Court Opinion

ID: 9960395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 12:04:48.811031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:25.827604
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

                                  No. COA23-656

                                Filed 16 April 2024

Mecklenburg County, No. 20CRS211069

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

             v.

ROBERT LEE GRANT, III

      Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 28 November 2022 by Judge Eric

L. Levinson in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals

7 February 2024.

      Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Ashton H.
      Roberts, for the State-Appellee.

      Stephen G. Driggers for Defendant-Appellant.

      COLLINS, Judge.

      Defendant Robert Lee Grant, III, appeals from judgment entered upon a jury

verdict of guilty of assault on a female.   Defendant argues that the trial court

prejudicially erred by overruling his objection to the State’s improper comment made

during closing argument on Defendant’s decision not to testify and by failing to

promptly instruct the jury to disregard the comment. After careful consideration, we

find no prejudicial error.
                                   STATE V. GRANT

                                  Opinion of the Court

                         I.   Procedural Background

      Defendant was indicted in Mecklenburg County Superior Court on 17 May

2021 for misdemeanor assault on a female, possession of firearm by felon, assault by

pointing a gun, and assault by strangulation. Defendant’s case came on for trial on

24 October 2022. During the trial, the State dismissed the charge of assault by

pointing a gun. The jury found Defendant guilty of misdemeanor assault on a female

and not guilty of possession of firearm by a felon and assault by strangulation. The

trial court continued the judgment until 28 November 2022, when Defendant was

sentenced to 150 days of imprisonment. Defendant gave proper notice of appeal in

open court.

                                II.   Discussion

      Defendant argues that the trial court violated his federal and state

constitutional rights against self-incrimination by overruling his objection to the

State’s improper comment made during closing argument on Defendant’s decision not

to testify and by failing to promptly instruct the jury to disregard the comment.

      This Court reviews de novo a claim of constitutional error by the trial court.

State v. Thorne, 173 N.C. App. 393, 396, 618 S.E.2d 790, 793 (2005). Under de novo

review, “th[is] court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own

judgment for that of the lower tribunal.” State v. Williams, 362 N.C. 628, 632-33, 669

S.E.2d 290, 294 (2008) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

      A criminal defendant cannot be compelled to testify, and any reference by the

                                         -2-
                                    STATE V. GRANT

                                   Opinion of the Court

State regarding his failure to do so violates an accused’s right under the Fifth

Amendment of the United States Constitution to remain silent. Griffin v. California,

380 U.S. 609, 615 (1965) (“We . . . hold that the Fifth Amendment, in its . . . bearing

on the States by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids . . . comment by the

prosecution on the accused’s silence[.]”). Likewise, the North Carolina Constitution

states that a defendant in a criminal prosecution cannot “be compelled to give

self-incriminating evidence.” N.C. Const. art. I, § 23. Similarly, our North Carolina

General Statutes provide that no person charged with commission of a crime shall be

compelled to testify or “answer any question tending to criminate himself.” N.C. Gen.

Stat. § 8-54 (2023).

      “[A] prosecution’s argument which clearly suggests that a defendant has failed

to testify is error.” State v. Reid, 334 N.C. 551, 555, 434 S.E.2d 193, 196 (1993)

(citation omitted). “That the prosecution’s reference to defendant’s failure to testify

parroted the pattern jury instructions is of no relevance since [N.C. Gen. Stat.] § 8-54

prohibits the State ‘from making any reference to or comment on defendant’s failure

to testify.’” Id. (quoting State v. McCall, 286 N.C. 472, 486, 212 S.E.2d 132, 141 (1975)

(emphasis added in Reid)).

      “When the State directly comments on a defendant’s failure to testify, the

improper comment is not cured by subsequent inclusion in the jury charge of an

instruction on a defendant’s right not to testify.” Id. at 556, 434 S.E.2d at 197

(citations omitted). However, “the error may be cured by a withdrawal of the remark

                                          -3-
                                   STATE V. GRANT

                                  Opinion of the Court

or by a statement from the court that it was improper, followed by an instruction to

the jury not to consider the failure of the accused to offer himself as a witness.” Id.

(quoting McCall, 286 N.C. at 487, 212 S.E.2d at 141).

   Here, the following exchange occurred during the State’s closing argument:

             [STATE]: Now, the defendant of course, it is his right not
             to testify, and you are not to hold that against him. But I
             also want you to think about the fact that the defendant
             chose to put on evidence. He didn’t have to do that. He
             could have sat there and said the State hasn’t proven their
             case and I don’t need to do anything. But what did he
             choose to put up? More distractions, pictures of officers
             pointing at the defendant.

             [DEFENDANT]: Objection, Your Honor. This is unfair --

             THE COURT: What’s the objection?

             [DEFENDANT]: -- unfairly going into whether he chose to
             take the stand, not take the stand, and put on evidence.

             THE COURT: Overruled, overruled.

             [STATE]: You can consider the evidence that the defendant
             put on. You cannot hold it against him, the fact that he did
             not testify. We do consider what they chose to put on. And
             it was just one distraction after another.

After the completion of the State’s closing argument, the trial court dismissed the

jury for lunch.

      Upon return from lunch, but before the jury was brought back into the

courtroom, Defendant moved for a mistrial, citing Reid and the trial court’s failure to

give a curative instruction following the State’s improper comment.         The State

responded,

                                         -4-
                                     STATE V. GRANT

                                    Opinion of the Court

             I was very specific in my closing argument that the jury
             was not to hold it against the defendant, his decision not to
             testify. I believe I reiterated it twice. The State is allowed
             to comment on the defendant’s evidence that they put
             forward. And I was very specific and very direct, that the
             defendant explicitly has the right not to testify. I said it
             twice. I ask that you deny defense’s motion.

      The trial court denied Defendant’s motion but explained as follows:

             To the extent that the district attorney referenced in
             closing arguments anything related to the defendant not
             testifying, that in hindsight it would have been proper for
             me to sustain the objection and indicate to the jury at that
             time that no reference should be made t[o] the defendant’s
             silence and that they’re not to consider it in any way
             adversely and that it creates no presumption against the
             defendant. And I’ll be giv[ing] them that instruction. The
             DA goes on after that and makes a comment about it -- it’s
             not to be held against him, et cetera. But it is a comment
             in closing argument on the defendant’s not testifying.
             Initially, when I overruled the objection, I was thinking
             that it was a passing bridge to what the DA was going to
             talk about in terms of what the defendant’s counsel did
             present by way of evidence on his behalf. But in the
             moment, I overruled the objection. And in hindsight, it
             would’ve been proper for me to sustain the objection. It is
             a direct comment -- or it is a comment on the defendant[’]s
             not testifying. . . . So the motion for a mistrial is denied. I’ll
             be adjust[ing] my instruction to the jury.

      The jury returned to the courtroom, and the trial court gave the following

curative instruction:

             So, ladies and gentlemen, the defendant in this particular
             matter has not testified. The law gives the defendant this
             privilege. This same law also assures the defendant that
             this decision not to testify creates no presumption against
             the defendant; therefore, the silence of the defendant is not
             to influence your decision in any way. I will tell you

                                           -5-
                                   STATE V. GRANT

                                   Opinion of the Court

             furthermore that during the closing argument, the district
             attorney made some reference to the defendant not
             testifying and some reference to it. It is not proper, ladies
             and gentlemen, for a lawyer to comment on the defendant’s
             not testifying. And I will tell you in hindsight that it would
             have been proper for me to sustain the objection at the time
             and indicate at that time that the jury should not utilize
             that in any way against the defendant because it creates
             no presumption against the defendant. We discussed this
             during jury selection as well, be mindful that the
             defendant’s privilege not to testify, he is shrouded with an
             assurance that the jurors will not utilize that against him
             during their later deliberations. Does this make sense to
             everyone, and if you understand my instruction, please
             raise your hand and let me know. Okay. The jurors have
             indicated so.

      The State’s very specific and very direct statement, reiterated twice, made

during closing argument that the jury was not to hold Defendant’s decision not to

testify against Defendant, violated Defendant’s federal constitutional, state

constitutional, and state statutory rights. Reid, 334 N.C. at 555, 434 S.E.2d at 196.

Furthermore, as the trial court admitted, the trial court erred by initially overruling

Defendant’s objection. However, unlike in Reid, the trial court here gave a robust

curative instruction immediately after the jury returned from lunch. The trial court

explained that the State’s comment was improper, instructed the jury not to consider

Defendant’s decision not to testify, and polled the jury to ensure that each juror

understood the trial court’s instruction. The trial court’s curative instruction was

sufficient to cure the State’s improper comment and the trial court’s failure to sustain

Defendant’s objection.

                                          -6-
                                      STATE V. GRANT

                                  Opinion of the Court

                               III.     Conclusion

      The State’s comments during closing argument on Defendant’s decision not to

testify violated Defendant’s federal constitutional, state constitutional, and state

statutory rights, and the trial court erred by initially overruling Defendant’s

objection. However, the trial court’s curative instruction to the jury cured the errors

and any prejudice that may have resulted therefrom.

      NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR.

      Judges WOOD and GORE concur.

                                           -7-