State v. Maddux
| Decision Date | 26 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 278PA17,278PA17 |
| Citation | 819 S.E.2d 367,371 N.C. 558 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. John Andrew MADDUX |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.
Anne Bleyman for defendant-appellee.
This case comes to us by way of the State's petition for discretionary review of the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Specifically, the State has asked us to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding defendant a new trial because of plain error in a jury instruction on aiding and abetting. We agree that the trial court erred in giving the aiding and abetting instruction; however, because the Court of Appeals incorrectly concluded that the trial court's error amounted to plain error, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
This case began with two searches of defendant's residence by the Johnston County Sheriff's Office Narcotics Division on 19 August 2015. On that date, two detectives responded to a complaint that drug activity was occurring at defendant's home. When they arrived at the house, defendant answered the door, identified himself as the owner of the property, and consented to a search of his residence.
During the first search, the two detectives walked through the interior of the home. Defendant first took the detectives to his master bedroom and adjoining master bathroom, where they found no evidence of drug activity. Then defendant took the detectives to the bedroom of one of his sons, where they found on the floor a clear baggie containing four white pills and a homemade bong. Upon finding these things, detectives asked defendant whether any methamphetamine manufacturing items or paraphernalia were in the home. Defendant responded in the negative but added that his stepson Lyn Sawyer (Sawyer), who occasionally spent the night on defendant's couch, was on probation for manufacturing methamphetamine in South Carolina.1
Next, the detectives' search took them to the outside of defendant's residence, where they found a one-pot meth lab2 inside a burn barrel.3
The one-pot meth lab and burn barrel were located approximately thirty yards behind defendant's home, and they were accessible to neighboring properties. Upon finding the burn barrel, the two detectives turned the investigation over to another detective, who carried out his own search of defendant's residence and conducted a more general investigation.
The other detective's search of defendant's residence revealed the following items that are commonly used in methamphetamine production: (1) in defendant's master bedroom, an empty package of lithium batteries, a metal strainer, a glass measuring cup, the top portion of a plastic bottle containing a white residue,4 a Walgreens receipt for pseudoephedrine,5 and a plastic tube located inside a plastic tote bag sitting by defendant's bed; (2) in defendant's master bathroom, an open box of instant cold packs,6 a clear plastic baggie containing a white powdered substance that appeared to be methamphetamine,7 and a trash bag containing balled-up, burnt strips of aluminum foil that were consistent with meth boats used to smoke methamphetamine; and (3) in defendant's kitchen, a can of acetone8 that was either nearly or completely empty, a water bladder from an instant cold pack,9 and more meth boats inside a diaper box.
When the other detective searched the burn barrel in defendant's back yard, he found two two-liter plastic bottles that the North Carolina State Crime Laboratory would later determine contained methamphetamine and pseudoephedrine, along with coffee filters, a latex glove, trash bags, paper towels, and battery casings that apparently had been pried open.10
After searching the burn barrel, the detective continued to walk around the exterior premises of defendant's residence, during which he was approached by defendant's neighbor. After briefly speaking with the neighbor, the detective decided to search the neighbor's residence also. Before searching the house, the detective learned that the neighbor shared her house with her daughter, Alex Tucker (Tucker), and Sawyer, defendant's stepson. After receiving consent from Tucker to search her room, the detective found a pink bag containing materials that he identified as methamphetamine components.
Also, while the detective was at the neighbor's residence, a child informed him that Sawyer had run out of the back door when the detective approached the residence. Although Sawyer would not return to the neighbor's residence, the detective spoke with him over the telephone. Sawyer said he was scared to return because he was on probation, and he was afraid the detective would arrest him for manufacturing meth.
Next, the detective spoke with defendant, who stated that: (1) "Sawyer was a liar"; (2) Sawyer possibly cooked meth with Tucker next door; (3) Sawyer talked about cooking meth all the time; and (4) defendant had once tried meth but did not like it.
On 5 October 2015, defendant was indicted for manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of a methamphetamine precursor, and felony conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. On 2 November 2015, defendant was further indicted for two counts of trafficking in methamphetamine by manufacture and one count of conspiring to traffic in methamphetamine. Later, on 7 March 2016, the second indictment was replaced by a superseding indictment charging trafficking in methamphetamine by manufacture, trafficking in methamphetamine by possession, and conspiracy to traffic in methamphetamine.
Defendant's trial began on 18 April 2016, and the State presented the above evidence through the testimonies of (1) the detectives who conducted the 19 August 2015 searches and interviews, (2) an agent with the State Bureau of Investigation who entered defendant's home and processed the items related to the one-pot meth lab and those found in the burn barrel located on defendant's property, and (3) a drug chemist at the North Carolina State Crime Laboratory who analyzed the contents of plastic bottles contained in the one-pot meth lab and burn-barrel.
At the close of the State's evidence, defendant moved to dismiss all charges. The State voluntarily dismissed the two conspiracy charges, and the trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss as to the charge of possession of an immediate precursor; however, the court denied the motion as to the rest of the charges. Defendant offered no evidence at trial.
At the close of all evidence, the trial court instructed the jury that defendant could be found guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine, trafficking in methamphetamine by manufacture, and trafficking in methamphetamine by possession either through a theory of individual guilt or of aiding and abetting. Defendant did not object to these instructions.
The jury convicted defendant of the following charges by means of a general verdict sheet: (1) manufacturing methamphetamine, (2) trafficking in methamphetamine by manufacture, and (3) trafficking in methamphetamine by possession. Because there was no special verdict sheet, the record does not reflect whether the jury convicted defendant based on individual guilt or a theory of aiding and abetting. Defendant appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals announced two holdings pertinent to this appeal. First, the Court of Appeals determined that the trial court erred in giving an aiding and abetting instruction because "[t]he evidence does not reveal Defendant expressly communicated his intent to aid or encourage either Tucker or Sawyer." State v. Maddux, ––– N.C. App. ––––, 803 S.E.2d 463, 2017 WL 3259784, at *6 (2017) (unpublished). The Court of Appeals added:
Maddux, 2017 WL 3259784, at *6 (alterations in original) (footnote and citations omitted).
Second, the Court of Appeals held that the instruction constituted plain error entitling defendant to a new trial. Id. at *7. The Court of Appeals correctly noted that because defendant did not object to the instruction at trial, the court must review the instruction for plain error. Id. at *5. Then the Court of Appeals set out the test for plain error as follows:
Plain error occurs when the error is "so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done [.]" State v. Odom , 307 N.C. 655, 660, 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. McCaskill , 676 F.2d 995, 1002 (4th Cir. [ ] ) [, cert. denied , 459 U.S. 1018, 103 S.Ct. 381, 74 L.Ed.2d 513 (1982) ] ). "Under the plain error rule, defendant must convince this Court not only that there was error, but that absent the error, the jury probably would have reached a different result." State v. Jordan , 333 N.C. 431, 440, 426 S.E.2d 692, 697 (1993) (citation omitted)."
Id . (alteration in original).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Collington
...thereby serving the purpose of the contemporaneous objection now required by N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(2). In State v. Maddux , 371 N.C. 558, 563, 819 S.E.2d 367, 370 (2018), we reaffirmed that the plain error standard applies in cases involving unpreserved jury instruction issues. There, the t......
-
State v. Bradley
...hold plain error exists following that review upon a showing by the defendant that his is an "exceptional case." State v. Maddux , 371 N.C. 558, 564, 819 S.E.2d 367, 371 (2018) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Cf. State v. Patterson , 269 N.C. App. 640, 645, 839 S.E.2d 68, 72 (2020) ......
-
State v. Fabian
... ... Carolina is normally limited to instructional and evidentiary ... error." Lawrence , 365 N.C. at 516, 723 S.E.2d ... at 333 (citation omitted); State v. Patterson , 269 ... N.C.App. 640, 645, 839 S.E.2d 68, 72, ... review denied , 847 S.E.2d 886 (2020) (citing ... State v. Maddux , 371 N.C. 558, 564, 819 S.E.2d 367, ... 371 (2018); then quoting Lawrence , 365 N.C. at 518, ... 723 S.E.2d at 334) ("[P]lain error is to be 'applied ... cautiously and only in the exceptional case.'") ... ¶ ... 27 "For error to constitute plain error, a defendant ... ...
-
State v. Golder
...apply the plain error standard of review to unpreserved instructional and evidentiary errors in criminal cases." State v. Maddux , 371 N.C. 558, 564, 819 S.E.2d 367, 371 (2018) (citing State v. Lawrence , 365 N.C. 506, 512, 723 S.E.2d 326, 330 (2012) ). Further, this Court has expressly hel......