State v. Daughtridge
| Decision Date | 02 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. COA15–1160.,COA15–1160. |
| Citation | 789 S.E.2d 667,248 N.C.App. 707 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Travis Lamont DAUGHTRIDGE. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Sonya Calloway–Durham, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.
Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant.
Travis Lamont Daughtridge ("Defendant") appeals from his convictions for first-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal, he contends that the trial court plainly erred by allowing the admission of (1) an investigator's testimony concerning Defendant's demeanor; and (2) opinion testimony from a medical examiner that the victim's death was a homicide rather than a suicide. After careful review, we conclude that Defendant received a fair trial free from prejudicial error.
The State presented evidence at trial tending to establish the following facts: In 2011, Simeka Daughtridge ("Simeka") lived with her three children at her mother's house on Spruce Street in Durham, North Carolina. Her mother, Linda Sanders ("Linda"), and her brother, Kevin Surratt ("Kevin"), also lived at the Spruce Street address along with Kevin's girlfriend and their infant son.
On 26 August 2011, Simeka married Defendant, who periodically stayed with Simeka at Linda's residence. However, their relationship began to deteriorate soon after their marriage.
On 30 October 2011, while Defendant was at Linda's house, Defendant and Simeka began arguing in Simeka's bedroom. The door was shut, and they were alone together in the room. Linda was at church and Kevin, his girlfriend, and their son were in Kevin's bedroom. Simeka's children were watching television in the living room.
Approximately 10–15 minutes after Defendant and Simeka began arguing, Simeka's eldest daughter heard a gunshot from the direction of Simeka's room and observed Defendant run out of the room a few seconds later. Simeka's son also heard a "loud noise" and the sound of shattering glass coming from Simeka's bedroom. He too saw Defendant run out of the room several seconds later.
Defendant, upon seeing the children, yelled: "[Y]our mom shot herself." He then shouted in the direction of Kevin's room: "Your sister shot herself." Kevin immediately ran into Simeka's room while his girlfriend called 911. Kevin discovered Simeka laying on her bed on her left side with an apparent bullet wound to her chest. He attempted to perform first aid by rolling Simeka onto her back and applying pressure to the wound with a towel. Defendant stood in the doorway for several seconds and then fled from the house.
Officers with the Durham Police Department ("DPD") responded to the scene at approximately 2:00 p.m., and emergency medical personnel arrived shortly thereafter. Simeka was transported via ambulance to Duke University Medical Center. Upon arrival, she was pronounced dead.
Upon examining Simeka's bedroom, law enforcement officers discovered a .9 millimeter Kel–Tec semi-automatic handgun laying on the floor roughly three feet from Simeka's body. They also discovered a bullet inside a washing machine in the bedroom that had passed through the glass door of the machine and shattered it.
Approximately one hour after the shooting had occurred, Defendant returned to Linda's house. He then told one of the officers that Simeka had shot herself.
Detective David Anthony ("Detective Anthony") with the DPD spoke with Defendant in his patrol car parked outside of the residence. Detective Anthony told Defendant that he was not under arrest but asked him if he would be willing to come to the police station to be interviewed. Defendant agreed, and while at the police station he voluntarily surrendered his clothing for gunshot residue ("GSR") analysis.
Defendant provided a written statement in which he stated that he and Simeka had been talking in her bedroom and that he had then left the bedroom and gone to the living room when he heard a gunshot. He shouted to Kevin that Simeka had shot herself and did not thereafter reenter Simeka's room because "[he] just couldn't do it." Instead, he ran to a neighbor's house.
Investigator Charles Sole ("Investigator Sole") was assigned as the lead investigator of the case. Upon reviewing the written statement Defendant had given to Detective Anthony, Investigator Sole decided to schedule a follow-up interview with Defendant because based on his training and experience certain parts of Defendant's account of the incident "were just not adding up."
Prior to the follow-up interview with Defendant, Investigator Sole received the results of the GSR analysis that had been performed on Defendant and his clothing. The analysis revealed that particles of GSR were present on Defendant's t-shirt, jeans, and hooded jacket. Investigator Sole interviewed Defendant once more on 9 November 2011. He ultimately arrested Defendant on 7 December 2011 for the murder of Simeka.
On 12 December 2011, Defendant was indicted on charges of first-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a felon. Beginning on 27 September 2014, a jury trial was held before the Honorable Henry W. Hight, Jr. in Durham County Superior Court.
At trial, the State introduced the testimony of Dr. Eric Duval ("Dr. Duval"), a forensic pathologist and medical examiner. Dr. Duval testified as an expert in the field of forensic pathology. He opined that the cause of death was a bullet wound to Simeka's chest. He further stated his opinion that "the manner of death [was] homicide."
The State also offered the testimony of David Freehling ("Freehling"), an expert in the field of GSR testing, who testified that while Simeka's hands and clothing had tested negative for GSR, Defendant's t-shirt, hooded jacket, and jeans all tested positive for GSR with one particle of GSR found on each of these three articles of clothing.
While Defendant did not testify, he attempted to establish during his case-in-chief that Simeka's death was a suicide. In support of this theory, defense counsel re-called Detective Anthony as a witness and examined him on the subject of why law enforcement officers had not investigated more extensively the theory that Simeka killed herself.
Defendant also called Kevin as a witness, who testified that Simeka had exhibited suicidal tendencies prior to her death and had threatened to kill herself on at least one prior occasion. Kevin further stated that Simeka was depressed and unhappy as a result of her deteriorating relationship with Defendant.
In addition, Defendant introduced testimony from his own GSR expert, Robert White, who testified that he would typically expect more than three particles of GSR to be present on the clothing of an individual who had fired a gun. Finally, Defendant presented the testimony of Dr. Christina Roberts, an expert in forensic pathology, who stated that she was unable to determine whether Simeka's manner of death was homicide or suicide.
The jury found Defendant guilty of both charges. The trial court sentenced Defendant to consecutive sentences of life imprisonment without parole for his first-degree murder conviction and 19–23 months imprisonment for his conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
Initially, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction over Defendant's appeal. See Hous. Auth. of City of Wilmington v. Sparks Eng'g, PLLC, 212 N.C.App. 184, 187, 711 S.E.2d 180, 182 (2011) ( " . The State challenges the sufficiency of Defendant's notice of appeal and argues that his appeal should be dismissed. Defendant contends that notice of appeal was properly given, but, out of an abundance of caution, he also filed a petition for writ of certiorari with this Court in the event we determine that his purported notice was, in fact, defective.
At the conclusion of trial, the following colloquy took place between Defendant's trial counsel and the trial court:
While this exchange is admittedly not a model of clarity, we nevertheless interpret it as manifesting Defendant's intention to enter a notice of appeal to this Court. In response to Defendant's trial counsel's request, the trial court ordered that the Office of the Appellate Defender be appointed to represent Defendant before this Court. Moreover, the State does not contend that it was misled or prejudiced in any way by any defect in Defendant's notice of appeal.
We therefore hold that Defendant's oral notice of appeal was sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court. See State v. Williams, 235 N.C.App. 201, 203, 761 S.E.2d 662, 664 (2014) (), appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 368 N.C. 241, 768 S.E.2d 857 (2015). Consequently, we deny the State's motion to dismiss the appeal, dismiss Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari as moot, and proceed to address the merits of Defendant's arguments.
Defendant's first argument on appeal is that the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sanford
...of law." State v. Gobal , 186 N.C. App. 308, 319, 651 S.E.2d 279, 287 (2007) (citations omitted); see also State v. Daughtridge , 248 N.C. App. 707, 719, 789 S.E.2d 667, 674 (2016).¶ 35 Notably, defense counsel was examining Patneaude when counsel asked about the parties’ agreement. Specifi......
-
State v. King
...appellate process and the State has not been prejudiced by the imperfect wording of Defendant's appeal. See State v. Daughtridge , 248 N.C. App. 707, 712, 789 S.E.2d 667, 670 (2016) (holding the "[d]efendant's oral notice of appeal was sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court" even......
-
State v. Faggart
...the trial judge's pronouncement, Defendant's intent to give notice can be inferred from the record and transcript. See Daughtridge, 248 N.C.App. at 712, 789 S.E.2d at 670. Additionally, the State does not contend it was misled prejudiced by Defendant's purported notice of appeal. See id. at......
-
State v. Mullis
...Rule 4 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure to confer jurisdiction on this Court to review that judgment. State v. Daughtridge , 248 N.C. App. 707, 712, 789 S.E.2d 667, 670 (2016). We dismiss his first petition as moot and address the merits of his challenges to the criminal judgment below. ......