State v. Blackmon
| Decision Date | 05 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. COA20-801,COA20-801 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina, v. Louis BLACKMON, Defendant. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Wendy J. Lindberg, for the State.
Jason Christopher Yoder, for Defendant-Appellant.
¶ 1 Louis Blackmon ("Defendant") appeals pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b) (2019) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(a) (2019) from judgment after a jury found him guilty of one count of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-32(a). Defendant argues on appeal the trial court erred in admitting a prior incident involving a flare gun because it was not probative as to motive or identity. Furthermore, he contends that even if the incident were admissible for a proper purpose, its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Finally, Defendant asserts he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his lawyer failed to renew his objection to the flare gun incident at trial and failed to request a limiting instruction on the incident. Because we hold the flare gun incident was relevant to show Defendant's motive and ill will towards the victim, we find no error and do not consider Defendant's remaining arguments.
¶ 2 The evidence at trial tended to show the following: for nearly fifteen years prior to 15 October 2018, Defendant lived with and dated Priscilla Moore ("Moore"), the mother of victim, Ceano White ("White"). In early 2018, White and Moore kicked Defendant out of their house. On 15 October 2018, White was returning home from a friend's house when he encountered Defendant on the street in White's neighborhood. Defendant threatened to shoot White and eventually did so five times; four bullets hit White directly and one bullet struck White, went through his hand, ricocheted off the concrete, and hit him again in the mouth. Before Defendant left the scene of the incident, he said he "ran out of bullets" and was going to get some more. White walked across the street and passed out. Officer Wallace was later called to the scene of the shooting where a man in the neighboring yard, who had witnessed the shooting, told Officer Wallace that "a male had been shot." Officer Wallace approached the victim who identified himself as Ceano White. White told Officer Wallace he had been shot by Defendant. On 16 October 2018, a warrant for Defendant's arrest was issued and alleged Defendant committed an assault with a deadly weapon with the intent to kill and inflict serious injury upon White.
¶ 3 At trial on 7 November 2019, White testified that on at least two occasions since 2014, Defendant had threatened to kill White or had shot White. The first incident was on 2 September 2018 when Defendant returned to Moore's house to gather the rest of his belongings. During this interaction, Defendant pointed at White, as if holding a gun, and said, "pow, pop goes the weasel." A few days later, Defendant saw White at a store, and Defendant stated,
¶ 4 The second occasion occurred on 29 August 2014 and involved Defendant firing a flare gun at White ("the flare gun incident"). White's testimony regarding the flare gun incident was admitted at trial. White testified Defendant had taken Moore's car for a drive that day. White called Defendant and told him to bring Moore's car back. When Defendant returned, White heard Moore and Defendant arguing. As White stepped in the room, Defendant shot White in the neck with a flare gun. The shot from the flare gun injured White's neck and started a small fire on the carpet of White's bedroom, which the fire department had to extinguish. Officer Steward responded to this incident and arrested Defendant, but the charges against Defendant were dropped because neither White nor Moore appeared in court to testify regarding the incident.
¶ 5 Prior to the 6 November 2019 trial, the State filed a motion to introduce 404(b) evidence, which was inclusive of evidence of the flare gun incident and Defendant's prior threatening statements on the basis the evidence of the bad acts was offered for a proper purpose, such as identity, motive, intent, or lack of accident. At a pre-trial hearing on the matter, the State asserted the evidence of the prior acts was offered to prove identity and motive, "that the defendant had threatened to kill him, had shot him before, and made good on his threats that night to try and kill him ...." Defense counsel objected to the introduction of the 404(b) evidence. Despite the objection, the trial court allowed the evidence to be introduced, but did not specify for which purpose. Defense counsel did not renew the objection to the 404(b) evidence at trial. Further, defense counsel did not request a limiting jury instruction in relation to this evidence.
¶ 6 The jury found Defendant guilty of one count of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. Defendant was sentenced to a minimum term of 67 months and a maximum term of 93 months of imprisonment in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Adult Corrections. Immediately after sentencing on 7 November 2019, Defendant entered his notice of appeal in open court.
¶ 7 The issues presented on appeal are whether: (1) the trial court erred by admitting the 404(b) evidence of the flare gun incident as probative of identity or motive; and (2) Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel when his lawyer failed to renew the objection to the flare gun incident and failed to request a limiting instruction on the same.
¶ 8 Appeal lies in this Court as a matter of right pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b) (2019) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(a) (2019).
¶ 9 On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence of the flare gun incident because the evidence was not probative to motive or identity. He further contends that the flare gun incident was "not similar at all" in nature to the incident at issue, and its occurrence is too remote in time to be probative. We disagree.
¶ 10 State v. Beckelheimer , 366 N.C. 127, 130, 726 S.E.2d 156, 159 (2012) (emphasis added). An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision of the trial court is "manifestly unsupported by reason, or so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision." State v. Locklear , 331 N.C. 239, 248, 415 S.E.2d 726, 732 (1992) (citations and internal quotations omitted). "Evidentiary errors are harmless unless a defendant proves that absent the error a different result would have been reached at trial." State v. Ferguson , 145 N.C. App. 302, 307, 549 S.E.2d 889, 893 (citation omitted), disc. rev. denied , 354 N.C. 223, 554 S.E.2d 650 (2001).
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (2019). Our Supreme Court has held "the ultimate test for determining whether ... evidence [of motive] is admissible is whether the [other] incidents are sufficiently similar and not so remote in time as to be more probative than prejudicial under the balancing test of [N.C. Gen. Stat.] § 8C-1, Rule 403." State v. Boyd , 321 N.C. 574, 577, 364 S.E.2d 118, 119 (1988) (citation omitted).
¶ 12 North Carolina Courts have consistently held that prior assaults are admissible to show motive or ill will. See State v. Lloyd , 354 N.C. 76, 90–91, 552 S.E.2d 596, 609 (2001) (); see also State v. White , 349 N.C. 535, 552–53, 508 S.E.2d 253, 265 (1998) (), cert. denied , 527 U.S. 1026, 119 S. Ct. 2376, 144 L. Ed. 2d 779 (1999) ; State v. Enoch , 261 N.C. App. 474, 491–92, 820 S.E.2d 543, 556 (2018) (), disc. rev. denied , 372 N.C. 105, 824 S.E.2d 422 (2019).
¶ 13 Here, the flare gun incident is sufficiently similar to the shooting at issue in this case because the record tends to show both incidents transpired between Defendant and White and occurred immediately after Defendant came into contact with White. Additionally, Defendant was the perpetrator in both incidents and used a type of gun to discharge a projectile directly at White. Although the flare gun incident took place approximately four years before Defendant shot White with a pistol, the remoteness in time does not make the flare gun incident inadmissible. State v. Stager , 329 N.C. 278, 307, 406 S.E.2d 876, 893 (1991) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial