State v. Adams
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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 A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e . NO. COA13-153 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 October 2013 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Durham County Nos. 12 CRS 3906, 50223 24 GEORGE ANTHONY ADAMS, Defendant. Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 16 August 2012 by Judge A. Robinson Hassell in Durham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 October 2013. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special General Iain M. Stauffer, for the State. Deputy Attorney Jarvis John Edgerton, IV, for defendant appellant. BRYANT, Judge. Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon his conviction for two counts of breaking or entering, two counts of misdemeanor larceny, and attaining habitual felon status. find no error. We -2Defendant was tried during the 13 August Session of Durham County Superior Court. 2012 Criminal The State s evidence showed that defendant stole various personal belongings from two vehicles parked in a residential driveway on 9 January 2012. The jury began deliberations at 12:21 p.m. on 15 August 2012 and broke for lunch at 1:15 p.m. The jury resumed deliberations at 2:35 p.m., and at 3:19 p.m. sent a request to the trial court for reinstruction circumstantial evidence. on reasonable doubt Neither party objected. and The State also indicated that it would not object if the court preferred to give the jury a written copy of all of the instructions. trial court, circumstantial however, declined evidence and to reinstruct reasonable following explanation to counsel: the doubt, The jury giving on the And I ll go ahead and tell you all now the Court in its discretion is going to decline to reinstruct, since I just did it three hours ago. After bringing the jury back in, the judge explained that he would not reread the instructions and told the jury to recall as best you can the evidence placed before you as well as the instructions previously given to you not that long ago . . . . The jury found defendant guilty of two counts of breaking or entering and two counts of misdemeanor larceny. Defendant -3thereafter entered a plea of guilty to having attained habitual felon status. The trial court sentenced defendant consolidated term of 26 to 44 months imprisonment. to a Defendant appeals. _________________________ Defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to reinstruct the jury on reasonable doubt and circumstantial evidence following the jury s request for reinstruction. We review the trial court s decision following such a request for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Prevette, 317 N.C. 148, 163-64, 345 S.E.2d 159, 168-69 (1986). An [a]buse of discretion results where the court s ruling is 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. Parker, 315 N.C. 249, 258 59, 337 S.E.2d 497, 502 03 (1985)). In our review, we consider not whether we might disagree with the trial court, but whether the trial court s actions are fairly supported by the record. State v. Lasiter, 361 N.C. 299, 302, 643 S.E.2d 909, 911 (2007) (citing Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 434, 83 L. Ed. 2d 841, 858 (1985)). -4Our General Statutes provide that [a]fter the jury retires for deliberation, the judge may give appropriate additional instructions to . . . [r]espond to an inquiry of the jury made in open court . . . . N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1234(a)(1) (2011). Because the language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1234(a)(1) is permissive, [t]he court is not required to repeat instructions which were previously given to the jury in the absence of some error in the charge but may do so in its discretion. Bartow, 77 N.C. App. 103, 110, 334 S.E.2d 480, State v. 484 (1985) (citing State v. Hockett, 309 N.C. 794, 800, 309 S.E.2d 249, 252 (1983)). Additionally, our Supreme Court noted that the trial court in is additional the best instruction position to determine will or confuse aid whether the jury further in its deliberations, or if further instruction will prevent or cause in itself an undue emphasis being placed on a particular portion of the court s instructions. Prevette, 317 N.C. at 164, 345 S.E.2d at 169. In the instant case, manifestly without reason. the trial court s ruling was not Rather, the trial court explained that it had read the instructions only a few hours earlier and preferred for the jurors to recall the instructions as best they -5could. Therefore, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Defendant argues, among other things, that the trial court s blanket rule for denying the reinstruction was not based on therefore persuaded. assertion particular amounted facts to an or circumstances abuse of of the discretion. We case and are not We find no evidence in the record for defendant s that the trial denying the instruction. court imposed a blanket rule in Contrary to defendant s argument, the court made no indication that a certain amount of time must pass before it rereads an instruction. Accordingly, we find no error on the part of the trial court. No error. Judges HUNTER, Robert C., and McCULLOUGH concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
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.
