State v. Reid

• Decision Date: 11 March 2022
• Docket Number: 20PA19-2
• Citation: 380 N.C. 646,869 S.E.2d 274
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Utaris Mandrell REID
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

380 N.C. 646

869 S.E.2d 274

STATE of North Carolina

v.Utaris Mandrell REID

No. 20PA19-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed March 11, 2022

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Mary Carla Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State-appellee.

Lauren E. Miller, for defendant-appellant.

EARLS, Justice.

¶ 1 This case requires us to decide whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the Superior Court, Lee County (MAR court) abused its discretion and committed legal error in granting defendant Utaris Mandrell Reid's motion for appropriate relief (MAR) and awarding him a new trial. Reid, who was fourteen years old when he was indicted for assaulting and robbing a cab driver who later died, was convicted of first-degree murder largely on the basis of a confession he made while being interrogated by a Sanford Police Department detective outside the presence of a parent or guardian. Years later, Reid's postconviction counsel located a man who claimed that on the night of the crime, another person came to his home and confessed to assaulting the cab driver, exculpating Reid. Based on what it deemed to be this man's "credible and truthful testimony," the MAR court allowed Reid's MAR based on newly discovered evidence, vacated his conviction, and ordered a new trial. The Court of Appeals reversed the MAR court's order. State v. Reid , 274 N.C. App. 100, 133, 850 S.E.2d 567 (2020). Because we conclude that the MAR court neither abused its discretion nor committed legal error in granting Reid a new trial, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, vacate Reid's conviction, and remand for a new trial.

I. Background

¶ 2 On the evening of 21 October 1995, John Graham was working as a driver for a taxicab company when he was assaulted and robbed. A police officer who arrived at the scene found Graham on the ground with severe head trauma

. Graham was taken to the emergency room and remained hospitalized until he died from his injuries that December.

¶ 3 Two months after Graham was assaulted and robbed, an officer from the Sanford Police Department, Detective Jim Eads, interviewed fourteen-year-old Reid at the police station. Reid was read his Miranda rights and signed a waiver of his rights. The interview was not recorded, and no other person besides Detective Eads was present. According to Detective Eads, after he informed Reid that he was interviewing him in connection with Graham's death, Reid replied, "I am not going down for this by myself" and, in a rambling confession, admitted to assaulting Graham with three other boys—Elliot McCormick, Duriel Shaw, and Anthony Reid. Detective Eads transcribed defendant Reid's statement, which Reid signed. Reid was subsequently indicted for first-degree murder and robbery with a dangerous weapon. The three juveniles named by Reid were also charged with murder, but all charges against them were ultimately dismissed.

¶ 4 Reid was initially tried in October 1996. At trial, Detective Eads testified that officers interviewed Graham in the emergency room after the assault, where Graham indicated that he had been assaulted by two black males between the ages of sixteen and nineteen. The State did not present any blood, fingerprint, or DNA evidence or any eyewitness testimony, and no weapon was ever recovered. The trial ended in a mistrial due to a hung jury.

¶ 5 On 21 July 1997, Reid was tried for a second time. At this trial, the State again presented Reid's transcribed confession. The State also again presented testimony from Detective Eads, who clarified that while Graham could not communicate "verbally" with officers when he was interviewed at the hospital, he did "attempt to shake his head, yes or no," which Detective Eads "took ... as a response" "[i]n a fashion." Finally, the State presented testimony from John Love, one of Graham's coworkers, who stated that he came to the crime scene after hearing Graham radio for help. According to Love, while Graham was lying injured, Love asked Graham who the perpetrators were, and Graham responded "L.L., McCormick, and Reid." Love explained that he did not report this information to officers who interviewed him at the crime scene because he "didn't put together" what Graham was talking about until after Reid's first trial.

¶ 6 Reid presented an alibi defense supported by testimony from family members who claimed he had spent the day the crime occurred in their presence. He also presented testimony from a neuropsychologist who examined Reid's transcribed confession and opined that it was written at a higher grade level than Reid functioned at. In addition, Reid filed a motion to suppress the transcribed confession. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Reid "knowingly, willingly and understandingly" waived his rights and signed the confession prepared by Detective Eads.

¶ 7 Ultimately, Reid was convicted of first-degree murder and common law robbery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. On direct appeal, Reid argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his confession. The Court of Appeals found no error, holding that "[w]hile a defendant's subnormal mental capacity is a factor to be considered in determining whether the defendant's waiver of rights is intelligent, knowing and voluntary, such lack of intelligence, standing alone, is insufficient to render a statement involuntary if the circumstances otherwise indicate that the statement is voluntarily and intelligently made." State v. Reid , No. COA98-1392, slip op. at 4, 1999 WL 1090704 (N.C. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 1999) (unpublished).

A. The motion for appropriate relief.

¶ 8 On 6 May 2011, Reid filed a MAR and motion for postconviction discovery asserting that his sentence of life imprisonment without parole was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in Graham v. Florida , 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010). His motion was summarily denied based on the determination that Reid had failed to allege a factual or legal basis upon which the MAR court could grant relief.

¶ 9 On 11 August 2011, Reid filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court's order denying his MAR and motion for postconviction discovery. In support of this motion, Reid submitted an affidavit from William McCormick, a childhood friend of Reid's and the brother of Elliot McCormick, one of the juveniles Reid implicated in his confession, stating that: (1) on the night of the assault, William McCormick was at his mother's house with Reid; (2) Robert Shaw, Norman Cox, and Antonio Bristow came to McCormick's home "sweating and out of breath"; and (3) the next day, Shaw confessed to William McCormick that he, Cox, and Bristow had robbed and assaulted Graham. William McCormick stated that he "was not interviewed by the police or any attorneys involved in ... Reid's case." On 8 February 2012, the MAR court granted Reid's motion for postconviction discovery, noting that "[a]n evidentiary hearing on Defendant's Motion for Appropriate Relief and subsequent amendments may be held on a later date to be determined by the presiding judge."

¶ 10 On 5 April 2013, Reid filed another MAR again alleging that he was entitled to relief based on the newly discovered evidence of William McCormick's testimony. The MAR court held evidentiary hearings on this MAR on 20 July, 4 October, and 30 November 2017. At the hearings, the MAR court heard testimony from William McCormick, who conveyed his recollection of Shaw's confession. McCormick also explained that he refused to talk to anyone about Shaw's confession at the time of Reid's trial because he had been living by a "street code."

¶ 11 The MAR court also heard testimony from Reid's trial counsel, Fred Webb, who stated that as part of his initial investigation, "people that [he] knew in the street" mentioned William McCormick as a person who had information regarding Graham's death. Webb testified that based on this information, he moved for and obtained funds for an investigator to "[l]ocate and interview the brother and mother of ... Elliot McCormick, and any other witness who may have heard or seen anything concerning the night of October 21, 1995." However, Webb explained that the investigator was ultimately unable to "get to [the McCormick brothers] in order to get a statement from them about what happened."

¶ 12 On 7 December 2018, the MAR court entered an order containing sixty-seven findings of fact and eighteen conclusions of law granting Reid's MAR, vacating his conviction for first-degree murder, and ordering a new trial. The MAR court explained that having

listened to the testimony and observed the demeanor of these witnesses, [it] finds that each gave credible and truthful testimony on every issue that was material to the findings of fact and conclusions of law which are necessary to reach a ruling on the issues raised in the instant matter. William McCormick was emotional during his testimony. His demeanor gave convincing force to his testimony.

Specifically, the MAR court found "[William] McCormick's testimony to be credible" because, among other reasons, "McCormick in fact has no motive to testify for Defendant other than to disclose the true facts known to him." With respect to the credibility of McCormick's testimony, the MAR court noted its "emotional impact and persuasive effect." With respect to the likely impact of William McCormick's testimony on a jury, the MAR court found that this was "an extremely close case, tried once to a hung jury, finally resulting in a conviction based largely on the purported confession of the fourteen[-]year[-]old, mentally disabled Defendant."

¶ 13 On the basis of Reid's evidence and the testimony presented at the hearings, the MAR court concluded that Reid had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that William McCormick's testimony was "newly discovered evidence as defined by law" because: (1) the evidence could...