State v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 18 September 2018
• Docket Number: No. COA18-337,COA18-337
• Citation: 261 N.C.App. 459,820 S.E.2d 862
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Douglas Nelson EDWARDS
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

261 N.C.App. 459

820 S.E.2d 862

STATE of North Carolina

v.Douglas Nelson EDWARDS

No. COA18-337

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 18, 2018

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General L. Michael Dodd, for the State.

Marilyn G. Ozer, Chapel Hill, for defendant.

ARROWOOD, Judge.

Douglas Nelson Edwards ("defendant") appeals from judgments entered on his convictions for attempted first degree murder, statutory sex offense with a child by an adult, assault with deadly weapon inflicting serious injury ("AWDWISI"), first degree kidnapping, and taking indecent liberties with a child. For the following reasons, we find no prejudicial error.

I. Background

On 14 November 2016, a New Hanover County Grand Jury indicted defendant on one count of attempted first degree murder, one count of statutory sex offense with a child by an adult, one count of statutory rape of a child by an adult, one count of AWDWISI, one count of first degree kidnapping, and two counts of indecent liberties with a child. Additionally, on 20 February 2017, a New Hanover County Grand Jury indicted defendant on one count of intimidating a witness and one count of felony obstruction of justice.

Defendant's case was tried in New Hanover County Superior Court before the Honorable Phyllis M. Gorham beginning on 11 September 2017. The evidence at trial tended to show that shortly before 5:00 p.m. on 14 September 2016, defendant abducted a six-year-old girl (the "juvenile") from in front of her home in the Royal Palms Mobile Home Park. Defendant drove with the juvenile on his moped to a wooded area, assaulted the juvenile, and bound the juvenile to a tree with a chain around her neck. Based on witnesses who either saw the defendant in the mobile home park, saw the abduction, or recognized defendant when they saw him driving on the moped with the juvenile, law enforcement was quickly able to identify defendant as a suspect.

Within a short time from the abduction, law enforcement stopped defendant twice. During the second stop, defendant agreed to go to the sheriff's office to be interviewed. During the interview on 14 September 2016, defendant denied knowing anything about the abduction. When law enforcement became convinced defendant was not going to confess, law enforcement took defendant to his aunt's house and released him under surveillance with the hope that defendant would return to the location where he left the juvenile.

Law enforcement continued to search for the juvenile through the night. Based on witnesses' recollections, cell phone tracking, and gps and video from a school bus that passed defendant while he was pulled to the side of the road, law enforcement was able to use canines to locate and rescue the juvenile the following morning.

After the juvenile was rescued, defendant, who was still being surveilled by law enforcement, was arrested. Defendant was unaware the juvenile had been rescued at the time. During defendant's post-arrest interrogation on 15 September 2016, defendant admitted to the abduction and took law enforcement to the location where he left the juvenile and from where the juvenile was rescued. Defendant learned the juvenile had been rescued after he could not find the juvenile where he left her.

Acknowledging there was insufficient evidence of statutory rape, the State voluntarily dismissed the rape charge at the close of the State's evidence. The State also conceded there was no evidence of intent with deceit for felony obstruction of justice and requested that the jury be instructed on misdemeanor obstruction of justice.

On 20 September 2017, the jury returned verdicts finding defendant guilty of attempted first degree murder, statutory sex offense with a child by an adult, AWDWISI, first degree kidnapping, and two counts of indecent liberties with a child. The jury returned verdicts finding defendant not guilty of intimidating a witness and obstruction of justice. The trial court entered judgment on the not guilty verdicts on 20 September 2017.

Pursuant to a notice of aggravating factors filed by the State on 22 June 2017, the State argued to the jury on 21 September 2017 that the offenses were "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" and that "[t]he victim was very young." The jury determined both aggravating factors applied to each offense. The trial court determined an aggravated sentence was justified for each offense based on the jury's determination that each offense was "especially heinous, atrocious or cruel." The trial court arrested judgment on one of the indecent liberties with a child convictions and entered separate judgments for each of the other convictions sentencing defendant as a prior record level IV to consecutive terms, each at the top of the aggravated range for each offense, totaling 970 to 1,320 months of imprisonment. The trial court also ordered defendant to register as a sex offender for life following his release. The trial court postponed its determination on satellite-based monitoring. Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court following sentencing. Appellate entries were received on 25 September 2017.

Defendant subsequently filed a Motion for Appropriate Relief ("MAR") on 29 September 2017 challenging the aggravated sentences. By order filed 13 November 2017, the trial court denied defendant's MAR. Appellate entries related to the MAR were received on 28 November 2017.

II. Discussion

On appeal, defendant challenges the trial court's decision to disallow cross-examination of the State's witnesses regarding his post-arrest interrogation and the trial court's denial of his MAR.

1. Cross-Examination

Defendant first argues his constitutional rights to due process, a fair trial, and the right to silence were violated when the trial court limited his opening statement and prevented him from cross-examining the State's witnesses concerning his admission and his attempt to help investigators rescue the juvenile during his post-arrest interrogation. Defendant asserts that

[b]ecause [he] was charged with attempted first degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, both of which required the State to prove that [he] intended the child would die, it was critical to the defense to be able to show the jurors that [he] did tell the officers where she was located and actually led them to the site.

Defendant claims he was forced to testify because of the trial court's erroneous evidentiary rulings. As a result of the alleged errors and constitutional violations, defendant contends he is entitled to a new trial on the attempted first degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill charges. We disagree.

At the outset, we note that defendant was not charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, as defendant asserts. Defendant was charged with and convicted of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury; therefore, intent to kill was not at issue for the assault offense.¹

Moreover, a review of the record shows the trial court did not grant a motion by the State to limit defendant's opening statement and did not order defendant not to mention his post-arrest interrogation in his opening statement, as defendant avers. In fact, the State never made such a motion. Prior to the opening statements, the State indicated that it would not be introducing all of defendant's statements to law enforcement and argued it was not required to do so under Rule 106 because the pre-and post-arrest interviews were discrete. The State explained that it was raising the issue prior to opening statements because it did not want the defense to mention evidence that may not be introduced during the presentation of the State's case. Specifically, the State asserted that "while [the defense] certainly can make whatever opening they want to do, they do that at their peril of either not being able to back up what they say or having to put on a case that they might not otherwise have wanted to." After additional clarification of the State's position—that the State's presentation of evidence from the interview of defendant on 14 September 2016 did not open the door to cross-examination by the defense regarding the post-arrest interrogation of defendant on 15 September 2016—the State further explained that, preemptively,

[it] just wanted to give [the defense] the warning that [it] believe[s], ... that if [the defense] makes any opening statement to promises [the jury will] hear [evidence regarding defendant's post arrest interrogation], that's going to be requiring [the defense] to put on a case which they're not constitutionally required at this point to do. And I didn't want that trial strategy to be something that the defendant said he was forced into doing because of some utterance by his attorney during opening, which is, of course, not evidence.

.... [The State didn't] want [defendant] to claim that this is a trial strategy that he did not endorse and agree with ... and he is now forced to go down that road because he's been placed there by his attorneys.

Although the defense disagreed with the State's position that the post-arrest interrogation was a discrete interview, the defense acknowledged that it understood the State's argument that "unless [the defense is] prepared to put on some evidence, [it] [could not] say to the jury in [its] opening the [defendant] later took them to that scene." The trial court simply replied, "[y]ou would be doing that at your own risk."

Because the trial court did not actually limit the defense's opening statement, the issues to be addressed are whether the trial court erred by disallowing the defense's cross-examination of the State's witnesses and whether defendant was prejudiced thereby.

In this case, the State elicited testimony from law enforcement officer's about defendant's statements during road-side stops and an interview on 14 September 2016. The State, however, did not elicit any testimony...