Court Opinion

ID: 9579830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:58:59.323424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:48.788724
License: Public Domain

WYNN, Judge,
dissenting.
This appeal arises from a protracted trial that produced seventy-eight volumes of transcribed testimony as well as a large number of exhibits. Notwithstanding his defense on the grounds of “actual innocence,” Defendant Michael Iver Peterson was convicted of first-degree murder.
In his appeal, Mr. Peterson presents five issues, three of which I conclude should be addressed by North Carolina’s only appellate court that sits “en banc” — the Supreme Court of North Carolina. Thus, inasmuch as our legislature has uniquely empowered a judge of the North Carolina Court df Appeals to certify questions to our Supreme Court,6 I certify by dissent the following issues for briefing and argument before our Supreme Court:
I. Where the State’s brief and argument before this Court fail to show that a constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, should this Court hold the State to its burden under North Carolina General Statute section 15A-1443(b) to “demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error was harmless.”;
II. Did the trial court properly admit (under North Carolina Rule of Evidence 404(b)) seventeen-year-old circumstantial evidence and a newly formed expert opinion on the unrelated death of Elizabeth Ratliff in Germany; if so, was it unduly prejudicial in violation of North Carolina Rule of Evidence 403; and,
III. Were the prosecutor’s improper remarks during closing arguments prejudicial to Defendant.
I.
The majority and I agree that the third search warrant in this case “woefully fails to pass constitutional muster.” Upon examining the State’s efforts to meet its statutory burden of showing this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, I find that it fails to do so as *472demonstrated in its brief and oral argument.7 Accordingly, I therefore conclude that Mr. Peterson is entitled to a new trial.
As the majority finds, the third search warrant was defective because the affidavit on which it was based was conclusory and thus inadequate to meet the totality of the circumstances analysis. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527, 548 (1983); State v. Arrington, 311 N.C. 633, 641, 319 S.E.2d 254, 259 (1984). Moreover, the failure of the affidavit to comply with the probable cause requirements outlined in section 15A-244(3) of the North Carolina General Statutes constitutes a substantial violation of Defendant’s constitutional rights. Manifestly, the evidence was seized as a result of the inadequate affidavit upon which the warrant was issued. See State v. Hunter, 305 N.C. 106, 113, 286 S.E.2d 535, 539 (1982).
The interest of a defendant to be free from unlawful searches and seizures is, of course, a fundamental constitutional and statutory right in North Carolina. State v. Hyleman, 324 N.C. 506, 510, 379 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1989).
It is a fundamental principle of our legal system that an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights should not be violated, regardless of what charge that individual faces. Thus, even in the most grisly of cases, an individual’s right to be free from illegal search and seizure must be strictly upheld.
State v. McKinney,-N.C. App.-,-, 619 S.E.2d 901, 907 (2005). Accordingly, as the majority holds, the evidence seized pursuant to the 12 December 2001 warrant violated Chapter 15A, Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution, and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Having determined that the trial court committed a constitutional error in this trial, the contentious issue for this panel is whether the State must be held to its burden under section 15A-1443(b) of the North Carolina General Statutes to demonstrate that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt:
A violation of the defendant’s rights under the Constitution of the United States is prejudicial unless the appellate court finds that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is upon the State to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error was harmless.
*473N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1443(b) (2005) (emphasis added); accord State v. Mickey, 347 N.C. 508, 520, 495 S.E.2d 669, 676, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 853, 142 L. Ed. 2d 106 (1998) (“[I]f the erroneous evidentiary ruling violates a right of the defendant guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, the State has the burden of showing that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”); State v. Silva, 304 N.C. 122, 133, 282 S.E.2d 449, 456 (1981) (trial court’s error in admitting evidence deprived the defendant of his constitutional rights; the defendant subsequently awarded a new trial, as the State failed its burden of showing the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt).
To determine whether the State has set forth a sufficient basis that demonstrates, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this constitutional error was harmless, this Court must analyze the State’s showing in (1) its brief on appeal, and (2) its statements at oral argument.
First, in its brief on appeal in the instant case, the State did not present any argument that the trial court’s error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; rather, the State instead set forth the following argument, urging this Court to adopt the good faith exception:
In any event, the trial court determined that Detective Holland acted in good faith [], and the good faith exception should be applicable despite the decision in State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709, 370 S.E.2d 553 (1988). Any weakness in the warrants resulted from a weakness in writing, not a weakness in facts. See generally Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 208, 211-12, 106 L. Ed. 2d 166, 180, 183 (1989) (concurring opinion by Justice O’Connor). The view of the dissenting justices in Carter should prevail here.
Notwithstanding the State’s argument, our Supreme Court clearly rejected the good faith exception in State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709, 732, 370 S.E.2d 553, 561 (1988), as inapplicable to violations of the North Carolina Constitution and chapter 15A of the North Carolina General Statutes. As this Court must follow the law of stare de-cisis, we axe bound by prior decisions of our Supreme Court. Dunn v. Pate, 334 N.C. 115, 118, 431 S.E.2d 178, 180 (1993). Therefore, we must apply the majority view in Carter that a good faith exception is inapplicable.
Second, at oral argument, the entirety of the statements that the State made to meet its burden of demonstrating that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt is as follows:
*474[E]ven if the warrant was improperly issued for the computer [] it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because there was similar evidence that was introduced, the evidence of Brad Brent Wolgamott. That evidence . . . was found in the desk drawer. Now that may have been his desk but . . . Kathleen Peterson had her own business records in that same drawer. She had as I recall her cell phone records or telephone bill and so forth. It’s mentioned in the brief, this is an issue that Mister Barnwell covered, that there was similar evidence that was in that desk drawer. Moreover, we had Brent Wolgamott’s testimony and his testimony was duplicative of the things that were seized off of the computer from the second — from the second search warrant. If it’s sexual images that he’s talking about then there was comparable evidence that was introduced. Moreover, its not as though this was blown up, any of these images were blown up in big eight by tens or whatever like that and the defendant had thoroughly prepared during jury selection, had thoroughly prepared the defense or rather the jury to understand that there may be evidence of the defendant’s bisexuality there may be homosexual evidence coming in. So in any event, I would say to the court that the material seized from the computer was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
This showing, like the showing in the State’s brief, falls short of demonstrating that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Significantly, though the majority contends that the evidence derived from the constitutionally infirm search warrant was “nothing more than repetition of other properly admitted evidence,” it fails to note that, while there were several e-mails between Mr. Peterson and Brent Wolgamott as well as nude photographs of Brent Wolgamott found in the desk drawer, there was no other evidence presented of pornographic images and web sites. Nor does the majority address the fact that there was no other evidence presented regarding Mr. Peterson’s requests for financial help for expenses for his sons and Martha Ratliff. Nor does the majority consider that there was no other evidence of an e-mail from Mr. Peterson to Ms. Peterson, sent less than a week before her death, regarding his desire to work on their marriage. Indeed, the e-mail from Helen Prislinger to Ms. Peterson the night she died would also have been inadmissible. The State used this e-mail to show that Ms. Peterson had access to Mr. Peterson’s e-mail account and computer and could have accessed it *475just prior to her death, thus perhaps discovering evidence of Mr. Peterson’s bisexuality.
The record shows that there was a significant amount of evidence that could have come only from the illegally obtained computer and was not presented elsewhere by the State. The following evidence admitted at trial was seized pursuant to the unconstitutional search warrant: the testimony of Todd Markley, an expert in the field of forensic computer examination employed by CompuSleauth, Incorporated, who examined Mr. Peterson’s computer; the disk drive from Mr. Peterson’s computer; an e-mail from Tom Ratliff to Mr. Peterson regarding Martha’s college expenses; an e-mail from Mr. Peterson to Patricia Peterson regarding their sons’ expenses; an e-mail from Mr. Peterson to Ms. Peterson regarding his desire for them to work on their marriage; an e-mail from Dirk Yates, who runs an Internet service for homosexual pornography, to Mr. Peterson; e-mails between Mr. Peterson and Brent Wolgamott regarding meeting for sexual services; an e-mail from Helen Prislinger to Ms. Peterson sent to Mr. Peterson’s e-mail account on 8 December 2001; numerous pictures of sexual activity from Internet browsing; Todd Markley’s testimony that he recovered 2500 pictures of sexual activity from Mr. Peterson’s computer; list of web site addresses, many pornographic in nature, with twenty or more occurrences; Todd Markley’s investigation report, which included when files were deleted from Mr. Peterson’s computer; and the Internet homepage for Nine West.
Thus, contrary to the majority’s finding that “the evidence introduced pursuant to the invalid warrant was nothing more than repetition of other properly admitted evidence” and was therefore “merely duplicative,” the record shows that a not insubstantial amount of evidence, some of it potentially highly inflammatory, resulted directly from the defective search warrant. The cumulative effect of this evidence was not merely “prejudicial to the defendant in the sense that any evidence probative of the State’s case is always prejudicial to the defendant,” State v. Stager, 329 N.C. 278, 310, 406 S.E.2d 876, 895 (1991), but had a substantial impact on providing a possible motive for the crime. Neither the State nor the majority addresses the effect of this additional evidence, or establishes it to be harmless.
In sum, the State failed to meet its burden demonstrating the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; accordingly, the error is statutorily established as prejudicial. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1443(b). Mr. Peterson is entitled to a trial that would be free of this constitutional error and the statutorily established prejudice that *476resulted from the introduction of evidence seized under the defective warrant. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-974(2) (2005).
II.
The trial court further erred by allowing in evidence of Elizabeth Ratliff’s death8 under North Carolina Rule of Evidence 404(b), which provides in pertinent part:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may,, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake, entrapment or accident.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (2005). “[E]vidence of other offenses is admissible so long as it is relevant to any fact or issue other than the character of the accused.” Stager, 329 N.C. at 302, 406 S.E.2d at 889 (quoting State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 278, 389 S.E.2d 48, 54 (1990) (emphasis omitted)).
Relevant evidence is defined as that with “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (2005). “Evidence is relevant if it has any logical tendency, however slight, to prove a fact in issue.” State v. Smith, 357 N.C. 604, 613, 588 S.E.2d 453, 460 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 941, 159 L. Ed. 2d 819 (2004).
Here, the trial court conducted a voir dire hearing to determine whether the evidence regarding the death of Elizabeth Ratliff was of a type made admissible under Rule 404(b) and was relevant for some purpose other than showing Mr. Peterson’s propensity for the type of conduct at issue. See State v. Cummings, 326 N.C. 298, 309-10, 389 S.E.2d 66, 72 (1990). The trial court made the required findings and conclusions in this case and ruled that the proffered evidence of the circumstances surrounding the death of Elizabeth Ratliff was admissible under Rule 404(b) as evidence of intent, knowledge, and absence of áccident.
*477In his appeal, Mr. Peterson argues that the State did not substantially and independently link him to Elizabeth Ratliffs death and that evidence of her death was therefore inadmissible under Rule 404(b). Thus, this Court must determine, inter alia, whether there was substantial evidence tending to support a reasonable finding by the jury that Mr. Peterson committed the “similar act.” See Stager, 329 N.C. at 303, 406 S.E.2d at 890.
A prior act or crime is “similar” if there are some unusual facts present indicating that the same person committed both the earlier offense and the present one. Id. at 304, 406 S.E.2d at 890-91. However, the similarities between the two incidents need not be “unique and bizarre.” Id., 406 S.E.2d at 891. “Rather, the similarities simply must tend to support a reasonable inference that the same person committed both the earlier and later acts.” Id. (emphasis in original); see also State v. Sokolowski, 351 N.C. 137, 150, 522 S.E.2d 65, 73 (1999).
Here, as outlined by the majority, the trial court specifically found seventeen similarities between Ms. Peterson’s death and Elizabeth Ratliffs death, including facts related to the circumstances of the two deaths, the characteristics of the two women, and Defendant’s relationships with the two women and reported discoveries of their respective bodies. Despite these findings, it would be manifestly speculative to hold that these tenuous, circumstantial similarities now link Mr. Peterson to Elizabeth Ratliff’s death. Indeed, the present case can be distinguished from two others in which our courts have considered the admission of circumstantial evidence that marked a link with defendants.
In State v. Moore, 335 N.C. 567, 440 S.E.2d 797 (1994), the State presented circumstantial evidence marking the similarities between the deceased’s murder, a prior murder, and a prior poisoning. The similarities included: all three men were either married to or intimately involved with the defendant; each died or was severely ill from arsenic poisoning, an unusual cause of death; and, the defendant had a financial motive, opportunity, and means in each case. Id. at 595, 440 S.E.2d at 813. The Court held that the similarities between the crime charged and the past crimes were sufficient that a reasonable inference could be made that the same person committed all three acts. Id. at 596, 440 S.E.2d at 813-14.
In State v. Lanier, 165 N.C. App. 337, 598 S.E.2d 596, disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 195, 608 S.E.2d 59 (2004), the defendant’s former husband had been very ill prior to his death, which was officially *478listed as drowning. Following her first husband’s death, the defendant collected life insurance payments and inherited his farm. Id. at 343, 598 S.E.2d at 601. The trial court found similarities between the former husband’s death and the current victim, although he died of arsenic poisoning, as follows: both men were married to the defendant at the time of their deaths; prior to death both men became incapacitated at various times; the defendant was the only caregiver for both men; the defendant had the ability to get both men medical help prior to their deaths yet only did so at the urging of others; the defendant benefitted financially from both deaths; and, the defendant appeared to minimize the seriousness of her husbands’ illnesses and attempted to treat them on her own. Id. at 344-45, 598 S.E.2d at 601. This Court held that the former husband’s death was admissible under Rule 404(b) as it was relevant to show the current victim’s death was not accidental according to the “doctrine of chances.” Id. at 345-48, 598 S.E.2d at 602-04.
Unlike in Moore and Lanier, there were not sufficient similarities between the deaths of Elizabeth Ratliff and Ms. Peterson that a jury could make a “reasonable inference” that Mr. Peterson committed the prior murder — or that Ms. Ratliff’s death was even a murder. See Stager, 329 N.C. at 304, 406 S.E.2d at 891. Here, Mr. Peterson was not intimately involved with Elizabeth Ratliff, but was simply a neighbor and friend. Also, while Mr. Peterson did receive some household goods from Elizabeth Ratliff’s estate, he received the items as guardian for her daughters and in trust for them, unlike the multimillion dollar amount of money he stood to inherit individually from Ms. Peterson’s estate. Moreover, at the time it occurred, Elizabeth Ratliff’s death was deemed- to be of natural causes by both the German and military authorities; not until her body was exhumed and re-autopsied some eighteen years later did the expert in this case opine that her death was caused by blunt trauma to the head, whereas Ms. Peterson’s death was immediately determined to be a homicide.9 Therefore, there were not sufficient substantial similarities between the two deaths.
In addition, as noted by the majority, “Rule 404(b) evidence probative of a permissible purpose is admissible if it is evidence of a similar act with a certain degree of temporal proximity to the cur*479rent charge" (emphasis added). This closeness in time is required because, “[w]hen otherwise similar offenses are distanced by significant stretches of time, commonalities become less striking, and the probative value of the analogy attaches less to the acts than to the character of the actor.” State v. Artis, 325 N.C. 278, 299-300, 384 S.E.2d 470, 481 (1989), vacated on other grounds by, 494 U.S. 1023, 108 L. Ed. 2d 604 (1990), on remand at, 329 N.C. 679, 406 S.E.2d 827 (1991). Thus, “remoteness in time tends to diminish the probative value of the evidence and enhance its tendency to prejudice.” Id. at 300, 384 S.E.2d at 482.
Here, seventeen years passed between the deaths of Ms. Ratliff and Ms. Peterson; even if “remoteness in time generally affects only the weight to be given such evidence, not its admissibility,” Stager, 329 N.C. at 307, 406 S.E.2d at 893, the passage of such a significant amount of time erodes to an even greater extent the relevance of the circumstantial similarities between the two deaths, further challenging the reasonableness of a jury’s inference that Mr. Peterson was responsible for Ms. Ratliff’s death.
As a jury could not make a “reasonable inference” that Mr. Peterson committed the prior murder, the evidence was inadmissible under Rule 404(b). See Stager, 329 N.C. at 304, 406 S.E.2d at 891. Therefore, I conclude that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the death of Elizabeth Ratliff and would grant Mr. Peterson a new trial, as the evidence was highly prejudicial.
Finally, even if evidence of Elizabeth Ratliff’s death is permitted under Rule 404(b), it nonetheless should have been barred from admission in this trial under Rule 403, as the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 403 (2005); State v. Everhardt, 96 N.C. App. 1, 18, 384 S.E.2d 562, 572 (1989), aff'd, 326 N.C. 777, 392 S.E.2d 391 (1990). “ ‘Unfair prejudice,’ as used in Rule 403, means ‘an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, as an emotional one.’ ” State v. DeLeonardo, 315 N.C. 762, 772, 340 S.E.2d 350, 357 (1986) (internal citation and quotes omitted). That determination is within the sound discretion of the trial court, whose ruling will be reversed on appeal when it is shown that the ruling was arbitrary. State v. Baldwin, 330 N.C. 446, 456, 412 S.E.2d 31, 37 (1992). If, however, the probative value of the evidence is so slight and the evidence is so prejudicial that there is a substantial likelihood that the jury will consider the evidence only for *480the purpose of determining the defendant’s propensity to commit the crimes with which he has been charged, the evidence must be excluded under Rule 403. State v. White, 331 N.C. 604, 615-16, 419 S.E.2d 557, 564 (1992).
Following the voir dire hearing on the admission of evidence of Elizabeth Ratliff’s death, the trial court concluded that “[t]he probative value of this evidence outweighs any prejudicial effect on the Defendant.” However, the trial court set out no findings on the prejudice toward Mr. Peterson on this highly prejudicial and very circumstantial evidence. It is not evident from the record that the trial court properly balanced the two competing interests- — -probative value of the evidence versus prejudice to the defendant — but instead simply found that the evidence had probative value and summarily concluded that the probative value outweighed the prejudice to Mr. Peterson.
Thus, the trial court abused its discretion, as any probative value of the evidence of Elizabeth Ratliff’s death was outweighed by the unfair prejudice to Mr. Peterson. See White, 331 N.C. at 616, 419 S.E.2d at 564 (the trial court abused its discretion, as any probative value of the evidence of the defendant’s alleged assault upon a third victim was substantially outweighed by the danger that the evidence would predispose the minds of the jurors to believe that the defendant was guilty of the crimes charged); State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279, 286-87, 372 S.E.2d 523, 528 (1988) (the trial court abused its discretion as repetitive photographs of crime scene were unduly prejudicial). As the admission of the circumstantially speculative evidence of Elizabeth Ratliff’s death was highly prejudicial, a new trial should be awarded.
III.
Mr. Peterson also argues that the trial court erred in overruling his objections to improper closing arguments.
“A lawyer’s function during closing argument is to provide the jury with a summation of the evidence, which in turn ‘serves to sharpen and clarify the issues for resolution by the trier of fact,’ and should be limited to relevant legal issues.” State v. Jones, 355 N.C. 117, 127, 558 S.E.2d 97, 103 (2002) (citations and quotations omitted). In the context of a criminal jury trial, specific guidelines for closing arguments have been set out in section 15A-1230(a) as follows:
*481During a closing argument to the jury an attorney may not become abusive, inject his personal experiences, express his personal belief as to the truth or falsity of the evidence or as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, or make arguments on the basis of matters outside the record except for matters concerning which the court may take judicial notice. An attorney may, however, on the basis of his analysis of the evidence, argue any position or conclusion with respect to a matter in issue.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1230(a) (2005). But our Courts have repeatedly held “that counsel are given wide latitude in arguments to the jury and are permitted to argue the evidence that has been presented and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from that evidence.” Jones, 355 N.C. at 128, 558 S.E.2d at 105.
In the present case, defense counsel interposed a timely objection to each of the prosecutor’s actions that he contests; thus, we review the court’s rulings for abuse of discretion. Id. at 131, 558 S.E.2d at 106. “In order to assess whether a trial court has abused its discretion when deciding a particular matter, this Court must determine if the ruling ‘could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.’ ” Id. (citation omitted).
I agree with the majority that the trial court did not abuse its discretion with respect to overruling Mr. Peterson’s objections to what he contended were the prosecutor’s improper bolstering of the credibility of witnesses and offering her personal beliefs and opinions as to the credibility of the State’s expert witnesses. However, Mr. Peterson also argues that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the prosecutor’s following argument:
Agent Deaver, Doctor Radisch, and Doctor Butts. You know what? They’re state employees. Just like most of us that work here in the courthouse. And they work for your state. They work for your state, North Carolina.
[Defense Counsel]: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
[Prosecutor]: Not Chicago, Illinois. Not Connecticut. They work for us. They gave you truthful and accurate information. And you know what? They didn’t get paid not one penny extra to come in here. Deaver should have, my goodness what he had to go through on the witness stand, but, no, he didn’t get an extra penny.
*482They might not have written books that they’re signing and autographing for everybody. They might not travel to all of the rest of the states and give seminars and lectures. They’re not allowed to, actually. It’s not that they’re not good enough to, it’s they’re not allowed to. They might not have appeared on Larry King Live or Court TV. But you know what? They are tried and true. Tried and true. Because they work for us.
[Defense Counsel]: Objection.
Mr. Peterson contends that argument appealed “to the jurors’ bias by suggesting that they were represented by the State’s witnesses, in contrast to witness called by the defense, who came from other states.” The State concedes that the prosecutor’s characterization that the witnesses were “[t]ried and true. Because they work for us[,]” “was excessive and inappropriate.” Accordingly, it is given that the prosecutor’s comments were improper.
Counsel may not place before the jury incompetent and prejudicial matters by injecting his own knowledge, beliefs and personal opinions not supported by the evidence. State v. Jones, 358 N.C. 330, 350, 595 S.E.2d 124, 137 (2004) (quoting State v. Locklear, 294 N.C. 210, 217, 241 S.E.2d 65, 69 (1978)). Our Supreme Court has previously stated that: “ ‘It is especially proper for the court to intervene and exercise power to curb improper arguments of the solicitor when the State is prosecuting one of its citizens, and should not allow the jury to be unfairly prejudiced against him.’ ” Jones, 355 N.C. at 130, 558 S.E.2d at 106 (quoting State v. Miller, 271 N.C. 646, 659, 157 S.E.2d 335, 346 (1967)). As the evidence in this case was interpreted differently by experts for the State and for the defense, the credibility of expert witnesses was crucial. Essentially, which experts the jury found more credible was determinative to the verdict. After allowing the prosecutor to improperly give her opinion on the credibility of the State’s witnesses in violation of section 15A-1230(a), the trial court abused its discretion by failing to give specific curative instructions regarding the prosecutor’s improper comments. See Miller, 271 N.C. at 660, 157 S.E.2d at 346 (new trial awarded where the prosecutor suggested that the defendant’s witnesses were lying). As the improper comments were prejudicial to Mr. Peterson, he is entitled to a new trial.

. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-30(2) (2006).

. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1443(b) (2005).

. In Mr. Peterson’s assignments of error, he also challenges the constitutionality of admitting the irrelevant evidence of Elizabeth Ratliff’s death; however, as he does not specifically argue these assignments of error in his brief, they are deemed abandoned. N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6).

. The trial court’s finding that the cause of death for both women was later determined to be homicide is misleading at best, as it suggests that Dr. Deborah Radisch’s finding in April 2003 that Ms. Ratliff’s injuries were “primarily the result of blunt trauma” had some legal significance beyond mere expert opinion.