State v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 18 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | COA22-706 |
| Parties | STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMARIO N. EDWARDS, Defendant |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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.
Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 February 2023.
Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 29 November 2021 by Judge Joseph N. Crosswhite in Iredell County Superior Court Nos. 19 CRS 55365, 20 CRS 1219.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General John R. Green, Jr., for the State.
W Michael Spivey, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jamario N. Edwards ("Defendant") appeals from judgment after a jury convicted him of common-law robbery, and he subsequently pleaded guilty to attaining the status of habitual felon. On appeal, Defendant argues this Court should (1) vacate his conviction of common-law robbery because the trial court erred in admitting dog-tracking evidence, and, as a result, (2) reverse his conviction for attaining the status of habitual felon.
On 14 October 2019 at approximately 4:00 a.m., an individual robbed the Circle K gas station at the corner of Wilson Avenue and South Main Street in Mooresville. Kendra Kiger, the cashier on duty at the time of the robbery, testified at trial as follows: a man wearing a mask and a teal-colored hoodie approached Kiger while she was outside the store on her phone. The man, whom Kiger identified as Defendant during trial, brandished a silver handgun and told Kiger to come inside. Once inside, Defendant told Kiger to "give him the money out of the register," and Kiger complied. Kiger was only two to three feet from Defendant at the time. During the robbery, Defendant asked Kiger, "are you going to tell on me?" Kiger replied she did not know who he was. Kiger testified her initial response was a lie, and that she recognized Defendant as a regular customer who shopped at this location "all the time."
After Defendant left the store, Kiger called the police, and the Mooresville Police Department responded. In her 911 call, Kiger stated that she thought she knew the suspect. Kiger gave a written statement to the police, which was later admitted into evidence. Kiger stated she did not know Defendant's name but described him as a regular customer with tattoos. Kiger initially described the tattoos as star tattoos on Defendant's left hand, which she recognized from her previous encounters with Defendant in the store. The State's Exhibit 9 showed that Defendant had three star-shaped tattoos on the fingers of his right hand, and one star-shaped tattoo on his left hand. Kiger further testified that she recognized Defendant by his voice, based on conversations during prior transactions. A computer aided dispatch report generated by law enforcement indicated that the suspect was a regular customer who typically drove a silver SUV, though a description of the vehicle was not included in Kiger's statement to police.
Jesse Scott, an officer and K-9 handler with the Mooresville Police Department, also testified for the State. A member of the on-duty shift called Officer Scott to assist in tracking the suspect. Within forty-two minutes, he arrived at the scene with a Belgian Malinois named "Hanzel." First, Officer Scott instructed Hanzel to lay down at the last location Defendant had been standing. Hanzel then began to track the suspect through an opening in the fence, through a trailer park, turning right onto Church Street, taking a left at a roundabout, and continuing until Officer Scott and Hanzel heard dogs barking. Hanzel lost the track at the intersection of Nesbit and Mills, specifically at 355 Nesbit Avenue.
After the track was complete, officers checked the three houses in close proximity to where Hanzel lost the scent, including 361 Nesbit Avenue, and two others which were subsequently ruled out. When police knocked on the door of 361 Nesbit Avenue, no one answered the door. Shortly thereafter, Captain Chris Jorgensen of the Mooresville Police Department developed a lead and searched Defendant's name in "Links Carolina," a database used by law enforcement. The database returned descriptive information on Defendant, including the star tattoos on his hands. The search results also revealed Defendant's connection to the address at 361 Nesbit Avenue and a Ms. Waddell ("Waddell") who lived there.
Between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on 14 October 2019, Mooresville detectives Shawn Elliot and Ryan Powers returned to 361 Nesbit Avenue and observed a silver Ford Expedition parked outside. The license plate displayed on the vehicle was registered to Waddell. While officers surveilled the home, Defendant arrived in a vehicle with Waddell. Waddell spoke to the officers outside the home, stated that her boyfriend, Defendant, "had stuff there" and gave verbal and written consent for the officers to search the premises. Officers found a silver BB pistol behind a dresser drawer in the master bedroom, and a teal hoodie between the wall and a mattress in the same room. Officers then arrested Defendant.
A grand jury indicted Defendant for robbery with a dangerous weapon and attaining the status of habitual felon. At the 29 November 2021 session of Iredell County Superior Court, the Honorable Joseph N. Crosswhite presided over Defendant's jury trial.
At trial, Officer Scott testified during voir dire to Hanzel's training, education, certification, experience, and reliability in tracking human scent. Officer Scott testified that he had traveled to Alabama with Hanzel for a six-week handler's course, which included tracking. Officer Scott also documented that he trained Hanzel in human tracking five times over a six-month period, along with personal training at home. Hanzel performed "strongly" in training events hosted by the United Police Work Dog Association ("UPWDA"). Officer Scott further testified that (1) Hanzel displayed qualities of acuteness of scent and power of discrimination, (2) Hanzel was accustomed to and trained to pursue a human track, (3) Hanzel had the power of discrimination to distinguish human scents from other scents, and (4) Hanzel was found to be experienced and reliable in the track of human scents. Officer Scott's records reflected that only one time in the six months prior had Hazel executed a human track, which did not lead to an identification of the suspect. After hearing evidence during voir dire, the trial court ruled the testimony admissible, noting Defendant's concerns with the evidence "would go certainly to any weight in this case rather than the admissibility."
At the close of the State's evidence, the court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon but denied the motion as to the lesser-included offense of common-law robbery. The jury convicted Defendant of common-law robbery. Defendant then pleaded guilty to attaining the status of habitual felon. Prior to this conviction, Defendant had been convicted of six other felonies. On 2 December 2021, Judge Crosswhite sentenced Defendant to a minimum of 77 months and a maximum of 105 months' incarceration. Defendant gave oral notice of appeal on 2 December 2021.
This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant's appeal pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7A-27(b)(1) and 15A-1444(a), (a2) (2021).
The issues before this Court are whether: (1) the trial court erred by admitting dog-tracking evidence, and (2) Defendant's conviction of attaining the status of habitual felon must be reversed.
In his first substantive argument, Defendant contends Officer Scott's voir dire testimony failed to establish the requisite elements for admitting the dog tracking evidence. After careful review, we disagree.
As an initial note, Defendant attempts to frame his argument regarding Officer Scott's testimony as a question of relevance-rather than admissibility of expert testimony-regarding Hanzel's tracking activities during the search for the robbery suspect. Evidentiary issues of relevance are reviewed de novo on appeal. State v. Coleman, 254 N.C.App. 497, 502, 803 S.E.2d 820, 824 (2017). After careful review, we reject Defendant's relevance argument because binding caselaw compels us to apply a more exacting standard.
"A trial court's determination of an expert witness's qualifications and admission of testimony is reviewed for abuse of discretion." State v. Barrett, 266 N.C.App. 101, 102, 830 S.E.2d 696, 697 (2019) (). Our Supreme Court has acknowledged the following with respect to expert testimony:
In the absence of a request by the appellant for a finding by the trial court as to the qualification of a witness as an expert, it is not essential that the record show an express finding on this matter, the finding, one way or the other, being deemed implicit in the ruling admitting or rejecting the opinion testimony of the witness .... In addition, [the Court] ha[s] determined that when a defendant interposed only general objections to trial testimony and never requested a finding by the trial court as to the witnesses' qualifications as experts, the recognition that the witnesses were qualified to testify as experts was implicit in the trial court's ruling admitting the opinion testimony.
State v. Godwin, 369 N.C. 604, 610, 800 S.E.2d 47 51 (2017) (internal citation omitted). "[A] trial court may be reversed for abuse of discretion only upon a...
To continue reading
Request your trial