State v. Goins
| Decision Date | 04 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. COA19-288,COA19-288 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina, v. Brandon Scott GOINS, Defendant. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Catherine F. Jordan, for the State.
Joseph P. Lattimore for defendant-appellant.
Criminal defendants have an absolute constitutional right to plead not guilty and be tried by a jury of their peers. U.S. Const. amend. VI ; N.C. Const. art. I, § 24. Our caselaw is unequivocal that the right to enter a plea of not guilty encompasses the right to be free from condemnation in front of a jury for making that choice. A defendant's right to a fair trial is abridged by a prosecutor's complaints before a jury during closing argument about the defendant's decision to plead not guilty, and that is exactly what happened here. During her closing argument the prosecutor condemned Defendant, Brandon Scott Goins, for pleading not guilty and in doing so violated Defendant's right to receive a fair trial. We order a new trial.
This appeal concerns a violation of Defendant's constitutional right to receive a fair trial. More specifically, our resolution of the appeal is exclusively focused on the prosecutor's closing argument, wherein the alleged violation occurred. Defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon on a law enforcement officer, one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, and one count of attempted first-degree murder, and sentenced to consecutive presumptive prison terms of 33 to 52 months, 17 to 30 months, 207 to 261 months, and 33 to 52 months. As our analysis is solely focused on the content of the prosecutor's closing argument, we include the relevant facts in our analysis.
"The standard of review when a defendant fails to object at trial [to an allegedly improper closing argument] is whether the argument complained of was so grossly improper that the trial court erred in failing to intervene ex mero motu ." State v. Trull , 349 N.C. 428, 451, 509 S.E.2d 178, 193 (1998). "To merit a new trial, ‘the prosecutor's remarks must have perverted or contaminated the trial such that they rendered the proceedings fundamentally unfair.’ " State v. Phillips , 365 N.C. 103, 136, 711 S.E.2d 122, 146 (2011) (quoting State v. Mann , 355 N.C. 294, 307-08, 560 S.E.2d 776, 785 (2002) ).
"[A] criminal defendant possesses an absolute constitutional right to plead not guilty and be tried before a jury, and should not and [can] not be punished for exercising that right." State v. Thompson , 118 N.C. App. 33, 41, 454 S.E.2d 271, 276 (1995) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Ladd , 308 N.C. 272, 284, 302 S.E.2d 164, 172 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, "[r]eference by the State to a defendant's failure to plead guilty violates his constitutional right to a jury trial." State v. Larry , 345 N.C. 497, 524, 481 S.E.2d 907, 923 (1997). Here, we are presented with a closing argument that rendered the proceedings fundamentally unfair and requires a new trial.
During closing argument, the State repeatedly brought up Defendant's failure to plead guilty: Later, the State returned to Defendant's plea, stating,
"No other right of the individual has been so zealously guarded over the years and so deeply embedded in our system of jurisprudence as an accused's right to a jury trial." State v. Boone , 293 N.C. 702, 712, 239 S.E.2d 459, 465 (1977). "[P]rosecutorial argument complaining a criminal defendant has failed to plead guilty and thereby put the State to its burden of proof is no less impermissible than an argument commenting upon a defendant's failure to testify." Thompson , 118 N.C. App. at 41, 454 S.E.2d at 276. Here, the prosecutor's closing argument complaining about Defendant's decision to plead not guilty violates Defendant's right to receive a fair trial and necessitates a new trial.
In addition to the argument regarding Defendant's decision to plead not guilty, the prosecutor's closing argument was impermissible for a second reason. "It is not permissible argument for counsel to read, or otherwise state, the facts of another case, together with the decision therein, as premises leading to the conclusion that the jury should return a verdict favorable to his [side] in the case on trial." State v. Simmons , 205 N.C. App. 509, 514, 698 S.E.2d 95, 100 (2010). Such impropriety is only grounds for a new trial where the prosecutor's use of the other case is prejudicial, i.e. where "the prosecutor's improper argument led the jury to believe that it was compelled to return a verdict of guilty in [the immediate] case ...." Id. at 517, 698 S.E.2d at 102.
Here, the prosecutor acted impermissibly when she stated: "I told you I was going to mention a North Carolina Court of Appeals case, it's State versus Haynesworth ...." After describing the facts of Haynesworth and the trial court's finding that, there, the defendant acted with premeditation and deliberation, the prosecutor offered, "I raise that [case] because I contend [it] is much weaker than ours." We need not decide whether this part of the prosecutor's closing argument was prejudicial such that it requires a new trial—our Constitution requires a new trial solely based on the prosecutor's argument regarding Defendant's not guilty plea—but we take this opportunity to unequivocally restate that such an argument has no place in a closing argument. The prosecutor's decision to flaunt this well-settled rule was improper.
In addition to his argument regarding the State's closing argument, Defendant asserts two arguments we need not address on appeal. First, he argues the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter, and, second, he argues the trial court committed plain error by permitting Lieutenant Smith to comment on Defendant's guilt or innocence and interpret video footage to corroborate witness testimony. Because our analysis of Defendant's other argument requires a new trial, we need not reach these arguments. See, e.g. , State v. Long , 196 N.C. App. 22, 41, 674 S.E.2d 696, 707 (2009) ().
The prosecutor in this case violated Defendant's constitutional right to receive a fair trial when she improperly commented on his decision to plead not guilty.
NEW TRIAL.
The majority's opinion grants Defendant a new trial based upon unobjected to statements in the prosecutor's closing argument. Without objection, Defendant could not have presented any constitutional argument to the trial court that his right to a fair trial was violated. Defendant's failure to assert this argument waives that argument on appeal. N.C. R. App. P. 10(b)(1).
Any review of the prosecutor's closing argument is limited to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1230 (2019). Defendant has not shown prejudicial error in the jury's verdict or the judgment entered thereon to be awarded a new trial. I respectfully dissent.
Brandon Scott Goins ("Defendant") was placed on probation for felonious trafficking in opium or heroin and absconded supervision. Law enforcement officers learned Defendant was staying at a Kannapolis hotel. Kannapolis Police Detective Trey Hinton and other officers travelled to the hotel to arrest Defendant. Defendant was armed and engaged in a shoot-out with Detective Hinton, who fired his service weapon between twelve to fourteen times. Thirteen shell casings were recovered from the hotel's hallway.
The State's evidence tended to show Defendant fired his gun four times during the encounter. Defendant was injured during the shoot-out and subsequently apprehended. At trial during Detective Hinton's testimony, the State played a video of the incident recorded by the hotel's security system for the jury. The State also offered the testimony of Lieutenant Justin Smith who narrated the hotel video before the jury.
The State presented other evidence tending to show that shortly before the day of the shooting, Defendant had shown his grandmother and uncle a gun, had purchased ammunition for the gun and told them that the bullets would penetrate a bullet proof vest. The State also introduced testimony that Defendant told his uncle that the gun had "cop-killer" bullets.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon on a law enforcement officer, one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, and one count of attempted first-degree murder. Defendant appealed.
This Court possess jurisdiction over Defendant's appeal as a matter of right pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7A-27(b)(1) and 15A-1444(a) (2019).
Defendant argues the trial court committed plain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hutcherson v. Cannon
... ... See State v. Sharpe , 344 N.C. 190, 194, 473 S.E.2d 3, 5 (1996) ("This Court has long held that where a theory argued on appeal was not raised before the trial ... ...
-
State v. Goins
...right to receive a fair trial," which "rendered the proceedings fundamentally unfair and requires a new trial." State v. Goins , 269 N.C. App. 618, 620, 839 S.E.2d 858 (2020). Given that the argument here was improper, we must evaluate whether or not it was prejudicial. Huey , 370 N.C. at 1......
-
State v. Goins
...MURPHY, Judge.¶ 1 This case returns to this Court after our Supreme Court reversed the opinion in State v. Goins , 269 N.C. App. 618, 839 S.E.2d 858 (2020), and remanded the matter to our Court "to address the remaining issues raised by [D]efendant on appeal." State v. Goins , 377 N.C. 475,......