Title: State v. Robinson

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

No. 411A94-5 
 
TWELFTH DISTRICT 
 
FILED 18 DECEMBER 2015 
 
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
 
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 
) 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
v.  
 
 
)      From Cumberland County 
 
 
 
 
) 
MARCUS REYMOND ROBINSON 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
 
ORDER 
 
 
The trial court granted respondent’s motion for appropriate relief under the 
Racial Justice Act, N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-2010 to -2012 (2009).  We allowed a petition for 
writ of certiorari to review the trial court’s order. 
 
Central to respondent’s proof in this case is a statistical study that professors 
at the Michigan State University College of Law conducted between 2009 and 2011.  
Respondent gave petitioner all of the data used for the study in May 2011 and a report 
summarizing the study’s findings in July 2011.  Respondent then provided the final 
version of the study to petitioner in December 2011, approximately one month before 
the hearing on respondent’s motion began.  At the start of the hearing, petitioner 
moved for a third continuance because it needed more time to collect additional data 
from prosecutors throughout the state and to address respondent’s study.  The trial 
court denied the motion. 
 
2 
 
 
Section 15A-952 of the Criminal Procedure Act requires a trial court ruling on 
a motion to continue in a criminal proceeding to consider whether a case is “so 
unusual and so complex” that the movant needs more time to adequately prepare.  
N.C.G.S. § 15A-952(g)(2) (2013).  Respondent’s study concerned the exercise of 
peremptory challenges in capital cases by prosecutors in Cumberland County, the 
former Second Judicial Division, and the State of North Carolina between 1990 and 
2010.  The breadth of respondent’s study placed petitioner in the position of defending 
the peremptory challenges that the State of North Carolina had exercised in capital 
prosecutions over a twenty-year period.  Petitioner had very limited time, however, 
between the delivery of respondent’s study and the hearing date.  Continuing this 
matter to give petitioner more time would have done no harm to respondent, whose 
remedy under the Act was a life sentence without the possibility of parole.  See 
N.C.G.S. § 15A-2012(a)(3).  Under these exceptional circumstances, fundamental 
fairness required that petitioner have an adequate opportunity to prepare for this 
unusual and complex proceeding.  Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by 
denying petitioner’s third motion for a continuance. 
 
The trial court’s failure to give petitioner adequate time to prepare resulted in 
prejudice.  See N.C.G.S. § 15A-952(g)(1)-(2).  Without adequate time to gather 
evidence and address respondent’s study, petitioner did not have a full and fair 
opportunity to defend this proceeding.  Cf. State v. Wong, No. 424P09, 2009 N.C. 
LEXIS 1263 (N.C. Oct. 9, 2009); State v. Stuart, 359 N.C. 279, 609 S.E.2d 224 (2004); 
State v. Nicholson, 533 S.E.2d 463 (N.C. 1999).  Accordingly, the trial court’s order is 
 
3 
 
vacated and the matter is remanded to the senior resident superior court judge of 
Cumberland County for reconsideration of respondent’s motion for appropriate relief.  
Cf. Gen. R. Pract. Super. & Dist. Cts. 25(4), 2016 Ann. R. N.C. 22. 
 
We express no opinion on the merits of respondent’s motion for appropriate 
relief at this juncture.  On remand, the trial court should address petitioner’s 
constitutional and statutory challenges pertaining to the Act.  In any new hearing on 
the merits, the trial court may, in the interest of justice, consider additional statistical 
studies presented by the parties.  The trial court may also, in its discretion, appoint 
an expert under N.C. R. Evid. 706 to conduct a quantitative and qualitative study, 
unless such a study has already been commissioned pursuant to this Court’s Order 
in State v. Augustine, ___ N.C. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (2015) (139PA13), in which case 
the trial court may consider that study.  If the trial court appoints an expert under 
Rule 706, the Court hereby orders the Administrative Office of the Courts to make 
funds available for that purpose. 
 
By order of the Court in Conference, this 15th day of December, 2015.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
s/Jackson, J. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the Court 
 
Justice ERVIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4 
 
 
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this 
18th day of December, 2015. 
 
                        
 
 
CHRISTIE S. CAMERON ROEDER 
                        
 
 
Clerk of the Supreme Court 
 
                       
 
  
s/M.C. Hackney 
                        
 
 
Assistant Clerk