Court Opinion

ID: 9911031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 13:04:57.012059+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:55:37.523125
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

                                   No. COA23-313

                               Filed 19 December 2023

Guilford County, No. 18CRS089940

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

             v.

ZENAIDA FRANCHESCA FIGUEROA

      Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 7 February 2022 by Judge Martin

B. McGee in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18

October 2023.

      Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Nicholas
      Sorensen, for the State-Appellee.

      Joseph P. Lattimore for Defendant-Appellant.

      COLLINS, Judge.

      Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon a guilty verdict of trafficking

methamphetamine. Defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred by admitting

expert testimony without first ensuring that the expert’s methods were sufficiently

reliable or reliably applied to the facts of the case, and that the trial court erred by

failing to intervene ex mero motu when the prosecutor made improper remarks

during closing argument. Upon review, we hold that the trial court did not plainly

err by admitting the expert testimony, and that the trial court did not err by failing
                               STATE V. FIGUEROA

                                    Opinion of the Court

to intervene ex mero motu during closing argument.

                               I.      Background

      In November 2018, Guilford County law enforcement officers were conducting

an undercover investigation of a suspected drug dealer (“the Suspect”).        An

undercover officer arranged to purchase two ounces of methamphetamine from the

Suspect on 26 November 2018 and established a meeting location a few days later.

The Suspect arrived at the meeting location in a vehicle driven by Defendant. When

the Suspect arrived at the meeting location, Detective C.E. Sheets and a takedown

team of four or five officers approached the vehicle, detained the Suspect and

Defendant, and searched the vehicle. Sheets recovered a brown paper bag from the

front passenger’s seat, which contained what Sheets described as a “clear white

crystally substance” that he suspected was methamphetamine. Sheets interviewed

Defendant and informed her that she would be charged at a later date based on the

suspected methamphetamine found in the vehicle. Sheets then sent the suspected

methamphetamine to the state crime lab for analysis.

      Defendant was indicted on 18 March 2019 for trafficking methamphetamine

by possession. Defendant was also charged with trafficking methamphetamine by

transportation and conspiracy to traffic methamphetamine.      At trial, the State

presented expert testimony from Brittnee Meyers, the forensic scientist who

examined the suspected methamphetamine that Sheets recovered from the vehicle.

Meyers testified that she performed a preliminary color test and a confirmatory

                                           -2-
                                STATE V. FIGUEROA

                                 Opinion of the Court

infrared spectrophotometer test on the substance, from which she identified the

substance to be methamphetamine.           Meyers measured the weight of the

methamphetamine to be 56.40 grams.

      Sheets also testified about his interview with Defendant. Sheets testified that

Defendant initially disclaimed any knowledge of the methamphetamine, but later

told him that she “kind of know[s] what’s going on.” According to Sheets, Defendant

stated that the Suspect had asked Defendant if she could “get ahold of two ounces of

ice,” to which Defendant responded that she could. Defendant then contacted her

sister, who put her in touch with a man who goes by the name “Dread.” Defendant

met with Dread near the meeting location arranged by the undercover officer and the

Suspect.

      Defendant testified in her own defense and gave an alternate version of events.

Defendant testified that the Suspect asked Defendant for a ride to Greensboro but

did not explain why. The Suspect asked Defendant to park in a certain spot and

within two minutes the vehicle was surrounded by law enforcement. Defendant

testified that she consistently denied any knowledge of the methamphetamine while

speaking to law enforcement officers, that she did not tell officers that she worked

with her sister to procure methamphetamine, and that she did not know anyone

named Dread.

      The jury found Defendant guilty of trafficking methamphetamine by

possession, and not guilty of trafficking methamphetamine by transportation and

                                        -3-
                                 STATE V. FIGUEROA

                                  Opinion of the Court

conspiracy to traffic methamphetamine. Defendant filed written notice of appeal.

                                II.    Discussion

A. Expert Testimony

      Defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred by admitting Meyers’

testimony and lab report identifying the substance in Defendant’s vehicle as

methamphetamine because her testimony failed to lay a sufficient foundation for

reliability under Evidence Rule 702.

      “[A]n unpreserved challenge to the performance of a trial court’s gatekeeping

function under Rule 702 in a criminal trial is subject to plain error review.” State v.

Gray, 259 N.C. App. 351, 354, 815 S.E.2d 736, 739 (2018) (citation omitted). To show

plain error, “a defendant must demonstrate that a fundamental error occurred at

trial.” State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 518, 723 S.E.2d 326, 334 (2012) (citation

omitted). “To show that an error was fundamental, a defendant must establish

prejudice–that, after examination of the entire record, the error had a probable

impact on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty.” Id. (quotation marks and

citations omitted). “[B]ecause plain error is to be applied cautiously and only in the

exceptional case, the error will often be one that seriously affect[s] the fairness,

integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (quotation marks and

citations omitted). The standard is so high “in part at least because the defendant

could have prevented any error by making a timely objection.” State v. Walker, 316

N.C. 33, 39, 340 S.E.2d 80, 83-84 (1986) (citation omitted).

                                         -4-
                                  STATE V. FIGUEROA

                                   Opinion of the Court

      Rule 702(a) provides a three-part test for determining whether expert

testimony is admissible:

             If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will
             assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
             determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert
             by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may
             testify thereto in the form of an opinion, or otherwise, if all
             of the following apply:
             (1) The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data.
             (2) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and
                 methods.
             (3) The witness has applied the principles and methods
                 reliably to the facts of the case.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(a) (2022). Where the State seeks to prove the

identity of a controlled substance through expert testimony, such testimony is

admissible only when it is “based on a scientifically valid chemical analysis and not

mere visual inspection.” State v. Ward, 364 N.C. 133, 142, 694 S.E.2d 738, 744 (2010).

      At trial, Meyers was tendered and qualified as an expert in forensic science

and forensic drug chemistry without objection. Upon being qualified as an expert,

Meyers gave the following testimony:

             [STATE:] . . . [D]id you receive this substance at your lab?
             [MEYERS:] Yes, I did.
             [STATE:] And if you’ll tell the jurors if you know when you
             received it and what, if anything, you did with the item.
             [MEYERS:] I received the evidence on February 10, 2020,
             and I conducted an analysis on the crystalline material
             that was contained inside.
             [STATE:] Okay. And I guess without being too technical

                                          -5-
                                  STATE V. FIGUEROA

                                   Opinion of the Court

             for us, could you tell us what -- what do you do to determine
             what type of controlled substance -- substance that you
             may have received?
             [MEYERS:] In this case, I performed a preliminary color
             test known as the marquis color test, and I also completed
             a confirmatory infrared spectrophotometer test as well.
             And in this case, I identified methamphetamine, which is
             a Schedule II controlled substance.
             [STATE:] Okay. And that was your opinion based on your
             analysis?
             [MEYERS:] Yes.

      Defendant argues that Meyers’ testimony was admitted in violation of Rule

702(a) because Meyers failed to explain the procedure she employed or how that

procedure was applied to the facts of this case.

      This Court rejected a similar argument in State v. Piland, 263 N.C. App. 323,

822 S.E.2d 876 (2018). In Piland, defendant was charged with several drug-related

offenses after law enforcement officers recovered a bottle containing a large quantity

of tablets from his residence. 263 N.C. App. at 326-27, 822 S.E.2d at 881. At

defendant’s trial, a forensic scientist gave expert testimony that she “performed a

chemical analysis on a single tablet to confirm that they did in fact contain

[hydrocodone],” but the expert did not identify the chemical analysis she performed

or describe how it was performed. Id. at 338-39, 822 S.E.2d at 888. This Court held

that “it was error for the trial court not to properly exercise its gatekeeping function

of requiring the expert to testify to the methodology of her chemical analysis.” Id. at

339-40, 822 S.E.2d at 888. Nonetheless, the error did not amount to plain error

                                          -6-
                                  STATE V. FIGUEROA

                                   Opinion of the Court

because “the expert testified that she performed a ‘chemical analysis’ and as to the

results of that chemical analysis.” Id. at 340, 822 S.E.2d at 888. This Court reasoned

that the expert’s testimony did “not amount to ‘baseless speculation,’” and thus “was

not so prejudicial that justice could not have been done.” Id. (citation omitted).

      We reach the same conclusion here. At Defendant’s trial, Meyers gave expert

testimony that she “performed a preliminary color test known as the marquis color

test” and “a confirmatory infrared spectrophotometer test” from which she identified

the evidence in this case to be methamphetamine. Although Meyers identified the

analysis that she performed, she did not explain the methodology of that analysis.

Thus, the trial court erred by failing to exercise its gatekeeping function. See id. at

339-40, 822 S.E.2d at 888. However, the error does not amount to plain error because

Meyers identified the tests she performed and the result of those tests. See id. at 340,

822 S.E.2d at 888. Accordingly, Meyers’ testimony did “not amount to ‘baseless

speculation,’” and thus “was not so prejudicial that justice could not have been done.”

Id. (citation omitted).

B. Closing Argument

      Defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to intervene ex mero

motu when the prosecutor used Defendant’s past convictions as substantive evidence

of Defendant’s guilt during closing argument.

      “When a defendant appears as a witness at trial, evidence of the defendant’s

past convictions may be admissible for the purpose of attacking the defendant’s

                                          -7-
                                   STATE V. FIGUEROA

                                    Opinion of the Court

credibility as a witness.” State v. McEachin, 142 N.C. App. 60, 69, 541 S.E.2d 792,

799 (2001) (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 609(a)). However, “it is improper for

the State to suggest in its closing argument to the jury that [such] evidence is

substantive evidence of the defendant’s guilt.” Id. (citation omitted).

      Where, as here, the defendant did not object at trial to an improper jury

argument, the defendant must show that the prosecutor’s argument was “so grossly

improper that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to intervene ex mero

motu.”   State v. Campbell, 359 N.C. 644, 676, 617 S.E.2d 1, 21 (2005) (citation

omitted). “To make this showing, defendant must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s

comments so infected the trial with unfairness that they rendered the conviction

fundamentally unfair.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).

      Here, Defendant testified in her own defense, and her past convictions were

admitted for the purpose of attacking her credibility under Rule 609(a). Throughout

his closing argument, the prosecutor permissibly attacked Defendant’s credibility,

arguing to the jury that, “[i]f you want to believe her story, . . . you have to believe

that Officer Sheets is lying,” and asking the jury to discount Defendant’s testimony:

             I would ask you to discount everything she said. She
             doesn’t get to call [Sheets] -- and I’ll just say a liar or giving
             a mistruthful statement from that stand and then say,
             okay, believe me, believe my testimony up here. Either
             you’re going to believe her or you don’t. And my position is
             you don’t believe her because Detective Sheets was credible
             and he’s truthful about what took place.

The prosecutor emphasized that credibility was the crux of the jury’s decision:

                                           -8-
                                  STATE V. FIGUEROA

                                   Opinion of the Court

             What it comes down to, ladies and gentlemen, I’ll contend
             to you is the believability of the witnesses. If you believe
             everything . . . Sheets has said, then she’s guilty of
             transporting methamphetamine and possession of
             methamphetamine by trafficking. If you disbelieve what
             Detective Sheets has told you with regards to her
             statements, then you could find her not guilty.
             But, in essence, that’s what it really boils down to. I can
             sit here and argue all the elements of the case[,] . . . but if
             you believe his testimony, she’s guilty. If you don’t believe
             his testimony, then she’s not guilty.

The prosecutor also referenced Defendant’s past convictions without objection:

             And so that -- that begs the question, who is this young
             lady? I will contend to you she’s -- she’s someone who’s
             involved in drug deals. You heard about her prior record.
             Although it is larceny and obtaining property by false
             pretense, that gives you some preview as to who she is.

      While the vast majority of the prosecutor’s closing argument permissibly

attacked Defendant’s credibility, the contested statement improperly suggested that

Defendant was more likely to be guilty of the charged offenses based on her past

convictions. However, the improper statement comprised only a few lines of the

prosecutor’s eighteen-page closing argument, as transcribed, and was not so grossly

improper that it warranted judicial intervention. C.f. State v. Tucker, 317 N.C. 532,

543-45, 346 S.E.2d 417, 423-24 (1986) (ordering a new trial when prosecutor

repeatedly used defendant’s past convictions as substantive evidence of defendant’s

guilt over objection); McEachin, 142 N.C. App. at 70, 541 S.E.2d at 799-800 (assuming

without deciding that prosecutor’s argument that defendant had ‘killed before and

. . . he’s killed again’ was grossly improper). Thus, the prosecutor’s reference to

                                          -9-
                                 STATE V. FIGUEROA

                                   Opinion of the Court

Defendant’s past convictions did not “so infect[] the trial with unfairness that [it]

rendered the conviction fundamentally unfair.” Campbell, 359 N.C. at 676, 617

S.E.2d at 21 (citation omitted).      Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its

discretion by failing to intervene ex mero motu.

                               III.    Conclusion

      For the foregoing reasons, the trial court did not plainly err by allowing the

expert to testify that the substance was methamphetamine, and the trial court did

not abuse its discretion by failing to intervene ex mero motu during closing argument.

      NO PLAIN ERROR AND NO ERROR.

      Judges GORE and FLOOD concur.

                                          - 10 -