State v. Washington
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA13-108 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 October 2013 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Craven County Nos. 11 CRS 52536-37 12 CRS 330-33 JAMARA WASHINGTON Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 27 June 2012 by Judge Benjamin G. Alford in Craven County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 September 2013. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Scott A. Conklin, for the State. Marie H. Mobley for defendant-appellant. HUNTER, Robert C., Judge. Jamara Washington ( defendant ) appeals from judgments entered upon jury verdicts finding him guilty of two counts each of possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine, sale and delivery of cocaine, and attaining habitual felon status. careful review, we find no error. After -2The State presented evidence tending to show that Sergeant David Daniels of the New Bern Police Department ( NBPD ) enlisted a paid confidential informant on 16 March 2011 and 22 March 2011 to purchase drugs from defendant, who was suspected by the NBPD of selling drugs in the town. Prior to each purchase, officers of the NBPD searched the informant s person and vehicle and determined the informant did not have any contraband. On 16 March 2011 the informant called defendant, whom he knew as a former classmate in school, at a number given to him by defendant and asked to purchase cocaine from defendant. The two arranged to meet by a funeral parlor in the Pembroke section of town. The informant traveled to this location, walked over to a black vehicle defendant was driving, handed defendant $100 in cash, and received bags of cocaine in exchange. After defendant departed, the informant handed the bags to Officer Daniels, who was maintaining surveillance in an unmarked vehicle several hundred yards down the road. The bags were subsequently analyzed as containing 0.8 grams of cocaine. Officer Daniels ran a license plate check of the vehicle driven by the man who met the informant and determined that the vehicle belonged to Enterprise Leasings, a rental car agency. -3On 22 March 2011, the informant contacted defendant and arranged another transaction at a store near Trent Court in the Pembroke section of town. As the informant rode with Officer Barry to Bryant of the NBPD this location, he called the officer s attention to a parked white Dodge Charger vehicle. The officer parked his vehicle behind the Dodge Charger, which was occupied by only one person, identified by the informant as defendant. into the returned substance The informant exited the officer s vehicle and got front and seat gave of the Officer subsequently Dodge David analyzed Charger. Welch as a 1.7 The bag grams informant containing of a cocaine. Officer Daniels ran a license plate check of the Dodge Charger and determined that it was registered to Enterprise Leasing. An agent with Enterprise Holdings, a rental car agency, testified that defendant and his mother came to the agency on 12 March 2011 and rented a black Chevrolet Impala for a period expiring 18 March 2011. Defendant s mother paid for the rental. Defendant was listed as the only authorized driver. rented a Dodge Charger automobile on 19 March Defendant 2011. The telephone number given by defendant in the rental transaction matched the number given to the informant. -4Defendant contends the court erred by refusing to permit him to cross examine the informant about prior convictions which were more than ten years old. The record shows that after the jury was selected but before it was impaneled, defendant made an oral request for discovery of the informant s criminal record. In response, the prosecutor handed defendant s counsel a copy of the informant s criminal record. defendant s counsel expressed a Upon reviewing the document, desire to cross examine the informant regarding the informant s felony convictions in the State of New York dating from 1993 to 2000. objected, and after hearing arguments, The prosecutor the court denied defendant s request. Rule 609(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence provides that a witness may not be cross examined regarding a prior conviction if a period of more than 10 years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is the later date, unless the court determines, in the interest of justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. N.C. Gen. Stat. ยง 8C-1, Rule 609(b) (2011). the trial court that the probative Defendant argued to value of the evidence -5outweighed its prejudicial effect because the informant s familiarity with drug offenses was related to his own prior convictions of drug offenses and every criminal conviction goes to a witness s credibility. The trail court s determination whether to permit cross examination is discretionary and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Shelly, 176 N.C. App. 575, 578, 627 S.E.2d 287, 292 (2006). An abuse is of discretion occurs when the court s ruling manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision. State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279, 285, 372 S.E.2d 523, 527 (1988)(citing State v. (1985)). Parker, 315 N.C. 249, 258-59, 337 S.E.2d 497, 503 In denying the request at bar, the trial court stated it believe[d] that the interest of justice preclude[d] the introduction on crossexamination of any criminal convictions of [informant] prior to ten years prior and preceding March of 2011. The Court cannot find by specific facts and circumstances that substantially outweigh it s [sic] prejudicial effect, that the interest of justice would be served by allowing such. [T. 18] Because the court made a reasoned decision, we find no abuse of discretion. -6Defendant nonetheless argues on appeal that the prosecution opened the door to impeachment of the informant by his prior criminal record when the informant testified that he worked as a paid informant because he was tired of seeing people just out here on drugs like my family is and Officer Daniels testified that he reviewed the informant s criminal record before hiring him as a paid informant. See State v. Albert, 303 N.C. 173, 177, 277 S.E.2d 439, 441 (1981) ( Where one party introduces evidence as to a particular fact or transaction, the other party is entitled to introduce evidence in explanation or rebuttal thereof, even though such latter evidence would be incompetent or irrelevant had it been however, never attempted witness concerning any offered initially. ) on this basis convictions more Defendant, to cross examine the than ten years old. Without having given the trial court the opportunity to rule on any such attempt, the defendant must argue plain error, which requires a showing that the alleged error probably impacted the outcome of trial. State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 518, 723 S.E.2d 326, 334 (2012). committed plain error. Defendant here does not argue the court Even if defendant had argued plain error, we do not believe the claimed error impacted the outcome. -7Defendant also contends the court erred motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence. dismiss, the court determines whether by denying his Upon a motion to there is substantial evidence to establish each element of the offense charged and to identify the defendant as the perpetrator. State v. Earnhardt, 307 (1982). N.C. argues 62, the 65-66, 296 S.E.2d evidence is of offenses perpetrator the 649, insufficient 651 to because no identify witness Defendant him as the pointed to defendant and identified him in open court as the perpetrator. In ruling upon a motion to dismiss, the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and give it the benefit of every reasonable inference that may be drawn from the evidence. State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 566, 313 S.E.2d 585, 587 (1984). Evidence is substantial if it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 265 S.E.2d existing 164, and 169 real, State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 78-79, (1980). but it Substantial does not reasonable hypothesis of innocence. have evidence to must exclude be every State v. Lowery, 318 N.C. 54, 70, 347 S.E.2d 729, 740 (1986). At the call of the case for trial, the court informed the jury that the defendant is Mr. Jamara Washington and asked -8defendant to stand up so the jury could see him. The informant testified that the person who sold the cocaine to him was his former school classmate Jamara Washington. We hold evidence sufficed to identify defendant as the perpetrator. this We reject defendant s argument. We hold defendant received a prejudicial error. NO ERROR. Judges BRYANT and McCULLOUGH concur. Report per Rule 30(e). fair trial, free of
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
