State v. Faulk

867 S.E.2d 594 (Table)

STATE of North Carolina

v.Tiffany FAULK, Defendant.

No. COA21-55

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 1, 2022

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Zachary K. Dunn, for the State.

Marilyn G. Ozer, for Defendant.

INMAN, Judge.

¶ 1 Tiffany Faulk ("Defendant") was convicted of first degree murder and robbery with a dangerous weapon in 2016. She appealed those judgments to this Court, arguing in part that the trial court erred in denying two motions to suppress she filed prior to trial. State v. Faulk , 256 N.C. App. 255, 256, 807 S.E.2d 623, 625 (2017). On 7 November 2017, we remanded the matter to the trial court "to make proper conclusions of law regarding its decision to deny Defendant's motions to suppress." Id. at 266, 807 S.E.2d at 631. Following remand, the trial court again denied Defendant's motions to suppress by a new order entered 8 February 2018, nunc pro tunc 7 September 2016. Defendant now appeals that order on the basis that the challenged evidence was obtained in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-401(e)(1) (2021),¹ the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution. After careful review, we hold Defendant has failed to demonstrate error.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 The facts underlying Defendant's conviction are fully set out in our prior opinion resolving Defendant's earlier appeal. See Faulk , 256 N.C. App. at 256-58, 807 S.E.2d at 625-27. Facts pertinent to the motions to suppress under present review are excerpted below:

On 6 November 2010, Defendant and Kenneth Gore ("Gore") were staying with a friend in the Berry Court Apartments in Chadbourn, North Carolina. On occasion, and twice on 6 November 2010, Defendant would knock on Ms. Bonnie Fowler's door to use her phone. Ms. Fowler, a 77-year-old woman, lived alone in the apartment next door to where Defendant and Gore were staying, and would oblige Defendant's request to make calls.

At some point in the late afternoon or early evening of 6 November 2010, Ms. Fowler was attacked in her kitchen. She suffered repeated blows to the head and multiple stab wounds, and died as a result of her injuries. Security footage from the apartment complex showed Ms. Fowler's car leaving the parking lot that same evening at approximately 8:13 p.m.

....

On 9 November 2010, the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (the "SBI") contacted the Maryland State Police regarding Defendant's and Gore's outstanding arrest warrants in connection with Ms. Fowler's death. The SBI provided Maryland police with copies of the arrest warrants and a description of the homicide and apparent theft of Ms. Fowler's car. Maryland police contacted Defendant's sister, who was living in Baltimore. Defendant's sister took police to a row house in Baltimore where Defendant and Gore were staying.

Maryland police converged on the row house, and as officers knocked on the front door, Gore fled out the back door where he was immediately apprehended by police. Gore told police that Defendant was upstairs, and two officers entered the row house, performed a protective sweep, and arrested Defendant. The officers secured the house while a search warrant was obtained. While the officers were waiting for the warrant, the owner of the house arrived.

Once the warrant was issued, the owner of the row house led police to items identified as belonging to Defendant and Gore. The police recovered various items from the basement, including the following: clothing, a steak knife, a pair of Jordan tennis shoes, a pair of Adidas tennis shoes, a cell phone, and a pill bottle with Ms. Fowler's name on it. Crime lab results from the items revealed that the two pairs of shoes were consistent with the shoes that made the bloody shoeprints in Ms. Fowler's apartment. The Adidas tennis shoes also tested positive for Ms. Fowler's DNA.

On 17 November 2010, Defendant provided police with a voluntary statement concerning the events leading up to her arrest. During the interview, Defendant told police that she had used Ms. Fowler's phone twice on 6 November 2010, witnessed Gore stab Ms. Fowler while Ms. Fowler was bleeding on the kitchen floor, and drove Ms. Fowler's car to Baltimore with Gore. Defendant explained that she had not attempted to flee from Gore because she was afraid of how he would react.

Defendant was indicted on 10 February 2011 for one count of first degree murder and on 6 October 2011 for one count of robbery with a dangerous weapon. A hearing was held on 25 July 2016 to address Defendant's various pre-trial motions, including three motions to suppress—the first filed in August 2013 and the second two filed on 5 and 14 July 2016.

At the outset of the hearing, Defendant's counsel withdrew the August 2013 motion to suppress. Defendant's counsel proceeded to argue the motions filed on 5 and 14 July 2016, which sought to exclude evidence obtained from the Baltimore row house following Defendant's arrest and pursuant to a search warrant and Defendant's statement to police. The trial court denied the motions, announcing from the bench that "the State has met its burden, proven by a preponderance of the evidence; that the challenged evidence is admissible." The trial court then instructed the prosecutor to draft a written order disposing of the motions to suppress, stating that "there's no conflict as to the testimony and the evidence presented." The trial court then asked whether there was "[a]nything else we need to address from the defense in regards to those motions?" Defense counsel responded, "No, sir."

At trial, Defendant's counsel properly objected to each item of evidence which the motions to suppress sought to exclude.

....

The jury returned a verdict finding Defendant guilty of first degree murder on the basis of premeditation and deliberation and guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon. The trial court imposed a mandatory life prison sentence without the possibility of parole for the first degree murder conviction and 73 to 97 months in prison for the robbery with a dangerous weapon conviction.

Id.

¶ 3 Defendant appealed her conviction to this Court and challenged, among other rulings, the trial court's denial of her motions to suppress. Id. at 256, 807 S.E.2d at 625. We rejected Defendant's other arguments but held that "the trial court erred by failing to either provide its rationale [for denying the suppression motions] from the bench or make the necessary conclusions of law in its written order." Id. at 265, 807 S.E.2d at 630. Because we were unable to conduct "meaningful appellate review of that ruling" absent such conclusions, id. , we remanded the matter to the trial court "to make necessary conclusions of law concerning Defendant's motions to suppress." Id. at 265, 807 S.E.2d at 631.

¶ 4 On remand, and without further hearing, the trial court entered a revised order denying Defendant's motions to suppress. The order contains many of the pertinent facts excerpted above, as well as additional details surrounding the search executed by the Maryland State Police in connection with the North Carolina arrest warrants. Specifically, the order contains additional findings that: (1) Maryland State Police received the arrest warrants via email before executing them; (2) Maryland State Police confirmed with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Crime Information Center that the arrest warrants were active before executing them; (3) the officers who arrested Defendant knew she was wanted for first degree murder in North Carolina and "had reason to believe that [Defendant] ... was inside the residence and might poise [sic] a serious threat to their safety, destroy evidence, and/or escape, if her arrest was not immediately effectuated[;]" and (4) Gore informed the officers that Defendant was in the shower at the time they entered the home to arrest her. Based on these findings, the trial court made the following conclusions of law:

1. That [ N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-401(e) ] was not applicable to the arrest of [Defendant] in the State of Maryland.

....

5. That in accordance with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 1 (1990), an overnight guest in a home has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

6. That, assuming arguendo that [Defendant] was indeed an overnight guest at [the location of her arrest], as there was no direct testimony or evidence presented during the suppression hearing that she had spent any night at the residence or that she planned to, while she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, there was a lawful arrest warrant and entry of the [Maryland State] Troopers into another person's home to arrest [Defendant] did not violate [Defendant's] Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution nor did it violate her rights under Article I § 20 of the North Carolina Constitution.

7. That, in the alternative, the arrest of [Defendant] would not be in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution nor of Article I § 20 of the North Carolina Constitution if her arrest was effectuated without a valid arrest warrant, as sufficient exigent circumstances existed at that time to justify a warrantless arrest.

¶ 5 Defendant failed to timely appeal the entry of the trial court's order denying her suppression motions following remand. However, Defendant's counsel filed a petition for writ of certiorari with this Court seeking a review of that order, and this Court allowed that petition by order dated 31 August 2020.

II. ANALYSIS

¶ 6 Defendant presents two principal arguments on appeal, namely: (1) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-401(e)(1) a.’s requirement that an officer possess a copy of an arrest warrant when executing an arrest at a private residence applied to her arrest in Maryland, and evidence obtained pursuant to her arrest must be suppressed because ...