State v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 18 July 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. COA05-1580.,COA05-1580. |
| Citation | 632 S.E.2d 218 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Matthew Lawrence TAYLOR. |
James M. Bell, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant.
Matthew Lawrence Taylor ("defendant") appeals from judgments entered after a jury found him to be guilty of first-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, and robbery with a dangerous weapon of Sean Owens ("the victim"). We find no prejudicial error.
The victim, age twenty-three, lived with his mother, stepfather, and sister in Franklinton. The victim's sister, Tiffany McFalls ("McFalls") testified the victim was an openly homosexual male. On 17 February 2004, the victim walked into the kitchen, where McFalls was washing dishes, and told her he was going to Durham to meet someone nick-named "Blue" and that "he was going to go get some black meat tonight." McFalls testified she interpreted this statement to mean the victim was "going to Durham to have sex with a black person." The victim told McFalls he had communicated with "Blue" through his cellular telephone, which contained internet access, was going to "check on some things at work," and would be back home "in a little bit." The victim left home driving his mother's 1998 burgundy Ford Contour automobile.
McFalls became concerned after she was unable to contact the victim and he did not return home by 5:00 p.m. The victim's family reported him as a missing person on 20 February 2004.
On 21 February 2004, Durham police and paramedics responded to a report of a dead body floating in the river at Old Farm Park in Durham. The body was found face down approximately twenty feet below the river embankment. The body was identified as the victim.
On 22 February 2004, Durham police were dispatched to 614 Shepard Street where they found a 1998 burgundy Ford Contour belonging to the victim's mother partially burned and still smoldering. Investigators recovered a broken beaded necklace belonging to the victim from the floorboard of the car. Investigators determined the fire had been intentionally set with a lit newspaper.
On 4 March 2004, Durham police executed a search warrant of defendant's residence. Shelton Epps ("Epps") and Derrick Maiden ("Maiden") were present at defendant's residence. Defendant was at school when police executed the warrant. Defendant agreed to go to the police station, where he gave a statement to Detective Wallace Early ("Detective Early").
Defendant told Detective Early that he came home early from school on 17 February 2004 because he had an upset stomach. Epps and Maiden were present at defendant's residence. Maiden asked defendant if he could use his cellular telephone. Maiden told defendant that someone was coming over. About thirty minutes later, the victim called defendant on his cellular telephone. Defendant told the victim that he did not know him, and handed the telephone to Maiden. Maiden told defendant, "let's go to the clubhouse." Defendant accompanied Epps and Maiden to the Eno Trace Clubhouse. The victim had parked the burgundy Ford Contour automobile in the parking lot when defendant, Epps, and Maiden arrived.
The victim drove defendant, Epps, and Maiden to Old Farm Park. All four men exited the car and began walking toward a picnic table. Defendant stated he was walking in front and the other three men were behind him. Defendant heard a gunshot, turned around, and saw Epps chasing the victim across the park with a gun in his hand. Epps wrestled the victim to the ground, and Maiden and Epps began to punch and kick the victim. Epps put the gun to the back of the victim's head and shot him again. Either Epps or Maiden choked the victim. Epps and Maiden dragged the victim to the river and threw him in. Maiden drove the victim's car away from the scene with defendant and Epps as passengers, and dropped defendant off at his residence. The next day at school, Maiden told defendant a "boot" had been placed on the car. Maiden gave money to Jimetrus Harris ("Jimetrus") to pay the fine to have the boot removed. Maiden drove defendant home after school in the victim's mother's burgundy Ford Contour. After defendant gave his statement, Detective Early spoke with two other detectives and placed defendant under arrest.
Defendant was indicted for first-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, and robbery with a dangerous weapon. Defendant was tried in the Durham County Superior Court in July 2005. Defendant was seventeen years of age at the time of trial.
Derek Taylor ("Taylor") testified for the State that he had known defendant for a couple of months before February 2004. Taylor knew defendant by the name "Blue." During that time, Taylor saw defendant in possession of a handgun on four or five occasions. Taylor later bought that gun from a man named "Wood" for $132.00. After the victim's murder, Taylor had a conversation with "Wood" and turned the gun over to police. State Bureau of Investigation Forensic Firearms Examiner Adam Tanner ("Examiner Tanner") testified he identified the gun as a .32 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver. Examiner Tanner opined the bullets recovered from the victim's body were fired from "this firearm and this firearm alone."
The jury found defendant to be guilty of all three charges. Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder under the Felony Murder Rule rather than on the basis of malice, premeditation, and deliberation.
The trial court arrested judgment on defendant's robbery conviction. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for the first-degree murder conviction and a consecutive sentence of seventy-three to ninety-seven months for the kidnapping conviction. Defendant appeals.
Defendant argues the trial court erred by: (1) denying his motion to allow an interview with the police investigator; (2) overruling his objection to McFalls's hearsay testimony regarding what the victim said to her on 17 February 2004; (3) denying his motion to suppress evidence gathered in the search of his residence where probable cause did not support the issuance of the search warrant; (4) overruling his objection to testimony regarding the existence of a cellular telephone and photographic images contained therein where such cellular telephone was taken from him without issuance of a search warrant (5) overruling his objection to allowing written statements to be published to the jury which were inconsistent with Jimetrus's and his sister, Andrea Harris's, ("Andrea") testimonies in court; (6) denying him the opportunity to review and use school records to impeach Maiden; (7) overruling his objection to the admission of certain autopsy photographs; (8) overruling his objection to speculative testimony by Dr. Gulledge regarding how long it would have taken the victim to die as a result of his injuries; (9) overruling his objection to testimony by surprise witness Michael Woods ("Woods"); (10) overruling his objection to admission of State's Exhibits 87 and 88, transcripts of cellular telephone text messages; (11) denying his motion to dismiss at the close of all evidence; (12) denying his motion to vacate the jury's verdict due to insufficient evidence; and (13) imposing a sentence of life in prison without parole in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights.
Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to allow an interview with the police investigator. We disagree.
Defense counsel requested a meeting with Detective Early, the lead police investigator. Detective Early refused to meet with defense counsel. Defense counsel moved the trial court to allow an interview with Detective Early and the trial court denied defendant's motion. The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its order denying the motion.
The trial court's findings of fact state that Detective Early did not want to and was told by his supervisors that he was not required to meet with defense counsel. Detective Early knew that it was the "unofficial policy" of the Durham Police Department for an officer to refrain from talking with defense counsel. The trial court found that Detective Early was never advised he was prohibited from meeting with defense counsel by anyone with the Durham County District Attorney's Office.
Defendant did not assign error to any of the trial court's findings of fact. "Where no exception is taken to a finding of fact by the trial court, the finding is presumed to be supported by competent evidence and is binding on appeal." Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 93, 97, 408 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1991) (citations omitted). The trial court concluded, and that "W.L. Early's refusal to meet with Defendant's attorneys was not the product of any improper directive by anyone with the Durham County District Attorney's Office."
Defendant bases his argument on N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A-903(a)(1) (2005), which provides in pertinent part:
(a) Upon motion of the defendant, the court must order the State to:
(1) Make available to the defendant the complete files of all law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies involved in the investigation of the crimes committed or the prosecution of the defendant. The term "file" includes the defendant's statements, the codefendants' statements, witness statements, investigating officers' notes, results of tests and examinations, or any other matter or evidence obtained during the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Tienda v. State
-
State v. Nicholson, No. COA08-1007 (N.C. App. 6/16/2009)
... ... Consequently, they are binding on appeal. "`Where no exception is taken to a finding of fact by the trial court, the finding is presumed to be supported by competent evidence and is binding on appeal.'" State v. Taylor, 178 N.C. App. 395, 401, 632 S.E.2d 218, 223 (2006) (quoting Koufman v. Koufman, 330 N.C. 93, 97, 408 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1991)) ... Here, the trial court found "that at no time during the interview process by Detective Jaynes, Sergeant Cates, or any other law enforcement officer ... ...
-
State v. Bernard, No. COA07-1289 (N.C. App. 5/6/2008)
... ... We conclude that any error was not prejudicial, but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt ... "`The right to ... discovery is a statutory right.'" State v. Taylor, 178 N.C. App. 395, 401, 632 S.E.2d 218, 223 (2006) (quoting State v. Phillips, 328 N.C. 1, 12, 399 S.E.2d 293, 298 (1991)). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-903(a)(1) (2007), provides, in pertinent part, the following: ... Upon motion of the defendant, the court must order the State to: ... ...
- Chewning v. Commonwealth
-
Table of Cases
...v. Ross, No. 1-08-47, 2009 WL 118958 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2009), 280 State v. Sayles, 662 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2003), 289 State v. Taylor, 632 S.E.2d 218 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006), 281 In re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litig., No. 07-MD-01819, 2010 WL 5138859 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 20......
-
Chapter 8
...for accuracy of e-mail printouts and police officer testified defendant admitted sending e-mails); State v. Taylor, 178 N.C. App. 395, 632 S.E.2d 218, 230-31 (2006) (text messages properly authenticated when telephone employees testified about logistics for text messages and about how parti......
-
Electronically Stored Information
...which the messages were sent testified that the text message records were ones that the employee accessed and retrieved. State v. Taylor, 632 S.E.2d 218, 230 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006) (authenticating text messages under Rule 803(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, which is identical to t......
-
The Admissibility of Web-based Evidence
...sent the messages, how secure the web site was, who could access it, and whether codes were needed for access). 25. See State v. Taylor, 632 S.E.2d 218, 230 (N.C. 2006) (finding that a text message was sent from the defendant's cell phone based on the testimony of a witness from the cell ph......