State v. Strickland
| Decision Date | 03 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | COA21-491 |
| Citation | 872 S.E.2d 594 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Bennie Wayne STRICKLAND, Jr., Defendant. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Derek L. Hunter, for the State.
William D. Spence, Kinston, for Defendant-Appellant.
¶ 1 Defendant Bennie Wayne Strickland, Jr., ("Defendant") appeals from judgments entered following a jury trial finding him guilty of solicitation to commit murder, two violations of domestic violence protection orders, and hit and run with a motor vehicle. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in improperly resolving his motion to substitute counsel during trial, denying his motion to dismiss the solicitation charge, failing to intervene ex mero motu during the prosecutor's closing arguments, and in its jury instructions. After careful review, we hold Defendant has failed to demonstrate prejudicial error.
¶ 2 The record below discloses the following:
¶ 3 Defendant and Carrie Thomas were involved in an on-and-off again romantic relationship. At its start, Defendant told Ms. Thomas that,
¶ 4 In the summer of 2017, Ms. Thomas and her children moved in with Defendant. Twenty days later, she moved out because of Defendant's "over-possessive nature," but they continued to see each other. This cycle of breaking up and reuniting continued until, on 2 January 2018, Ms. Thomas secured a domestic violence protection order ("DVPO") against Defendant in an effort to finally end their relationship. Ms. Thomas later dismissed the DVPO. When Defendant then threatened to kill Ms. Thomas and her children by burning down her house with her and her children in it, Ms. Thomas procured a second DVPO against Defendant and an emergency permit to carry a concealed weapon.
¶ 5 Defendant continued to harass Ms. Thomas. Her employer blocked Defendant's phone number because he often called while Ms. Thomas was working. On one occasion, Defendant came to her workplace and parked in an adjacent parking lot, leading Ms. Thomas's supervisor to call the police and take additional preventative measures to protect Ms. Thomas at work.
¶ 6 On 30 October 2018, Defendant was arrested for violating the DVPO, hit and run, and assault with a deadly weapon after he followed Ms. Thomas to a Bojangles in Tarboro and drove his truck into the back of her vehicle. Defendant was incarcerated in the Edgecombe County Detention Center while awaiting trial. While incarcerated, Defendant called Ms. Thomas multiple times, further violating the DVPO.
¶ 7 During his incarceration, Defendant shared a "pod" with Christian Capps, Jerry Plascencio, David Anderson, and approximately 20 to 30 other inmates. Defendant and Mr. Capps often talked to each other about hating their ex-girlfriends and spoke about killing each other's ex-girlfriends. Messrs. Capps, Plascencio, and Anderson eventually disclosed these conversations to law enforcement and, on 11 March 2019, Defendant was indicted on two counts of solicitation to commit first-degree murder.
¶ 8 Defendant's trial began on 17 February 2020.1 Mr. Capps testified for the State. Mr. Capps told the jury that he did not initially believe Defendant wanted to kill Ms. Thomas and instead dismissed their conversations as venting or "just jail talk." That impression changed after Mr. Capps told everyone in the pod that he would soon make bond and be released before Thanksgiving; upon hearing the news, Defendant gave Mr. Capps a map that he had drawn showing where Ms. Thomas lived. The map included directions, highways, landmarks, and physical descriptions of Ms. Thomas and her car. Defendant told Mr. Capps, "if you go home, you kill my old lady, and I'll kill your old lady in return." Defendant suggested two different ways Mr. Capps could kill Ms. Thomas: (1) by going into her home, making her drink liquor until she passed out, then injecting her with heroin to make it seem like an overdose; or (2) "run up in the house Rambo-style and kill everyone there execution-style." When Defendant later asked for the map back, Mr. Capps told him that he had flushed it down the toilet; however, per Mr. Capps's testimony, he had not in fact flushed the map himself, but had given it to Mr. Plascencio to destroy. Mr. Capps later reported Defendant's comments to members of the Edgecombe County Sheriff's Office, describing the map and its contents to them verbally and by written statement.
¶ 9 One of those law enforcement officers, a sergeant with the Edgecombe County Sheriff's Office investigating Defendant's acts of domestic violence, testified that she was given the map by Mr. Plascencio after interviewing Mr. Capps. She further testified that she also met with Mr. Anderson, who corroborated Mr. Capps's reports with a written statement.
¶ 10 Defendant testified and denied asking Mr. Capps to kill Ms. Thomas. Defendant instead insisted that he drew the map for Mr. Capps so he could go to Ms. Thomas's house and explain that Defendant had not meant to hit her vehicle. Defendant also denied asking Mr. Capps for the map back.
¶ 11 Defendant was disruptive throughout the trial, incurring twelve convictions for criminal contempt as a result of numerous vulgar outbursts filled with invectives against the judge, the judge's family, the prosecutor, and others. In one lengthy, expletive-ridden tirade, Defendant stated he was dissatisfied with his counsel's cross-examination and believed that his counsel was working with the State to convict him. Later, Defendant told the trial court that he was "requesting that he not be my lawyer because he's ineffective." Defendant reiterated his dissatisfaction with his counsel's cross-examination and lack of objections, as well as his claim that defense counsel was working for the State. Defendant further asserted his attorney—who is Black—would not represent him in good faith because Defendant had been accused of being a member of the Aryan Nation.
¶ 12 The trial court responded to these statements by asking Defendant if he wished to represent himself, to which he replied, When the trial court informed Defendant that his only option at that juncture was to continue with his current counsel or represent himself, Defendant acceded that he did not want to represent himself and stated he "d[id]n't care what you [the trial court] d[id]." The trial court then concluded that Defendant's request for new counsel was not the result of an absolute impasse, and instead stemmed from disagreements concerning trial strategy and a desire to "disrupt," interfere with, "and to inject error into this proceeding." And though it identified Defendant's complaints as "without merit" and "frivolous," it ordered Defendant's counsel "to abide by the defendant's wishes to the extent that they are consistent with the law in North Carolina and the rules of professional conduct."
¶ 13 Defendant moved to dismiss the charges against him at the close of the State's evidence; the trial court granted that motion as to one solicitation charge and denied it as to all remaining charges. Defendant later renewed—and the trial court denied—those motions at the close of all evidence. The trial court then conducted the charge conference, during which the court and counsel engaged in the following discussion:
¶ 14 With the jury instructions agreed upon, the trial proceeded to closing arguments. The State urged the jury to believe Mr. Capps's testimony over Defendant's:
¶ 15 The prosecutor also referred to Defendant as "unpredictable," "impulsive," "angry," "obsessed," "frustrated," and "dangerous." She then concluded her closing as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Collins
...(1) the unlawful killing, (2) of another human being, (3) with malice, and (4) with premeditation and deliberation." Strickland, 283 N.C.App. at 310, 872 S.E.2d at 606 (citation and quotation marks omitted). "Murder in second degree . . . is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice......
-
State v. Powers
... ... at the store. However, the existence of conflicts in the ... evidence do not render argument improper; to the contrary, ... prosecutors are expressly permitted to argue that one ... witness's testimony is more probative than another's ... See State v. Strickland, 283 N.C.App. 295, 306, 872 ... S.E.2d 594, 604 (2022) ("[T]he State is 'allowed to ... argue that the State's witnesses are credible and that ... the jury should not believe a witness.'" (cleaned ... up) (quoting State v. Augustine, 359 N.C. 709, 725, ... 616 S.E.2d ... ...