State v. Glenn
| Decision Date | 17 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. COA20-65,COA20-65 |
| Citation | 852 S.E.2d 436 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Jamall Monte GLENN |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Adrian W. Dellinger, for the State.
Massengale & Ozer, Chapel Hill, by Marilyn G. Ozer, for Defendant.
Defendant Jamall Monte Glenn appeals from judgments entered upon jury verdicts of guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon, two counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and inflicting serious injury, two counts of attempted first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon, and possession of a firearm by a felon. Defendant argues that (1) there was insufficient evidence of both his identity as the perpetrator and of a conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon; (2) the trial court erred by sustaining the State's objection to a question asked on cross-examination concerning a civil lawsuit filed by a witness; and (3) the trial court committed plain error by failing to strike ex mero motu an in-court identification of Defendant as the perpetrator. We discern no error.
On 3 January 2017, Defendant was indicted on two counts of attempted first-degree murder, two counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon, two counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and inflicting serious injury, one count of conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon, one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, and one count of resisting a public officer. Before trial, the State dismissed the misdemeanor resisting arrest count and one count of robbery with a dangerous weapon. Defendant was tried before a jury in Mecklenburg County Superior Court between 15 and 22 July 2019. At the conclusion of the State's evidence, Defendant moved to dismiss all charges. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant did not present any evidence and renewed his motion to dismiss, which the court again denied. The jury found Defendant guilty of all charges, and the trial court sentenced Defendant to consecutive prison terms of 180 to 228 months, 180 to 228 months, and 60 to 84 months. Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court.
The evidence at trial tended to show the following: Between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. on 17 December 2016, Bruce and Joanne Parker went to dinner with a group of friends in Charlotte, North Carolina. After dinner, the Parkers walked to a nearby brewery. Between 10:30 and 10:45 p.m., the Parkers left the brewery to return to their pickup truck, which they had parked before dinner. The parking lot was large, dark, and had few other cars.
As Mr. Parker approached, he saw a medium-sized dark-colored car that had backed into the parking spot next to the driver's side of their truck. Mrs. Parker saw at least three people in the car. Mr. Parker first went to the passenger side of the truck to open the door for Mrs. Parker. Once Mr. Parker had moved around to the driver's side of the truck, he heard someone at the back of the dark-colored car, near its trunk, ask "Hey, man, do you have a jack?" Mr. Parker saw a silhouette of a person at the back of the car; Mrs. Parker saw "a black individual [who] had long dreadlocks." Mr. Parker responded that he did not have a jack.
Immediately after, Mr. Parker saw the driver's side door of the car opening. He saw a "large black male ... [who] had a little difficulty getting out of [the car] because he was such a large man." Mr. Parker estimated that the man was approximately six feet two to six feet three inches tall and described him as heavy set, with short hair, and having a "kind of a large face with puffy cheeks."
After exiting the driver's side door of the car, the man told Mr. Parker, "Don't resist." This was a different voice than had asked for a jack. Mr. Parker responded by putting his hands up and saying, "Here, take what you want." At that point, Mr. Parker estimated that the man who had exited the driver's side of the car was a foot to a foot and a half away from him. The man forced Mr. Parker to the ground. Once he was on the ground, Mr. Parker was shot in his side. At that time, he saw only the man who had exited the car. After being shot, Mr. Parker handed the man his wallet and his phone.
Mrs. Parker then started to come around to the driver's side of the truck and asked her husband if he was okay. At that point, she heard someone say to her, "shut the f*#k up, bi*#h." When she reached the back of the truck, she saw a "very large" black male "holding a gun in his right hand" leaning over the open driver's side door of the car. She then felt a searing pain in her abdomen as she was shot.
That night, two officers with the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department, Shabeer Mohammad and Bret Balamucki, were preparing for off-duty work. While driving in Balamucki's police car, the officers heard a gunshot nearby. They turned into the parking lot where they believed the gunshot occurred and Balamucki saw Mrs. Parker falling. Mohammad exited the patrol car and observed Mr. Parker hunched over. The dark-colored car was exiting the parking lot, approximately fifty to sixty feet away, and Mr. Parker pointed out the car to Mohammad and identified the driver as the shooter. Mohammad saw a "black Toyota Camry with a large black male wearing a black jacket on the driver's side of the vehicle" who was "either putting something in the vehicle or trying to enter the vehicle." Balamucki observed a "large black male wearing a black jacket" who was "very husky, with short hair" entering the car and throwing something in the floorboard behind the driver.
Balamucki, still in his patrol car, began to pursue the Camry as it drove away. He followed the Camry out of the parking lot and maintained pursuit without losing sight until it collided with another car near Novant Health Presbyterian Hospital, crashed into a barrier, and came to a stop. Balamucki approached the accident and "observed two African-American males running from the car" towards the hospital. He could not tell what seat each of the men had gotten out of. He could tell, however, that one of the men running toward the hospital parking garage was the same person whom Mr. Parker had identified as the shooter and who had gotten into the back of the Camry.
Balamucki exited his car and pursued one of the men, who had dreadlocks and was wearing a peacoat-style black jacket. As he did so, he saw the other man going into the parking garage. Balamucki apprehended the man in the peacoat, who was identified as Antonio Worthy. Surveillance video showed two persons in the hospital garage, a "heavy set, tall black male with a short haircut" and "a light-skinned black female with a heavy coat on, long hair, [and] dark colored pants." The two were recorded exiting the garage at 12:16 a.m.
On the driver's seat floorboard of the crashed car, officers found the gun used to shoot the Parkers. Mr. Parker's cell phone and wallet were also recovered from the car, as was a purse and driver's license belonging to Ebonee Ward.
While Balamucki was pursuing the Camry, the Parkers were taken to the hospital. Before being taken to surgery, Mr. Parker again gave a description of the shooter. Mr. Parker recalled describing the shooter as "a black male ... approximately 280 pounds, 6-foot-2, and short hair." Officer Joseph Ellis, who briefly spoke with Mr. Parker in an elevator at the hospital, testified that Mr. Parker described the shooter as "[a] big black guy," and that Mr. Parker agreed that the shooter looked six foot five and 300 pounds. During the investigation, Mr. Parker gave officers a description of the shooter as having "a large face" and being "heavyset" with a "round face, with large facial features," and "puffy cheeks." He could not recall what the shooter was wearing.
At around 1:00 a.m. on 18 December, Defendant called the police to report a carjacking. When officers arrived to take the report, Ms. Ward was present and Defendant identified her as his girlfriend. Defendant reported that at around 9:00 p.m. the previous night he was pumping gas when someone held him at gunpoint, made Ms. Ward and him remove their clothes, and took his 2013 black Toyota Camry and his belongings. The paperwork and vehicle identification number that Defendant provided for the Camry showed that it was the same Camry involved in the shooting of the Parkers. After Defendant gave another statement concerning the alleged carjacking, officers noticed multiple inconsistencies in the details of the report.
Approximately three to four days after the shooting, a detective with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department came to Mr. Parker's hospital room and asked him to look at a photo lineup. At that time, Mr. Parker was unsure that he could identify the shooter, but agreed to look at the lineup. Mr. Parker identified one of the six persons in the photo lineup as the shooter. Though Defendant's photo was in the lineup, Mr. Parker identified another person. Mr. Parker did not learn that he had not identified Defendant until the day prior to the trial.
On redirect examination, Mr. Parker indicated that he was able to make out the shooter's face during the attack. The prosecution asked Mr. Parker, "Whose face were you able to make out?" Mr. Parker then, without objection, identified Defendant in the courtroom. Mr. Parker indicated that Defendant was "pretty much the same man as he was that night," only that he "appear[ed] a little bit thinner."
Defendant first argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss because there was insufficient evidence both that he was the perpetrator of the offenses, and that there was a conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon. We disagree.
This court reviews a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence de novo. State v. Smith , 186 N.C. App. 57, 62, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- In re B.W.
-
State v. Burch
...below we decline Defendant's request.¶ 20 Our Court recently reviewed the issue of an in-court identification in State v. Glenn , 274 N.C. App. 325, 852 S.E.2d 436 (2020). The defendant in Glenn did not challenge the victim's pre-trial identifications or in-court identification of him as th......
-
State v. Burch
...Court recently reviewed the issue of an in-court identification in State v. Glenn, 274 N.C.App. 325, 852 S.E.2d 436 (2020). The defendant in Glenn not challenge the victim's pre-trial identifications or in-court identification of him as the perpetrator. Id. at 338, 852 S.E.2d at 446. Defens......