Title: State v. Scott
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 78A20
State: north-carolina
Issuer: north-carolina Supreme Court
Date: April 16, 2021

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
2021-NCSC-41 
No. 78A20 
Filed 16 April 2021 
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 
v. 
WILLIAM LEE SCOTT 
 
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of 
the Court of Appeals, 269 N.C. App. 457 (2020), finding no prejudicial error after 
appeal from a judgment entered on 23 July 2018 by Judge Paul C. Ridgeway in 
Superior Court, Alamance County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 15 February 2021. 
 
Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Kathryne E. Hathcock, Assistant 
Attorney General, for the State-appellee. 
 
M. Gordon Widenhouse Jr. for defendant-appellant. 
 
 
BARRINGER, Justice. 
 
¶ 1 
 
To address this appeal, this Court must decide whether the Court of Appeals 
erred by not deciding whether an error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and 
by placing the burden on defendant to show the error was prejudicial. We conclude 
the Court of Appeals erred. Thus, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision and 
remand to the Court of Appeals to apply the proper standard. 
STATE V. SCOTT 
2021-NCSC-41 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
I. 
Background 
¶ 2 
 
On 21 June 2013, defendant’s car collided with another vehicle. The driver of 
the other vehicle was pronounced dead at the scene. Defendant was transported to 
Moses Cone Hospital where he was treated and released. The State filed an 
application for an order for Moses Cone Hospital medical records, seeking medical 
records and the defendant’s blood from his 21 June 2013 admission to the hospital. 
The trial court issued an order directing Moses Cone Hospital to provide defendant’s 
medical records and blood. The North Carolina State Crime Laboratory issued a 
report containing the analysis of blood testing on defendant’s blood on 29 July 2013. 
The laboratory report contained the analyst’s opinion that the blood alcohol 
concentration of defendant’s blood was .22 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of 
blood. 
¶ 3 
 
Subsequently, in September 2013, the State obtained a grand jury indictment 
against defendant for second-degree murder, felony death by vehicle, and 
misdemeanor death by vehicle. Before trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress. In 
the motion, defendant sought to exclude evidence generated from defendant’s blood, 
arguing the blood was obtained in violation of the Constitutions of the United States 
and of North Carolina. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress. 
¶ 4 
 
At trial, the State introduced, and the trial court admitted into evidence the 
laboratory report and testimony from its expert that the blood alcohol concentration 
STATE V. SCOTT 
2021-NCSC-41 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
of defendant’s blood was .22 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood (collectively, 
blood test results). Defendant preserved his objection to the admission of the blood 
test results during trial. 
¶ 5 
 
The jury returned a verdict of guilty of second-degree murder and felony death 
by motor vehicle. The trial court subsequently entered judgment on second-degree 
murder and arrested judgment on felony death by vehicle. Defendant appealed. 
¶ 6 
 
On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by denying 
defendant’s motion to suppress and by not excluding the blood test results. State v. 
Scott, 269 N.C. App. 457, 465 (2020). The Court of Appeals’ decision stated in 
pertinent part: 
Here, no allegation or indication of Defendant’s 
purported intoxication was asserted in the record or in the 
Application for Order [for provision of Defendant’s blood]. 
None of the officers, firefighters, or paramedics on the 
scene, nurses, physicians, or investigating officers in close 
and direct contact with Defendant at the hospital noticed 
any signs of impairment at the time of the collision or 
thereafter. 
The first and only indication of Defendant’s 
intoxication were results of tests on Defendant’s blood 
samples taken from the Hospital and tested over a week 
later at the [State Bureau of Investigation] laboratory. . . . 
. . . . 
. . . [T]he trial court’s order [for provision of Defendant’s 
blood] does not base its reasoning upon exigent 
circumstances to draw blood without a warrant from an 
incapacitated person, who is under suspicion for drunk 
STATE V. SCOTT 
2021-NCSC-41 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
driving. “The natural dissipation of alcohol in the 
bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case 
sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a 
warrant.” State v. Romano, 369 N.C. 678, 687, 800 S.E.2d 
644, 656 (2017) (quoting Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 
165, [133 S. Ct. 1552,] 185 L. Ed. 2d 696, 715 (2013)). 
The State’s reliance on State v. Smith is also 
inapposite. The facts in Smith involved a search warrant 
for the defendant’s test results and did not involve whether 
the search warrant was supported by sufficient probable 
cause. [State v.] Smith, 248 N.C. App. [804,] 815, 789 
S.E.2d [873,] 879 [(2016)]. This Court concluded the 
“identifiable health information” in [N.C.G.S.] § 90-
21.2[0]B(a1)(3) requires a search warrant or judicial order 
that “specifies the information sought.” Id. 
However, a valid order remains subject to the 
reasonable suspicion standard required by our Supreme 
Court’s opinion in In re Superior Court Order, 315 N.C. 
[378,] 382, 338 S.E.2d [307, 310 (1986)]. A search warrant 
remains subject to the probable cause standard contained 
in N.C.[G.S.] § 15A-244 (2017). As noted above, the order 
before us is not based upon either reasonable suspicion or 
probable cause. 
. . . Defendant’s motion to suppress should have been 
sustained and the blood test results should have been 
excluded. Defendant’s second-degree murder conviction 
cannot be supported on a theory of intoxication to provide 
the required element of malice. 
Id. at 463–65 (cleaned up). The Court of Appeals’ decision then addressed the 
prejudicial effect of the error. Id. at 465–66. The Court of Appeals held: 
The 
State 
provided 
substantial 
evidence 
of 
both 
Defendant’s high speed and his reckless driving, together 
with his prior record, to show malice to support 
Defendant’s conviction for second-degree murder. 
STATE V. SCOTT 
2021-NCSC-41 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
Defendant has failed to carry his burden to show any 
prejudicial error in the denial of the motion to suppress. 
Id. at 467. 
¶ 7 
 
The dissent joined a portion of the majority decision, concurring “in the holding 
that Defendant’s motion to suppress this evidence should have been granted.” Id. at 
467 (Brook, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). However, the dissent 
disagreed with the portion of the majority decision holding that the admission of the 
blood test results did not constitute prejudicial error. Id. at 467–68. The dissent 
observed that the majority decision “seems to be based on a misapplication of the 
applicable legal standard.” Id. at 472. The dissent identified the standard as “whether 
[the court] can ‘declare a belief that [the federal constitutional error] was harmless 
beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. 
Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 513 (2012)). The dissent applied that standard and concluded 
he could not state that the admission of the blood test results was harmless beyond a 
reasonable doubt. Id. at 472–73. 
II. 
Analysis 
¶ 8 
 
“[B]efore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be 
able to declare a belief that [the error] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” 
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967); see also Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257, 
STATE V. SCOTT 
2021-NCSC-41 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
267 (2015); N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(b) (2019).1 The burden falls “upon the State to 
demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error was harmless.” N.C.G.S. 
§ 15A-1443(b); see also Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 630 (1993); Chapman, 
386 U.S. at 24; Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 513. 
¶ 9 
 
In this case, the Court of Appeals held that the motion to suppress should have 
been sustained. Scott, 269 N.C. App. at 465. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of 
Appeals held that the order resulting in the production of the blood to the State was 
not based on either probable cause or exigent circumstances. Id. at 464–65. Since the 
absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances for a search or seizure2 violates 
the Constitution of the United States absent a warrant or another exception to the 
warrant requirement, the Court of Appeals effectively held that a federal 
constitutional error occurred. See U.S. Const. amend. IV; State v. Welch, 316 N.C. 
578, 587 (1986) (interpreting the balancing test set forth in Schmerber v. California, 
384 U.S. 757, 770–72 (1966), as “forbidding law enforcement authorities acting 
without a search warrant from requiring a defendant to submit to the drawing of a 
blood sample unless probable cause and exigent circumstances exist to justify a 
                                            
1 Subsection 15A-1443(b) of the General Statutes of North Carolina “reflects the 
standard of prejudice with regard to violation of the defendant’s rights under the Constitution 
of the United States, as set out in the case of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S. Ct. 
824, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 (1967).” N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443 official cmt. (2019). 
2 “[D]rawing blood from a person constitutes a search under both the Federal and 
North Carolina Constitutions.” State v. Romano, 369 N.C. 678, 685 (2017) (citations omitted). 
STATE V. SCOTT 
2021-NCSC-41 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
 
warrantless seizure of the blood sample”). As a result, the Court of Appeals should 
have applied the aforementioned standard for federal constitutional errors in this 
case. See State v. Ortiz-Zape, 367 N.C. 1, 13 (2013) (“When violations of a defendant’s 
rights under the United States Constitution are alleged, harmless error review 
functions the same way in both federal and state courts.” (quoting Lawrence, 365 N.C. 
at 513)); State v. Autry, 321 N.C. 392, 399 (1988) (“Assuming arguendo that the search 
violated defendant’s constitutional rights and that the evidence therefrom was 
improperly admitted at trial, we find any such error in its admission harmless beyond 
a reasonable doubt.”). 
¶ 10 
 
Therefore, we conclude that the Court of Appeals erred. The Court of Appeals 
did not apply the correct standard that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable 
doubt and wrongly placed the burden on defendant to show prejudice as reflected in 
its analysis and conclusion. Scott, 269 N.C. App. at 465–67. 
III. 
Conclusion 
¶ 11 
 
The Court of Appeals applied the wrong standard for determining prejudice 
resulting from a violation of defendant’s rights under the Constitution of the United 
States. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand to 
the Court of Appeals to apply the proper standard and review this matter in a manner 
not inconsistent with this opinion. 
REVERSED AND REMANDED.