducted  by  another  agent  who  did  not  testify.
Defendant  argues  that  the  admission  of  this  testimony  deprived
defendant of her constitutional right of confrontation in violation
of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, ___ U.S. ___, 174 L. Ed. 2d 314,
129 S. Ct.  2527  (2009).    We conclude, however, that the admission
of the testimony, even if error, was harmless beyond a reasonable




-2-
doubt because of the evidence's very limited probative impact and
the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt.
Facts
The  State's  evidence  tended  to  show  the  following.    On               21
January  2006, Johnny Odell Southerland, Jr. was telling people he
had found a silver and black  9mm handgun in a field across from a
school and wanted to sell it.    He offered to sell it to defendant
for  $250.00 if she met him later that day.    In the late afternoon
or early evening, defendant and Delicia "Dee-Dee" Hardwrich drove
to Southerland's apartment, and defendant asked Southerland to show
her the gun.    When Southerland handed the gun to defendant in her
car,  defendant  told  him  that  "he  was  beat"  and  drove  off  without
paying for the gun.
The  next  day,  a  group  of  people  gathered  at  Hardwrich's
sister's home.   While they were playing the Grand Theft Auto video
game,  two  of  the  men                                                      —  Rufus  Lamar  Bowser  and  Darion  Graham   —
indicated that they "had guns like on the game."   Because Hardwrich
did not believe them, they showed her the guns.   Bowser had a Tec-9
assault  rifle,  and  Graham  had  a                                          .357  pistol.    Hardwrich  called
defendant  and  told  her  that  "they  got  this  Tec-9  and  you  should
come  see  it  and  you  should  bring  the  gun  you  got  yesterday."
Later, defendant arrived at Hardwrich's sister's house with the 9mm
handgun.     Eventually,  the  group's  conversation  turned  to  the
possibility of robbing someone.   Defendant mentioned that she knew
Pervis Owens, Jr. and that he had "a lot of money and stuff."




-3-
After midnight, defendant left the house with Bowser, Graham,
and  Maurice  Miller.    At  this  point,  Bowser  had  the  Tec-9,  Graham
had  the  .357  pistol,  and  it  was  unclear  who  had  the  9mm  handgun.
Defendant drove them around as they tried to find someone to rob.
Defendant, Graham, and Miller wanted to rob a man named Nate, but
Bowser said "no, he cool," so they kept driving.   Next, they wanted
to rob a local "gambling house," but when they found no one there,
they left.
Bowser  then  turned  to  defendant  and  asked,  "What  about  the
dude you was talking about earlier?"   Defendant responded, "That's
the  one  I'm  about  to  call  right  now."    Defendant  called  Owens  as
they drove toward his house, but he did not answer the phone.   When
they  arrived  at  his  house,  a  lot  of  people  were  outside.    They
drove  down  another  street,  parked,  and  waited.    Defendant  kept
trying to call Owens and eventually made contact.
Meanwhile,  everyone  in  the  car  agreed  that  defendant  would
convince  Owens  to  come  outside  his  house.    The  three  males,  who
would be waiting behind another house, would "rush" Owens when he
came  outside.    Bowser  still  had  the  Tec-9,  Graham  had  the            .357
pistol,  and  Miller  was  in  possession  of  the  9mm  handgun.    After
Owens refused to leave his house, defendant told the others: "I go
in the house, y'all come in and tell him to give it up."   She said
she would leave the door open for them, but told them to wait about
five minutes before entering.
A few minutes after defendant went inside Owens' house, Bowser
and  Miller  followed  with  their  faces  covered  with  their  shirts.




-4-
Graham waited outside.    When the men got inside, they found Owens
asleep  in  a  living  room  chair.    Bowser  cocked  his  gun  and  told
Owens  to  "get  up."    Owens  screamed,  "No,"  and  rushed  at  Bowser,
knocking him to the ground.   Bowser got to his feet and ran out of
the house.    As he was running, he heard a shot.    When Miller came
out  of  the  house,  he  said,  "[G]o,"  and  the  three  males  ran  to
Graham's house.   Defendant arrived at Graham's house about 10 to 15
minutes later and told them that Owens was dead.
Later  that  morning,  at  about  7:00  a.m.,  Rose  Samuel,  Owens'
next door neighbor, went outside and found Owens lying in front of
his house.   Although Samuel had heard a gunshot a little after 5:00
a.m., she had ignored it because she lived in a "bad neighborhood"
and  was  accustomed  to  hearing  gunshots.    Samuel  or  someone  else
called                                                                         911.     Owens  had  a  weak  pulse  when  the  paramedics  first
checked  him,  but  he  had  no  vital signs  by  the  time  he was  loaded
into the ambulance.    Owens was pronounced dead at the hospital at
7:44 a.m.
Dr.  William  Kelly  performed  Owens'  autopsy.                               Dr.  Kelly
determined that Owens suffered a single gunshot wound that entered
his left back in the left shoulder area.   The bullet traveled left
to right and downward, traversing his chest, penetrating the top of
the  left  lung,  and  passing  through  the  aorta  and  into  the  right
lung  before  exiting  the  chest  and  lodging  in  his  right  arm.    Dr.
Kelly determined that Owens had bled to death.
Approximately one week after Owens' death, Detectives Andrew
Korwatch and Chris Adams of the Wilmington Police Department spoke




-5-
with Graham.   As a result of their conversation, Graham turned over
the 9mm handgun.   Special Agent Jessica Rosenberg, an SBI firearms
and  toolmark  technician,  compared  a  bullet  and  shell  casing
test-fired from the 9mm handgun to the bullet recovered from Owens'
body and a shell casing found by officers at Owens' house.   Special
Agent Rosenberg determined that the test-fired shell casing and the
shell casing obtained from the crime scene were both fired from the
9mm  handgun  obtained  from  Graham.                                       The  bullets  had  similar
characteristics, but the agent could not say that the  9mm handgun
had in fact fired the bullet recovered from Owens' body.
Detective  Lee  Odham  also  reviewed  a  surveillance  tape  taken
from Samuel's house — Samuel had installed a surveillance camera on
her porch that fed to a VCR in her house.   The audio of the camera
had recorded a gunshot and a screen door slamming, as well as Owens
saying, "No."    Detective Odham testified that another voice could
be heard saying "'Bro, Bro, where's your phone, Bro,' something to
that  effect."     After  receiving  information  that  defendant  was
involved, Detective Odham brought Hardwrich to the police station.
Hardwrich  identified  the  voice  on  the  tape  as  being  defendant's,
although, at trial, Hardwrich denied doing so.
Defendant  was  then  brought  in  for  questioning.    Because  she
was                                                                         17,  she  was  read  her  Miranda  rights  and  given  the  required
juvenile  warnings.     After  indicating  that  she  understood  her
rights,  defendant  made  both  oral  and  written  statements              —  the
interrogation  was  also  videotaped.    She  admitted  getting  the  9mm
handgun  from  Southerland.    When  it  came  to  what  happened  inside




-6-
Owens' house, she gave three different versions of what transpired.
In the third version, she said that she, Bowser, Graham, and Miller
"made a plan to rob Mr. Owens."   Defendant explained that she went
inside  Owens'  house  and  that  the  others  were  to  come  in  five
minutes later.   Bowser entered the house first, with his Tec-9, and
Miller followed with the 9mm handgun.   There was a struggle inside
the house, and Miller ended up shooting Owens.    Everyone then ran
away, including Graham, who had remained outside the house during
the struggle and shooting.    Defendant confirmed that these events
occurred sometime between  5:15 and  5:20 a.m. on the morning of  23
January  2006.
Defendant was subsequently indicted for first degree burglary,
robbery  with  a  dangerous  weapon,  and  first  degree  murder.     At
trial,  Bowser,  who  had  pled  guilty  to  second  degree  murder  and
armed  robbery  in  exchange  for  testifying,  testified  essentially
consistent with the above.   Hardwrich testified that defendant had
taken the gun from Southerland, but also testified that defendant
had  not  left  with  Bowser,  Graham,  and  Miller.    Southerland  also
testified,  admitting  that  he  told  defendant  he  had  a  gun  to  sell
and  suggested  she  meet  him  at  a  particular  location  that  night.
Southerland  testified  that  a  car  did  arrive  at  that  location  and
that  he  showed  the  gun  to  a  woman  in  the  car  who  took  the  gun
without paying for it, saying, "You beat."   Although he claimed at
trial that he did not know whether the woman was defendant, he also
admitted  that  he  did  not  want  to  testify  and  that  his  testimony




-7-
conflicted  with  what  he  had  previously  told  Detective  Odham.
Defendant did not present any evidence at trial.
On  10 October  2008, the jury found defendant guilty of first
degree burglary, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and first degree
murder under the felony murder rule, with robbery with a dangerous
weapon and first degree burglary as the underlying felonies.    The
court  arrested  judgment  on  the  conviction  of  robbery  with  a
dangerous weapon, combined for sentencing the convictions for first
degree murder and first degree burglary, and sentenced defendant to
a  term  of  life  imprisonment  without  parole.     Defendant  timely
appealed to this Court.
Discussion
At trial, the State presented the testimony of Special Agent
Christy  Fischer,  an  SBI  analyst,  regarding  the  results  of  DNA
testing  done  on  blood  found  in  holes  in  the  trigger  of  the         9mm
handgun turned over by Graham.   SBI Special Agent Jill Applebee had
actually conducted the testing, but was no longer working for the
SBI at the time of the trial.   Special Agent Fischer testified that
based  on  her  review  of  Special  Agent  Applebee's  report,  she
believed  that  Special  Agent  Applebee  had  complied  with  all  the
required  procedures  for  the  testing.    Special  Agent  Fischer  also
testified  that  she  agreed  with  the  results  of  Special  Agent
Applebee's  testing,  which  had  concluded  that  the  predominant  DNA
profile  from  the  blood  on  the  9mm  handgun  did  not  match  the  DNA
profile  of  Owens  or  any  profile  contained  in  the  North  Carolina
convicted offender indexes.




-8-
On  appeal,  defendant  argues  that  the  United  States  Supreme
Court's decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts,  ___ U.S.  ___,
174  L.  Ed.  2d  314,  129  S.  Ct.  2527  (2009),  establishes  that  the
admission  of  this  testimony  violated  his  constitutional  right  to
confrontation.    Even  assuming,  arguendo,  that  the  testimony  was
admitted in error, we hold that the State has established that any
error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.   See N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 15A-1443(b) (2009) ("A violation of the defendant's rights under
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  prejudicial  unless  the
appellate  court  finds  that  it  was  harmless  beyond  a  reasonable
doubt.    The  burden  is  upon  the  State  to  demonstrate,  beyond  a
reasonable doubt, that the error was harmless.").
Defendant gave both oral and written statements regarding the
murder.    In each of her three versions, she admitted being inside
Owens' house when he was shot.   In her final version, she admitted
that she took Southerland's 9mm handgun, that she, Miller, Bowser,
and Graham made a plan to rob Owens, that she entered Owens' house
first followed by Miller and Bowser (with Graham waiting outside),
and that Miller shot Owens with the  9mm handgun she had obtained.
This  confession  was  further  supported  by  testimony  from  Bowser,
Hardwrich, Southerland, and the firearms expert.
Although  defendant  notes  various  inconsistencies  in  the
testimony, the evidence was essentially undisputed that defendant
was  present  during  the  shooting.    The  conflicts  in  the  evidence
identified  by  defendant  include  the  differing  stories  told  by
defendant; whether defendant took the 9mm handgun from Southerland




-9-
or someone else stole it; whether there were serious conversations
about robbing someone at Hardwrich's sister's home or just casual
discussions; whether defendant left alone or with Bowser, Graham,
and Miller; and discrepancies about the time of the shooting.   The
DNA evidence, however, was not pertinent to any of these conflicts
in the evidence.    The testing merely suggested that Owens was not
connected  with  the  gun  and  precluded  an  argument  by  the  defense
that the State had not followed every possible lead.
Defendant  argues,  however,  that  "[t]he  results  of  the  DNA
testing done by Jill Applebee provided some support for the State's
theory of the facts, that Owens [sic] death was the result of being
shot about  5:15 a.m. by Maurice Miller, using a  9 mm  [sic] pistol
that Defendant Grady gave to him before he went in the house."     We
do  not  see  how  that  is  the  case.    The  DNA  evidence  regarding  the
blood  on  the                                                                  9mm  handgun's  trigger  did  nothing  to  address  the
discrepancy about the time of the shooting and did not identify the
shooter.   Moreover, on the question of who provided Miller with the
9mm handgun, the fact that the testing did not match the blood to
defendant  supported  defendant's  suggestion  at  trial  that  she  had
not been the source of the  9mm handgun.
In sum, even if we accept arguendo defendant's view that the
evidence  was  in  serious  conflict,  our  review  of  the  record
indicates that there is no plausible basis for concluding that the
DNA  testing  played  any  material  role  in  the  jury's  decision  to
convict  defendant.    We  note  that  27  witnesses  testified  for  the
State over five days at defendant's trial.   Special Agent Fischer's




-10-
testimony  lasted  approximately                                             16  minutes,  and  defendant  has
challenged  only  a  portion  of  that  testimony.     The  challenged
portion  did  not  shed  any  light  on  the  overarching  issue:  whether
defendant was a participant in the robbery and, therefore, also in
the felony murder.
Thus,  absent  the  admission  of  the  testimony,  we  conclude,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that the jury would not have reached a
different decision.   See State v. Locklear, 363 N.C. 438, 453, 681
S.E.2d                                                                       293,                                305           (2009)   (finding  Confrontation  Clause  violation
harmless  beyond  reasonable  doubt  where  "State  presented  copious
evidence"  of  defendant's  guilt);  State  v.  Galindo,  ___  N.C.  App.
___,                                                                         ___,                                683  S.E.2d   785,     788-89                                       (2009)   (finding  Confrontation
Clause  violation  harmless  beyond  reasonable  doubt  in  light  of
"[d]efendant's own statement, in conjunction with the unchallenged
testimony of law enforcement officers").
No error.
Judges CALABRIA and STEPHENS concur.

Download 09-823-3.pdf

South Carolina Law