IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA22-899

Filed 15 August 2023

Person County, No. 18 CRS 51065

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

TERRELL WILEY

Appeal by Defendant from Judgment entered 31 March 2022 by Judge William 

D. Wolfe in Person County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 April 

2023.

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Senior Deputy Attorney General Amar 

Majmundar, for the State. 

Glover & Petersen, P.A., by James R. Glover, for Defendant-Appellant.

HAMPSON, Judge.

Factual and Procedural Background

Terrell Wiley (Defendant) appeals from Judgment entered 31 March 2022 upon 

a jury verdict finding him guilty of First-Degree Murder. The Record before us tends 

to reflect the following:

On 10 September 2018, Defendant was indicted for First-Degree Murder. The 

matter came on for trial on 28 March 2022 in Person County Superior Court. On the 
STATE V. WILEY

Opinion of the Court

- 2 -

third day of trial, 30 March 2022, the trial court noted a residency discrepancy with 

one of the jurors: 

THE COURT: All right. Let the record reflect the jury is not in 

the courtroom. This morning the Court was informed that one of 

our jurors -- and which juror is it, Mr. Clerk? Joshua Buchanan, 

number 4?

THE CLERK: Yes. That’s correct.

THE COURT: All right. I was informed by the clerk that juror 

number 4 was having car trouble and was going to be significantly 

late. After consultation with counsel for both sides, I directed the 

sheriff to deploy to his location to bring him here. The sheriff has 

informed the Court that he did so, and that the juror was not 

present, that the people who were reported that he did not 

actually reside at that address, but instead lived in Durham 

County. I’m told that the juror actually pulled up to that location 

sometime while the sheriff was still there on -- on scene and 

confirmed that he did, in fact, live in Durham County and not in 

Person County. So what I’m going to do is I’m going to make 

inquiry of the individual juror as to whether or not that is true. 

And if it is true, then I’m going to replace him with an alternate. 

Would you bring me juror number 4 only, please, Mr. Sheriff?

THE BAILIFF: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. For the record, juror number 4, Mr. 

Joshua Buchanan, and only Mr. Buchanan, is now in the 

courtroom from the jury. Mr. Buchanan, I understand you had 

an issue getting here today?

JUROR BUCHANAN (4): Yes, sir. I had car trouble this morning.

THE COURT: Okay. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course. 

That’s outside of your control. But the sheriff told me that -- I 

sent him to go pick you up.

JUROR BUCHANAN (4): Yes, sir.
STATE V. WILEY

Opinion of the Court

- 3 -

THE COURT: And he told me that when he got there that the 

people who were -- you weren’t there, and the people who were 

said that you lived in Durham County.

JUROR BUCHANAN (4): Yes, sir. Just last week I moved to 

Durham County. But I don’t currently have any mail going there 

or any way to prove I live in Durham County, so I didn’t bring 

that up to the Court. I’ve been a resident of Roxboro for all my 

life. I just literally moved to Durham.

THE COURT: When was that?

JUROR BUCHANAN (4): I still don’t -- last week. I still don’t 

even have all my stuff moved in. Like half of my stuff is still at 

my mom’s house versus where the sheriff showed up at. I’m still 

currently living in between both places because I currently work 

in Roxboro. So some nights I stay here and some nights I stay in 

Durham. I don’t stay all the way -- I don’t stay in Durham 

completely yet. I still haven’t moved all my stuff there.

THE COURT: All right. Can I see counsel at the bench. 

After a bench conference, the trial court dismissed Juror Buchanan to the jury 

room. The trial court then heard from both the State and defense counsel. The State 

asked the trial court to remove Juror Buchanan based on his statements—indicating 

he had moved and resided in Durham County—and replace him with one of the 

alternate jurors. Defense counsel asked that Juror Buchanan remain on the jury, 

arguing Juror Buchanan had not established a residence in Durham County and had 

not terminated his residency in Person County. 

The trial court then excused Juror Buchanan from the jury and replaced him 

with one of the alternate jurors. In excusing Juror Buchanan, the trial court and 

Juror Buchanan engaged in the following colloquy:
STATE V. WILEY

Opinion of the Court

- 4 -

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Buchanan, what I’m going to do is 

I’m going to excuse you from the jury and replace you with one of 

the alternates. Residency is one of the requirements to be a juror. 

All right. And that is something that if it has changed that you 

need to let the Court know as soon as possible if your -- yes, sir.

JUROR BUCHANAN (4): I still live half in Roxboro.

THE COURT: I understand.

JUROR BUCHANAN (4): I’m not a full Durham County resident 

as of right now.

THE COURT: I understand.

JUROR BUCHANAN (4): I’m still staying here.

THE COURT: I understand there was some -- some gray matter 

about it. It was a gray area for you. I get that. But it is of vital 

importance that you let the Court know that kind of thing. I’m 

not going to impose any sanction on you for that, you understand.

JUROR BUCHANAN (4): Yes, sir.

THE COURT: But that is one of the foundational things that you 

have to have to be a juror. So that’s something, for example, when 

you were being asked about it -- because all the jurors were during 

jury selection -- what part of the county do you live in, that’s the 

kind of answer you should have given. So what I’m going to do is 

I’m going to replace you with one of the alternates. Mr. Clerk, I’m 

going to direct that Mr. B[uchanan] not be paid for his jury service 

here this week. That’s not based on any kind of contempt finding. 

It’s based on the fact that he was never a proper juror for Person 

County because he’s moved to Durham. Even though I realize 

you do split your residence right now, Mr. B[uchanan]. Okay. So 

you’re excused. 
STATE V. WILEY

Opinion of the Court

- 5 -

On 31 March 2022, Defendant was found guilty of First-Degree Murder. Defendant 

was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. On 5 April 2022, Defendant 

timely filed written Notice of Appeal. 

Issue

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in 

excusing a juror from service upon discovery the juror was no longer a resident of 

Person County.

Analysis

Defendant contends the trial court erred in removing Juror Buchanan from 

jury service upon discovery Juror Buchanan moved to Durham County. We disagree.

With respect to the qualification of jurors, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 9-3 provides: “All 

persons are qualified to serve as jurors and to be included on the master jury list who 

are citizens of the State and residents of the county . . . Persons not qualified under 

this section are subject to challenge for cause.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 9-3 (2021). Further, 

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1211(d) provides the trial court: “may excuse a juror without 

challenge by any party if he determines that grounds for challenge for cause are 

present.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1211(d) (2021). Such a determination is reviewed for 

an abuse of discretion. State v. Nobles, 350 N.C. 483, 513, 515 S.E.2d 885, 903 (1999). 

In State v. Tirado, our Supreme Court noted that the trial court properly 

executed its authority under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1211 when determining an 

individual failed to meet the statutory requirements to serve as a juror when the 
STATE V. WILEY

Opinion of the Court

- 6 -

individual admitted she was not a resident of the county where the trial took place. 

358 N.C. 551, 574, 599 S.E.2d 515, 531 (2004). There, the prospective juror informed 

the trial court that she moved to Wake County, but her “permanent address” 

remained in Cumberland County “with [her] mom”, where the trial was taking place. 

Id. at 573, 599 S.E.2d at 531. The trial court excused the prospective juror from 

service, concluding she was no longer a resident of Cumberland County. Id. at 574, 

599 S.E.2d at 531. 

Similarly, here, Juror Buchanan admitted he moved to Durham County prior 

to reporting for jury service. However, Juror Buchanan also informed the trial court 

he was living between both Durham County and Person County, noting “half of [his] 

stuff is still at [his] mom’s house”. In excusing Juror Buchanan, the trial court 

acknowledged Juror Buchanan “split” his residence, but ultimately concluded he was 

“never a proper juror for Person County because he’s moved to Durham.” This 

conclusion is consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Tirado. Because Juror 

Buchanan, like the prospective juror in Tirado, admitted to moving to a different

county prior to reporting for jury service, it was within the trial court’s discretion to 

excuse Juror Buchanan from further jury service. Id. Thus, the Record before us 

adequately establishes the trial court properly executed its discretionary authority 

under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1211(d) in determining Juror Buchanan failed to meet 

the statutory requirements to sit as a Person County juror. Therefore, the trial court 
STATE V. WILEY

Opinion of the Court

- 7 -

did not abuse its discretion in excusing Juror Buchanan from jury service. 

Consequently, the trial court did not err in entering Judgment against Defendant. 

Conclusion

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we conclude there was no error at trial 

and affirm the trial court’s Judgment entered 31 March 2022. 

NO ERROR.

Judges CARPENTER and STADING concur.