Opinion ID: 1400689
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: appeal of hucks

Text: The first degree murder charges against Hucks and Miller were joined for trial upon the prosecutor's motion pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-926. Hucks objected and made a timely motion for severance, which was denied. After the jury was impaneled and Miller was permitted to change his plea from not guilty to guilty, with the jury removed from the courtroom, Hucks again moved for severance and a mistrial. Those motions were denied. Hucks also objected to informing the jury of Miller's guilty plea, while Miller and the prosecutor insisted that the jury had to be so instructed if the cases against the defendants were to be considered simultaneously by the jury as a sentencing proceeding against Miller and a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of Hucks. Hucks continued to request severance and argued that he could not receive a fair trial from such a proceeding. The trial then proceeded after the trial court instructed the jury that Miller had entered a plea of guilty to the first degree murder for which both defendants were charged and that the jury was to simultaneously consider the evidence to be introduced as weighing upon both the appropriateness of death or life imprisonment for Miller and upon the issue of the guilt or innocence of Hucks. On appeal, Hucks argues that failure to sever after Miller entered his guilty plea so tainted the proceedings against Hucks that a fair trial became impossible. We agree. The initial joinder of Miller and Hucks for trial was proper under N.C.G.S. § 15A-926(b)(2)(a), which provides for such joinder upon motion of the prosecutor [w]hen each of the defendants is charged with accountability for each offense. The joinder in this case complied with that statute, as each of the defendants was charged with the first degree murder of Allen. Moreover, public policy and concern for efficient administration of justice compel joinder under such circumstances as the rule rather than the exception. State v. Belton, 318 N.C. 141, 347 S.E.2d 755 (1986). N.C.G.S. § 15A-927(c)(2), however, requires the trial court, upon motion, to grant a severance of defendants when necessary to promote a fair determination of the guilt or innocence of one or more defendants. No matter how strong the public policy interests in joinder, they cannot stand in the way of a fair determination of guilt or innocence. State v. Boykin, 307 N.C. 87, 296 S.E.2d 258 (1982). The trial court's decision as to whether to grant a motion for severance under the statute is an exercise of discretion, and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal unless the defendant demonstrates an abuse of discretion which effectively deprived him of a fair trial. State v. Lake, 305 N.C. 143, 286 S.E.2d 541 (1982). On the peculiar facts presented by this appeal, we must conclude that such an abuse occurred. When Miller changed his plea from not guilty to guilty after the jury had been impaneled, the trial court was presented with a novel dilemma not resolved by our statutes. A jury had already been impaneled for the trial and sentencing of both defendants for the same murder, and most of the State's evidence would be the same as to both defendants. Severing the cases against the two defendants at that point would have required essentially two duplicate proceedings, at considerable expense of judicial resources and public inconvenience. The trial court's dilemma was not resolved by N.C.G.S. § 15A-2000 or § 15A-2001. While N.C.G.S. § 15A-2000(a)(2) provides that [i]f the defendant pleads guilty, the sentencing proceeding shall be conducted before a jury impaneled for that purpose, (emphasis added) that language does not require the impaneling of a new jury for sentencing purposes when a defendant pleads guilty after a jury has been impaneled to pass upon his guilt or innocence. Nor was that the intent of the separate provisions of N.C.G.S. § 15A-2001 for guilty pleas and impaneling juries for the purpose of sentencing in capital cases. The mere fact that a defendant pleads guilty after a jury has been impaneled to determine his guilt or innocence in a capital case does not, standing alone, make it error for the same jury to be used for the sentencing proceeding against him. Here, the trial court attempted to conserve judicial resources by using one jury while simultaneously conducting the sentencing proceeding against Miller and the trial of Hucks on his plea of not guilty. The trial court attempted to overcome any prejudice to Hucks arising from Miller's guilty plea by giving the following instruction to the jury: Members of the jury, you will not allow the development in the case of State versus General Sam Miller to affect you in any way in your deliberation and your determination of the case between the State and Kenneth Odell Hucks. Given the unique situation involved, however, the trial court's instruction was inadequate to guarantee that Hucks would receive a fair determination of his guilt or innocence by an unbiased and adequately attentive jury. An instruction similar to that given by the trial court is appropriate in a non-capital joint criminal trial when one defendant pleads guilty. Under those circumstances, however, the case against the co-defendant pleading guilty will be entirely removed from the consideration of the jury without informing the jury of the guilty plea, since the jury has no function in sentencing in non-capital cases. See N.C.P.I., Criminal, 101.41 (1979). Here, however, two defendants were being jointly tried for their lives for the same murder, and the jury was told at the outset that Hucks' co-defendant had entered a plea of guilty. The jury was then required to determine whether one admittedly guilty co-defendant should live or die and, on the same evidence, simultaneously determine the guilt or innocence of the other. Such a proceeding was hopelessly tainted against Hucks who had entered a plea of not guilty and maintained his innocence. Hucks was entitled to have the evidence against him weighed objectively and attentively and to have his guilt or innocence determined beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury that was not distracted by the heavy burden imposed by our capital punishment statutes for Miller's benefit. The uniqueness of the jury's life-or-death function in a capital sentencing proceeding has led to the requirement that the trial court conduct a separate sentencing proceeding to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment. N.C.G.S. § 15A-2000(a)(1) (1983) (emphasis added). We have recognized that such a proceeding places upon the jury the heavy responsibility of subjectively assessing the appropriateness of imposing the death penalty upon a particular defendant for a particular crime. State v. Goodman, 298 N.C. 1, 34, 257 S.E.2d 569, 590 (1979). Due to the unique and distinct factors the jury was required to consider as to each co-defendant, it could not adequately fulfill its duties to both of them in the simultaneous proceedings. The cases against the defendants should have been severed, with one of the cases removed from the concern of the jury, and another jury impaneled for either Miller's sentencing or Hucks' trial. We conclude that since the defendants were being jointly tried for the same capital offense when Miller changed his plea to guilty, the trial could not continue as both a sentencing proceeding as to Miller and as a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of Hucks. Therefore, on these peculiar facts, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Hucks' motion to sever made after Miller changed his plea to guilty. Since we have concluded for the foregoing reasons that the trial court's actions in failing to sever after Miller's guilty plea and in informing the jury of that plea denied Hucks his opportunity for a fair determination of his guilt or innocence by an unbiased jury, Hucks must receive a new trial. Each defendant has raised additional issues on appeal. Because the issues we have previously decided herein are dispositive, it is unnecessary to address those additional issues. For the foregoing reasons, each defendant must receive a new trial. NEW TRIAL.