Title: State v. Austin

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
2021-NCSC-87 
No. 461A20 
Filed 13 August 2021 
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 
v. 
JOHN FITZGERALD AUSTIN 
 
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of 
the Court of Appeals, 273 N.C. App. 565, 849 S.E.2d 307 (2020), finding no error after 
appeal from a judgment entered on 8 May 2019 by Judge Todd Burke in Superior 
Court, Forsyth County.  Heard in the Supreme Court on 17 May 2021. 
 
Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Chris D. Agosto Carreiro, Assistant 
Attorney General, for the State-appellee.  
 
Jarvis John Edgerton, IV for defendant-appellant. 
 
 
BERGER, Justice. 
 
¶ 1 
 
On May 8, 2019, a Forsyth County jury found defendant John Fitzgerald 
Austin guilty of assault on a female and habitual misdemeanor assault.  That same 
day, defendant pleaded guilty to attaining habitual felon status, and he was 
sentenced to 103 to 136 months in prison.  Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial 
court impermissibly expressed an opinion during jury instructions concerning facts 
to be decided by the jury.  A divided panel of the Court of Appeals upheld defendant’s 
conviction.  State v. Austin, 273 N.C. App. 565, 849 S.E.2d 307 (2020).  Defendant 
STATE V. AUSTIN 
2021-NCSC-87 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
appeals to this Court pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2).  
I. 
Factual and Procedural Background 
¶ 2 
 
On January 6, 2018, Claudette Little and Scheherazade Bonner went to a 
Winston-Salem night club.  Shortly after they arrived, Little received a phone call 
from defendant.  Little and defendant were in a dating relationship at the time.  Little 
testified that defendant called her because defendant did not believe her about her 
location.  
¶ 3 
 
Approximately thirty minutes later, defendant arrived at the night club with 
David Harris.  Defendant asked Little to leave with him, but Little refused.  
Defendant left the night club around 1:30 a.m. on January 7, 2018.  Little later left 
the night club with Bonner and Willis Williams and returned home.  Defendant was 
not at the home when they arrived.  Both Bonner and Williams subsequently left 
Little’s residence, and Little went to sleep.   
¶ 4 
 
Little was then awakened by defendant standing over her and yelling at her.  
Defendant assaulted Little multiple times, demanded that Little take off her clothes, 
and ordered her to perform oral sex on him.  When defendant went to sleep, Little 
put on her clothes and ran out of the apartment.  Little made contact with her 
daughter by phone and met her daughter on the side of the road.  Little’s daughter 
testified that her mother was not properly dressed for a cold January morning.   
¶ 5 
 
That same day, Little and her daughter went to the magistrate’s office and 
STATE V. AUSTIN 
2021-NCSC-87 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
sought a warrant against defendant for assault on a female.  Defendant was 
subsequently indicted for assault on a female, habitual misdemeanor assault, and 
attaining habitual felon status.  
¶ 6 
 
On May 6, 2019, defendant’s matter came on for trial.  Following the 
presentation of the evidence, the trial court instructed the jury on the charges of 
assault on a female and habitual misdemeanor assault.  During the initial instruction 
on the charge of assault on a female, the trial court stated, in part: 
For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the 
State must prove three [things] beyond a reasonable doubt: 
First, that the defendant intentionally assaulted the 
alleged victim. It has been described in this case by the 
prosecuting witness that the defendant hit her upon her 
head, that he hit her on her arms, about her body.  
You are the finders of fact. You will determine what 
the assault was, ladies and gentlemen. The Court is not 
telling you what it is, I’m just giving you a description. And 
there was also testimony by the witness that the defendant 
asked her to perform, by force, another act, which could be 
considered an assault. But you will determine what the 
assault was. I’m not telling you what it is. And if what I’m 
saying is the evidence and your recollection is different 
from what I say, you still should rely upon your recollection 
of the evidence, as to what the assault is that has been 
testified to in this case.  
¶ 7 
 
The next day, following a request from the jury, the trial court reinstructed the 
jury on the charge of assault on a female: 
You requested specifically the substantive instructions for 
assault on a female and habitual misdemeanor[ ] assault. 
STATE V. AUSTIN 
2021-NCSC-87 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
Ladies and gentlemen, I will define, again, first. An 
assault does not necessarily have to involve contact, it 
could 
be 
putting 
someone 
in 
fear 
or 
imminent 
apprehension of contact, threatening contact. . . . In this 
case the particular assault has been described as hitting 
the prosecuting witness, Ms. Claudette Little, about her 
body multiple times. Yesterday I mentioned some other act 
based upon the testimony at the trial, that she stated that 
she was forced to perform. But for purposes of this trial, 
you do not have to consider that, just that it is alleged that 
she was hit about her body multiple times. Whether that—
whatever part of the body that may be, head, face, torso, 
arms, legs, that will be for you to determine as you are the 
finders of fact. 
¶ 8 
 
Defendant did not object to any of the trial court’s jury instructions at trial.  
Defendant was found guilty of assault on a female and habitual misdemeanor assault, 
and he pleaded guilty to attaining habitual felon status. 
¶ 9 
 
In the Court of Appeals, defendant argued that the trial court had improperly 
expressed its opinion during jury instructions that an assault had occurred.  Austin, 
273 N.C. App. at 568, 849 S.E.2d at 310.  The Court of Appeals found no error and 
upheld defendant’s conviction.  Id. at 575, 849 S.E.2d at 314.  Based on a dissenting 
opinion, defendant appealed to this Court, arguing that the trial court’s comments 
were improper expressions of opinion which prejudiced defendant.  We disagree.  
II. 
Standard of Review 
¶ 10 
 
Initially, we note that both parties failed to cite the proper standard of review 
in their briefs.  Defendant contends that we should utilize a de novo standard of 
review, relying on a Court of Appeals’ opinion in Staton v. Brame, 136 N.C. App. 170, 
STATE V. AUSTIN 
2021-NCSC-87 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
523 S.E.2d 424 (1999), a civil case that bears no relation to the issues in this case.  
The State argues that the appropriate standard of review is plain error.  However, 
plain error review is available under Rule 10(a)(4) only when a defendant specifically 
argues plain error for an unpreserved instructional or evidentiary error.  N.C. R. App. 
P. 10(a)(4); see generally State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 723 S.E.2d 326 (2012).   
¶ 11 
 
Rule 10 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, in part:  
In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party 
must have presented to the trial court a timely request, 
objection, or motion, stating the specific grounds for the 
ruling the party desired the court to make if the specific 
grounds were not apparent from the context. It is also 
necessary for the complaining party to obtain a ruling upon 
the party’s request, objection, or motion. Any such issue 
that was properly preserved for review by action of counsel 
taken during the course of proceedings in the trial tribunal 
by objection noted or which by rule or law was deemed 
preserved or taken without any such action, including, but 
not limited to, whether the judgment is supported by the 
verdict or by the findings of fact and conclusions of law, 
whether the court had jurisdiction over the subject matter, 
and whether a criminal charge is sufficient in law, may be 
made the basis of an issue presented on appeal. 
N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(1) (emphasis added).   
¶ 12 
 
Thus, pursuant to Rule 10(a)(1), an alleged error may only be preserved by 
either a party’s timely objection or by operation of rule or law.  Rule 10 “generally 
require[s] that parties take some action to preserve an issue for appeal.”  State v. 
Meadows, 371 N.C. 742, 746, 821 S.E.2d 402, 405 (2018) (citing N.C. R. App. P. 
10(a)(1)).  However, when a party fails to note a timely objection to an alleged error, 
STATE V. AUSTIN 
2021-NCSC-87 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
yet later raises the issue on appeal, we must determine whether the alleged error is 
deemed preserved by operation of rule or law.  See N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(1).  
¶ 13 
 
A statute will automatically preserve an issue for appellate review if the 
statute “either: (1) requires a specific act by a trial judge; or (2) leaves no doubt that 
the legislature intended to place the responsibility on the judge presiding at the 
trial[.]”  In re E.D., 372 N.C. 111, 121, 827 S.E.2d 450, 457 (2019) (cleaned up).   
¶ 14 
 
Section 15A-1222 and Section 15A-1232 of the General Statutes of North 
Carolina specifically prohibit a trial court judge from expressing an opinion during 
trial and when instructing the jury.  Accordingly, “[w]henever a defendant alleges a 
trial court made an improper statement by expressing an opinion on the evidence in 
violation of N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-1222 and 15A-1232, the error is preserved for review 
without objection due to the mandatory nature of these statutory prohibitions.”  State 
v. Duke, 360 N.C. 110, 123, 623 S.E.2d 11, 20 (2005) (citation omitted).   
¶ 15 
 
When an alleged statutory violation by the trial court is properly preserved, 
either by timely objection or, as in this case, by operation of rule or law, we review for 
prejudicial error pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a).  See Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 512, 
723 S.E.2d at 330 (citing N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a) and stating that “if the [preserved] 
error relates to a right not arising under the United States Constitution, . . . review 
requires the defendant to bear the burden of showing prejudice.”).  
¶ 16 
 
N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a) provides, 
STATE V. AUSTIN 
2021-NCSC-87 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
A defendant is prejudiced by errors relating to rights 
arising other than under the Constitution of the United 
States when there is a reasonable possibility that, had the 
error in question not been committed, a different result 
would have been reached at the trial out of which the 
appeal arises. The burden of showing such prejudice under 
this subsection is upon the defendant.  
N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a) (2019).1 
¶ 17 
 
When reviewing alleged improper expressions of judicial opinion under this 
standard, we utilize a totality of the circumstances test to determine whether the 
trial court’s “comments cross[ed] into the realm of impermissible opinion.” State v. 
Larrimore, 340 N.C. 119, 155, 456 S.E.2d 789, 808 (1995).  Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 
15A-1443(a), a defendant must also show that the comments had such a prejudicial 
effect that there is a reasonable possibility of a different result absent the error.2  See, 
                                            
1 While the right to a fair trial does implicate constitutional concerns, defendant’s 
argument is based upon statutory violations of N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-1222 and 15A-1232.  
Therefore N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a) applies and not N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(b).  
2 We have applied the prejudicial error standard set forth in N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a) 
in a variety of cases and have consistently held that judicial error does not automatically 
warrant a new trial unless the defendant shows the error was prejudicial by demonstrating 
a reasonable possibility that, absent the error, a different result would have been reached.  
See State v. Corey, 373 N.C. 225, 237, 835 S.E.2d 830, 838 (2019) (holding that trial court’s 
failure to comply with N.C.G.S. § 15A-1231(b) before submitting the issue of whether an 
aggravating factor existed in the case was not materially prejudicial under N.C.G.S. § 15A-
1443(a)); State v. Mumma, 372 N.C. 226, 242, 827 S.E.2d 288, 298–99 (2019) (holding that 
trial court’s error in allowing the jury to review graphic photographs of the murder victim 
over the defendant’s objection was not prejudicial error under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a)); State 
v. Malachi, 371 N.C. 719, 821 S.E.2d 407 (2018) (holding that trial court’s error in instructing 
the jury that it could find the defendant guilty of possession of a firearm based on constructive 
possession did not prejudice the defendant under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a)); State v. Starr, 365 
N.C. 314, 319, 718 S.E.2d 362, 366 (2011) (holding that the trial court’s denial of the jury’s 
request to review trial transcript did not prejudice the defendant under N.C.G.S. § 15A-
1443(a)). 
STATE V. AUSTIN 
2021-NCSC-87 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
e.g., Larrimore, 340 N.C. at 155, 456 S.E.2d at 808; State v. Anthony, 354 N.C. 372, 
402, 555 S.E.2d 557, 578 (2001); State v. Berry, 235 N.C. App. 496, 508, 761 S.E.2d 
700, 708 (2014), rev’d per curiam, 368 N.C. 90, 773 S.E.2d 54 (2015).   
III. 
Analysis 
¶ 18 
 
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court violated N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-1222 
and 15A-1232 by improperly expressing its opinion during jury instructions and that 
this violation requires a new trial.  Section 15A-1222 states, “[t]he judge may not 
express during any stage of the trial, any opinion in the presence of the jury on any 
question of fact to be decided by the jury.”  N.C.G.S. § 15A-1222 (2019).  Section 15A-
1232 states, “[i]n instructing the jury, the judge shall not express an opinion as to 
whether or not a fact has been proved and shall not be required to state, summarize 
or recapitulate the evidence, or to explain the application of the law to the evidence.”  
N.C.G.S. § 15A-1232 (2019).  Accordingly, when read together, the plain language of 
the statues makes it improper for a trial judge to insert his opinion into any portion 
of the trial, including jury instructions. 
¶ 19 
 
Moreover, N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-1222 and 15A-1232 also impose “[t]he duty of 
absolute impartiality . . . on the trial judge.”  State v. Best, 280 N.C. 413, 417, 186 
S.E.2d 1, 4 (1972) (citing N.C.G.S. § 1-180 (repealed in 1977 and superseded by 
N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-1222 and 15A-1232)); see State v. Hewett, 295 N.C. 640, 643–44, 247 
S.E.2d 886, 888 (1978) (recognizing the implicit embodiment of N.C.G.S. § 1-180 in 
STATE V. AUSTIN 
2021-NCSC-87 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-1222 and 15A-1232).  However, while this duty prohibits any 
expression of judicial opinion at trial, not every “impropriety by the trial judge . . . 
result[s] in prejudicial error.” State v. Blackstock, 314 N.C. 232, 236, 333 S.E.2d 245, 
248 (1985).   
¶ 20 
 
“A remark by the court is not grounds for a new trial if, when considered in the 
light of the circumstances under which it was made, it could not have prejudiced 
defendant’s case.”  State v. King, 311 N.C. 603, 618, 320 S.E.2d 1, 11 (1984).  “[A]n 
alleged improper statement will not be reviewed in isolation, but will be considered 
in light of the circumstances in which it was made.”  State v. Jones, 358 N.C. 330, 
355, 595 S.E.2d 124, 140 (2004) (quoting State v. Weeks, 322 N.C. 152, 158, 367 S.E.2d 
895, 899 (1988)).  “The bare possibility . . . that an accused may have suffered 
prejudice from the conduct or language of the judge is not sufficient to overthrow an 
adverse verdict.”  State v. Carter, 233 N.C. 581, 583, 65 S.E.2d 9, 10–11 (1951) (citing 
State v. Jones, 67 N.C. 285 (1872)).  
¶ 21 
 
Here, during the trial court’s initial instruction to the jury for the assault on a 
female charge, the trial court stated: 
You are the finders of fact. You will determine what 
the assault was, ladies and gentlemen. The Court is not 
telling you what it is, I’m just giving you a description. . . . 
But you will determine what the assault was. I’m not 
telling you what it is. And if what I’m saying is the evidence 
and your recollection is different from what I say, you still 
should rely upon your recollection of the evidence, as to 
what the assault is that has been testified to in this case. 
STATE V. AUSTIN 
2021-NCSC-87 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
¶ 22 
 
The trial court subsequently also instructed the jury: 
The law requires the presiding judge to be impartial. 
You should not infer from anything I have done or said that 
the evidence is to be believed or disbelieved, that a fact has 
been proved or what your findings ought to be. It is your 
duty to find the facts and to render a verdict reflecting the 
truth. 
¶ 23 
 
After a request by the jury, the trial court provided the following instruction:  
Ladies and gentlemen, I will define, again, first. An 
assault does not necessarily have to involve contact, it 
could 
be 
putting 
someone 
in 
fear 
or 
imminent 
apprehension of contact, threatening contact. But the facts 
of this case have demonstrated that the—there was actual 
contact, that’s a touching of some form that is 
nonconsensual and unwanted by the other party. In this 
case the particular assault has been described as hitting 
the prosecuting witness, Ms. Claudette Little, about her 
body multiple times. . . . But for purposes of this trial, you 
do not have to consider that, just that it is alleged that she 
was hit about her body multiple times. Whether that—
whatever part of the body that may be, head, face, torso, 
arms, legs, that will be for you to determine as you are the 
finders of fact. 
¶ 24 
 
Further, the trial court again instructed on the charge of assault on a female 
at the jury’s request.  During this instruction, the trial court stated the following: 
And just for you—I already told you this, no matter what I 
said, it’s for you to determine what happened, not me. The 
facts are not what the attorneys say. The facts are not what 
I say. You determine what happened in this case. I’m just 
merely describing what has been alleged, and that is that 
the defendant is accused of hitting the prosecuting witness 
about her body multiple times. 
¶ 25 
 
Even if we assume the trial court violated the statutory prohibitions against 
STATE V. AUSTIN 
2021-NCSC-87 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
the expression of opinion, defendant cannot show a reasonable possibility of a 
different result. 
¶ 26 
 
Here, for the charge of assault on a female, the State was required to prove 
that (1) defendant intentionally assaulted Little, (2) Little was a female person, and 
(3) defendant was a male person at least eighteen years of age.  N.C.G.S. § 14-33(c)(2) 
(2019).  Little testified in detail at trial concerning defendant’s criminal conduct.  
Little testified that defendant wrapped a belt around his hand and struck her several 
times in her head, face, and arm.  The State entered into evidence photographs which 
showed numerous bruises to Little’s face and arm.  In addition, the State also 
presented evidence through the testimony of other witnesses which corroborated 
Little’s testimony.  Specifically, testimony from Bonner and Little’s daughter 
corroborated Little’s timeline of events leading up to and following the assault.  
¶ 27 
 
The State presented evidence at trial which satisfied the elements of the 
predicate assault, and the trial court’s instruction made clear that the jury alone was 
responsible for making this determination.  After reviewing the totality of the 
circumstances including the instructions provided by the trial court and the evidence 
presented at trial, we conclude that defendant received a fair trial free from 
prejudicial error, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.  
AFFIRMED.  
 
 
 
 
 
Justice EARLS dissenting. 
 
¶ 28 
 
When the presiding judge speaks during a trial, we presume the jury listens. 
As the most visible representative of our legal system, “[t]he trial judge occupies an 
exalted station.” State v. Carter, 233 N.C. 581, 583 (1951). To eliminate the risk that 
a jury will convict (or fail to convict) a defendant based upon its perception of the 
judge’s opinion of what the evidence proves (or does not prove)—rather than the jury’s 
own examination of the evidence presented by the parties—North Carolina law 
prohibits a trial judge from “express[ing] during any stage of the trial, any opinion in 
the presence of the jury on any question of fact to be decided by the jury.” N.C.G.S. 
§ 15A-1222 (2019); see also N.C.G.S. § 15A-1232 (2019) (“In instructing the jury, the 
judge shall not express an opinion as to whether or not a fact has been proved . . . .”). 
The majority in this case fails to give proper weight to this statutory mandate by 
refusing to engage meaningfully in a prejudice analysis and instead ignoring any 
impact the judge’s instructions had on the jury.  
¶ 29 
 
The defendant here, John Fitzgerald Austin, did not object to the trial judge’s 
improper expressions of opinion at the time they were communicated to the jury. 
However, as the majority correctly explains, Austin’s claim that the trial judge 
impermissibly expressed an opinion in violation of N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-1222 and 15A-
1232 is preserved by operation of law. Where I depart from the majority is in its 
treatment of the merits of Austin’s claim. I would hold that the trial judge violated 
N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-1222 and 15A-1232 by impermissibly communicating to the jury his 
STATE V. AUSTIN 
2021-NCSC-87 
Earls, J., dissenting 
 
 
 
opinion regarding the events underlying Austin’s conviction and that Austin was 
prejudiced thereby.  
¶ 30 
 
The majority assumes without deciding that the trial judge “violated the 
statutory prohibitions against the expression of opinion.”1 However, we should have 
no difficulty concluding from the transcript of the trial in this case that the trial judge 
erred in phrasing instructions to the jury which presupposed the veracity of the 
complaining witness’s allegation that Austin assaulted her, a fact necessary to 
support Austin’s conviction for the offense of assault on a female. Recognizing the 
seriousness of the error is an important part of assessing whether the error was 
prejudicial. 
¶ 31 
 
The trial judge improperly communicated his opinion that this alleged fact had 
been proven on no less than three occasions. Moreover, these were not statements 
made in passing, but rather all were made during jury instructions when the jury’s 
focus was exclusively on the trial judge. First, the trial judge informed the jury that 
                                            
1 In a recent article, one scholar argued that the practice of disposing of cases by 
finding no prejudice, without examining the merits of a criminal defendant’s underlying 
claim that his or her procedural rights were violated, both “seriously diminishes the 
incentives of trial judges, prosecutors, and relevant organizational and systemic entities to 
abide by procedural law” and “stymies the vital process of norm clarification.” Justin Murray, 
Policing Procedural Errors in the Lower Criminal Courts, 89 Fordham L. Rev. 1411, 1430 
(2021). Although I do not doubt that all actors in our judicial system are doing their level best 
to rigorously adhere to all procedural requirements intended to ensure that criminal 
defendants are treated fairly, I share Professor Murray’s concern that too frequently 
disposing of cases in this manner leaves these actors—and criminal defendants—bereft of 
important guidance regarding the scope of the procedural rights afforded to defendants by 
the people of North Carolina through our Constitution and statutes. 
STATE V. AUSTIN 
2021-NCSC-87 
Earls, J., dissenting 
 
 
 
its task was to “determine what the assault was, ladies and gentlemen.” (Emphasis 
added.) Second, the trial judge explained to the jury that “the facts of this case have 
demonstrated that the—there was actual contact, that’s a touching of some form that 
is nonconsensual and unwanted by the other party.” (Emphasis added.) Third, the 
trial judge instructed the jury that “it is alleged that [the complaining witness] was 
hit about her body multiple times. Whether that—whatever part of the body that may 
be, head, face, torso, arms, legs, that will be for you to determine as you are the finders 
of fact.” (Emphasis added.) Each of these statements presumes Austin actually 
assaulted the complaining witness. And because the only three facts necessary to 
sustain a conviction under N.C.G.S. § 14-33(c)(2) are (1) that the victim was female, 
(2) that the perpetrator was a male person at least 18 years of age, and (3) that the 
male perpetrator assaulted the female victim, N.C.G.S. § 14-33(c)(2) (2019), these 
statements effectively communicated the trial judge’s opinion that Austin was guilty 
as charged. 
¶ 32 
 
Whether Austin actually assaulted the complaining witness as that witness 
alleged was a question for the jury to decide on the basis of the evidence presented at 
trial. An appropriate instruction would have informed the jury of its obligation to 
determine if Austin had assaulted the complaining witness. Instead, the trial judge’s 
comments communicated that there was no disputing that Austin had committed an 
assault and, by extension, that there was no other verdict the jury could reach but to 
STATE V. AUSTIN 
2021-NCSC-87 
Earls, J., dissenting 
 
 
 
find Austin guilty. Even if the State’s evidence was uncontroverted, it was still for 
the jury to decide if the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Austin 
violated N.C.G.S. § 14-33(c)(2), not the trial judge. 
¶ 33 
 
In addition to arguing that the trial judge’s statements were not improper, the 
State also contends that even if they were, any improper expression of judicial opinion 
was “cured” by the delivery of instructions properly charging the jury with deciding 
Austin’s guilt or innocence. The majority concludes that any allegedly improper 
expression of opinion could not be prejudicial in part because “the trial court’s 
instruction made clear that the jury alone was responsible for making th[e] 
determination” of Austin’s guilt. However, a boilerplate recitation of the jury’s 
ultimate responsibility to decide which facts have been proven does not erase the 
prejudicial effect of the trial judge repeatedly instructing the jury that an assault has 
occurred, a key fact in this case. The question of whether a trial judge has properly 
instructed the jury on the jury’s role as the factfinder in a criminal trial is distinct 
from the question of whether the trial judge has improperly weighed in by 
communicating his or her view of what the facts are. Even if the jury knows it is its 
responsibility alone to find the facts, the risk is that it will discharge this 
responsibility improperly influenced by the understanding that the trial judge 
believes the defendant is guilty.   
¶ 34 
 
The majority does not cite any case law in its cursory analysis of the trial 
STATE V. AUSTIN 
2021-NCSC-87 
Earls, J., dissenting 
 
 
 
judge’s allegedly improper expressions of opinion. Our precedents make clear that the 
trial judge’s statements in this case violated N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-1222 and 15A-1232. In 
the cases where we have rejected a defendant’s claim that a trial judge violated 
N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-1222 and 15A-1232, we have held that the trial judge’s comments 
could not be understood as expressions of opinion when read in context. We examined 
the totality of the circumstances and concluded the trial judge did not improperly 
express an opinion. We did not conclude an error was not prejudicial merely because 
“the State presented evidence at trial which satisfied the elements of the predicate 
assault, and the trial court’s instruction made clear that the jury alone was 
responsible for making this determination.” 
¶ 35 
 
For example, in Young, the trial judge instructed the jury that “[t]here is 
evidence in this case which tends to show that the defendant confessed that he 
committed the crime charged in this case.” 324 N.C. at 494. The defendant claimed 
that the trial judge’s “instructions concerning evidence ‘tending to show’ that he had 
‘confessed’ to the crime charged, together with its subsequent statement that he was 
accused of first degree murder, amounted to an expression of opinion on the evidence 
in violation of the statutes.” Id. at 495. We disagreed, explaining that “[t]he use of the 
words ‘tending to show’ or ‘tends to show’ in reviewing the evidence does not 
constitute an expression of the trial court's opinion on the evidence.” Id. We also 
explained that the use of the term “confessed” “did not amount to an expression of 
STATE V. AUSTIN 
2021-NCSC-87 
Earls, J., dissenting 
 
 
 
opinion by the trial court that the defendant in fact had confessed.” Id. at 498. 
Instead, we reasoned that the portions of the jury instructions the defendant 
challenged, when read in context, were not improper expressions of opinion because 
they “made it clear that, although there was evidence tending to show that the 
defendant had confessed, the trial court left it entirely for the jury to determine 
whether the evidence showed that the defendant in fact had confessed.” Id.  
¶ 36 
 
Similarly, in other cases, we have held that the trial judge did not communicate 
an opinion when the challenged language was read in context, not that the trial 
judge’s improper expression of opinion was remedied by a subsequent clarification or 
the existence of some evidence proving the elements of the charged offense. Thus, in 
State v. Meyer, we concluded that the trial judge’s explanation during the sentencing 
phase of a capital trial that an alleged aggravating circumstance “applies equally to 
both murders” did not improperly suggest the aggravating factor had been proven 
because, read in context, the trial judge was “merely reiterat[ing] its previous 
admonition that ‘the law as to both of the counts is generally the same since you will 
be considering the same aggravating and mitigating circumstances.’ ” 353 N.C. 92, 
107 (2000).  
¶ 37 
 
Indeed, this case is largely indistinguishable from decisions in which we have 
held that a trial judge prejudicially erred in conveying his or her opinion regarding 
how the jury should resolve an important factual issue. For example, in State v. 
STATE V. AUSTIN 
2021-NCSC-87 
Earls, J., dissenting 
 
 
 
McEachern, we held that the trial judge erred when he asked the prosecuting witness 
in a rape case whether she was “in the car when you were raped.” 283 N.C. 57, 59–62 
(1973). We reasoned that although the trial judge did not explicitly state an opinion 
regarding the defendant’s commission of the alleged criminal offense, the way the 
trial judge framed the inquiry communicated this view because it “[a]ssumed that 
defendant had raped [the complaining witness].” Id. at 62. In State v. Oakley, we held 
that the trial judge erred when he asked a witness if the witness had “tracked the 
defendant to [a] house,” despite the witness testifying only that he tracked some 
unknown individual to the house. 210 N.C. 206, 211 (1936) (emphasis added). 
Although the trial judge immediately clarified that he “didn’t mean to say the 
defendant,” we reasoned that the question improperly revealed a belief regarding an 
issue of such critical importance to the jury’s deliberations that an immediate 
clarification was insufficient to guarantee the defendant a fair trial. Id.  
¶ 38 
 
As in McEachern and Oakley, the trial judge in this case assumed the existence 
of a fact which had not yet been decided by the jury and, in doing so, illustrated for 
the jury his opinion that the State had met its burden of proving an essential fact 
beyond a reasonable doubt.  
¶ 39 
 
I would also conclude that the trial judge’s impermissible expressions of 
opinion prejudiced Austin. In examining whether the trial judge’s violations of 
N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-1222 and 15A-1232 were prejudicial, we should consider (1) how 
STATE V. AUSTIN 
2021-NCSC-87 
Earls, J., dissenting 
 
 
 
suggestive the trial judge’s comments were, (2) how important the issue on which the 
trial judge expressed an opinion was to the jury’s ultimate determination of guilt, and 
(3) the strength of the evidence supporting the defendant’s conviction. In this case, 
all three factors indicate the trial judge’s comments were extremely prejudicial.  
¶ 40 
 
First, the trial judge’s comments implicitly, but unmistakably, informed the 
jury that in the trial judge’s opinion, the complaining witness’s narrative of events 
was true and there was no question as to whether Austin had assaulted her. Second, 
the comments addressed the sole disputed factual predicate the State needed to prove 
in order to obtain Austin’s conviction. Third, the evidence of Austin’s guilt—while 
uncontroverted—was not overwhelming. The only direct evidence the State presented 
at trial was the complaining witness’s testimony, which was not entirely consistent 
with the statements she initially provided to law enforcement. The State also 
presented testimony from acquaintances of the complaining witness who, in broad 
strokes, corroborated the timeline of events on the night Austin purportedly 
committed the assault but who did not witness any part of the alleged altercation, 
and the State presented a photograph of the witness’s injuries which she took herself, 
purportedly at some unspecified time after the assault occurred. Although this 
evidence was not directly called into dispute, it is not so convincing as to exclude the 
possibility that the alleged assault either did not occur or did not unfold in the 
manner the complaining witness described. The majority’s statement of facts 
STATE V. AUSTIN 
2021-NCSC-87 
Earls, J., dissenting 
 
 
 
describes a violent sexual offense, yet Austin was tried for misdemeanor assault on a 
female. This is precisely the kind of case, dependent on the testimony of a single 
witness, where a trial judge’s communication of his belief in the defendant’s guilt can 
tip the scales for the jury.   
¶ 41 
 
 “Jurors entertain great respect for [the trial judge’s] opinion, and are easily 
influenced by any suggestion coming from him [or her].” Carter, 233 N.C. at 583. In 
this case, the trial judge repeatedly conveyed his opinion that Austin perpetrated an 
assault on the complaining witness. Given just how suggestive the trial judge’s 
statements were—and given that the statements cut to the core of the State’s case 
against Austin—I conclude that the trial judge’s expressions of opinion both violated 
N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-1222 and 15A-1232 and had such a prejudicial effect that there is a 
reasonable possibility of a different result absent the error. Accordingly, I respectfully 
dissent.