Court Opinion

ID: 9572826
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:45:00.872674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:27.532385
License: Public Domain

WYNN, Judge,
concurring in the result.
I concur with the majority’s holding as to all issues presented by Defendant, save that of the testimony concerning his being in the Swain County jail at the time of the search of the camper. On that question, I would reach the merits of Defendant’s argument and find no error in the trial court’s allowing the objected-to testimony; thus, I concur in the result only as to that issue.
At trial, Defendant testified on direct examination from his attorney that he was not present for the search of his trailer because he was in jail in Swain County. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Defendant why he was in jail; defense counsel objected, but the trial court ruled that Defendant’s testimony on direct had “opened the door” and allowed Defendant’s answer that he was in jail in Swain County for possession of stolen goods.
The majority is correct in noting that Defendant’s assignment of error as to this exchange at trial is overly broad and fails to state the legal basis upon which error is assigned. However, I observe that the majority was also able to ascertain and summarize, from both Defendant’s and the State’s briefs, their respective arguments on this point. As such, I find that appellate review has not been frustrated, nor has the State been denied notice of Defendant’s contentions, as to this issue. Given the liberty interest at stake for a criminal defendant such as in the instant case, I would invoke Rule 2 to suspend the Rules of Appellate Procedure and reach the merits of Defendant’s argument.1
It is well settled in North Carolina that otherwise inadmissible evidence may be admissible if the door has been opened by the opposing party’s examination of the witness. See, e.g., State v. *76Baymon, 336 N.C. 748, 752-53, 446 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1994). Here, Defendant opened the door as to his whereabouts when the trailer was searched; I would find no error by the trial court in allowing the prosecutor to ask follow-up questions related to his whereabouts, as such information was certainly relevant. See State v. Bowman, 349 N.C. 459, 480, 509 S.E.2d 428, 441 (1998) (finding a defendant opened the door to cross-examination by the State on his prior convictions by testifying about them on direct examination), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1040, 144 L. Ed. 2d 802 (1999); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (2005) (“ ‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having 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.”).

. Though the majority opinion suggests that “the concurring opinion concedes that the result would be no different if we chose to invoke Rule 2 to suspend the rules,” it should be noted that one judge on a three-judge panel cannot “concede” a result. Indeed, the majority’s adherence to technical rules of procedure denies this incarcerated defendant an opportunity to determine how the judges in the majority here would decide this issue if they chose to reach the merits of his appeal. That is a manifest injustice.