Court Opinion

ID: 9584359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:47:17.21287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:38.272227
License: Public Domain

STEELMAN, Judge
dissenting.
While I agree with the majority’s recitation of Blackwell’s two part test, I would hold that the State has shown “overwhelming” and “uncontroverted” evidence that “Defendant’s actions endangered multiple persons and victims continue to have emotional distress.” For the reasons set out below, I respectfully dissent.
There is no dispute that the trial judge committed a Blakely error by finding a non-statutory aggravating factor without submitting it to the jury. My disagreement is with the majority’s application of the second Blackwell prong, which requires that the error be harmless *725beyond a reasonable doubt. To be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt “the evidence against the defendant [must be] so ‘overwhelming’ and ‘uncontroverted’ that any rational fact-finder would have found the disputed aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Blackwell, 361 N.C. 41, 50, 638 S.E.2d 452 (2006).
In the instant case, the State provided uncontroverted evidence from the trial and sentencing hearing that multiple people were in the Town Hall at the time of the robbery. The State has also offered evidence showing that defendant fired one shot into the air as he was leaving the building, which could have injured any of the people in the area. Defendant does not contest these facts. Therefore, as in Blackwell, the State’s evidence constitutes uncontroverted and overwhelming evidence that defendant did endanger multiple persons.
The State presented testimony from two witnesses that the victims continue to suffer emotional distress. Leslie Jones testified, “I am still scared. I am still nervous. It’s not going to be able to end . . . There’s not going to be an end so I’m nervous.” Annette Huguley testified that “the effect that the robbery had on [her] on that particular day and today has been very fearful.” Ms. Huguley then stated, “It had put a lot of fear in me, myself, I can say. It feared me then and it still fears me now.” In response to the State’s question regarding the impact of the robbery on the other workers, Ms. Huguley said, “Nicole Jones left... Ms. Johnson will not stay down there by herself, and it has caused everybody to always look at our customers totally different now when they come in because we don’t know if they’re coming to pay a bill or to rob us ... we just look at it totally different now.” This testimony demonstrates that Ms. Huguley, Ms. Jones and Ms. Johnson all continue to suffer emotional distress.
The trial court found a non-statutory aggravating factor that “Defendant’s actions endangered multiple persons and victims continue to have emotional distress.” There is uncontroverted and overwhelming evidence that defendant endangered multiple persons. The majority does not dispute this. However, the majority contends that there is not uncontroverted and overwhelming evidence that the victims continue to suffer emotional distress. Specifically, it notes that defendant elicited testimony that Ms. Jones left her job not because of emotional distress but due to poor job performance.
I would hold that even excluding the testimony pertaining to Ms. Jones, there is still sufficient uncontroverted and overwhelming evi*726dence that Ms. Johnson and Ms. Huguley continue to experience emotional distress. Therefore, “taken together, the State’s evidence, [Defendant's failure to object, and [Defendant's failure to present any arguments or evidence contesting the sole aggravating factor constitute uncontroverted and overwhelming evidence,” Blackwell, 361 N.C. at 51, 638 S.E.2d at 459, that Ms. Johnson and Ms. Huguley continue to experience emotional distress. Thus, even if Ms. Jones was fired because of her poor job performance, rather than continuing emotional distress, there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that “victims continue to have emotional distress” and that the trial judge’s Blakely error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.