State v. Joyner

284 N.C.App. 681

877 S.E.2d 73

STATE of North Carolina,

v.Randall Lee JOYNER

No. COA21-83

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 2, 2022

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Llogan R. Walters, for the State.

Jason Christopher Yoder, for the Defendant.

WOOD, Judge.

¶ 1 Randall Joyner ("Defendant") appeals from judgments for conviction of obtaining property by false pretenses and exploitation of a disabled or elderly person while in a business relationship. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred 1) by admitting Margaret Meeks's ("Meeks") former testimony and a no-contact order into evidence and 2) by denying his motion to allow him to inspect, examine, and photograph the crime scene. After a careful review of the record and applicable law, we discern no error.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 2 On November 10, 2018, Defendant approached Meeks at her home and offered to perform home improvement work. At the time, Meeks was 88 years of age and lived alone. Meeks agreed and hired Defendant to do some painting and to clean out the gutters at her home. Defendant began work the same day. Defendant said he saw "something laying in the gutter" which appeared to be rotten wood. Defendant took pictures and showed both the pictures and the "rotten wood" to Meeks, explaining to her that she needed to have her roof repaired. After seeing the photos and rotten wood, Meeks hired Defendant to repair her roof.

¶ 3 That same day, Defendant presented Meeks with a "Contractors Invoice" itemizing the needed roof work, totaling $1,500.00. The "Description of Work Performed" section of the invoice, stated, in relevant parts:

[1.] Remove shingles on left front of home.

[2.] Remove drip edge on left front of home.

[3.] Remove rotten sheeting on left front of home.

[4.] Remove shingles in valley on left front of home.

...

[5.] Install new shingles where removed.

[6.] Install new sheeting where removed.

Meeks paid $750.00 upfront towards the invoice.

¶ 4 After Defendant had finished working on her roof, Meeks contacted Defendant again, requesting him to return to her home to fix an issue with her toilet. Upon arrival, Defendant inspected Meeks's toilet. He concluded the toilet was broken and was causing water damage underneath her house. At the time, Defendant did not have a plumber's license. On November 13, 2018, Defendant presented a second invoice to Meeks for the proposed work on her bathroom in the amount of $2,200.00. Under its "Description of Work Performed" section, Defendant represented that he would:

[1.] Remove installation where needed under bathroom.

[2.] Disconnect and remove leaking plumbing pipe.

[3.] Cut and install plywood subfloor under bathroom where needed.

...

[5.] Install new sewer line where removed.

[6.] Install new installation under bathroom[.]

Meeks paid the full amount of the second invoice to Defendant up front, and he left Meeks's home to obtain construction materials for the second project.

¶ 5 Officer D.L. Bailey of the Tarboro Police Department ("Officer Bailey") was monitoring traffic that afternoon in the vicinity of Meeks's home. Officer Bailey recognized and performed a routine license plate check on Defendant's vehicle. Officer Bailey concluded Defendant "wasn't operating on an active license" and initiated a traffic stop. During the traffic stop, Defendant explained he was doing repair work in the area, at the end of Brandon Avenue. Officer Bailey did not have any knowledge about who specifically lived in the area of Brandon Avenue but was aware it was "predominantly an elderly neighborhood." After Officer Bailey finished Defendant's traffic stop, he looked into Defendant's criminal history and discovered Defendant had previous charges for obtaining property by false pretenses, defrauding the elderly, and breaking and entering.

¶ 6 Because of Defendant's criminal history and his statement to Officer Bailey that he was working on repairs to a house at the end of Brandon Avenue, Officer Bailey decided to visit the house and inquire about the work Defendant was performing. During his inquiry, Meeks told Officer Bailey that Defendant had been performing roof and flooring work for her. Meeks also stated she was "not really able to tell what's going on ... [and] just paid the bills."

¶ 7 After speaking with Meeks, Officer Bailey contacted the town's building inspector Alan Davis ("Davis"), to get a professional opinion about whether Defendant had performed the work as represented to Meeks. That same day, Davis came to Meeks's house and inspected underneath her house. Davis did not discover "any rot on the structural [area of the house or], the floor joist[,] ... [and] did not see anything wrong with the water lines, the supply or drain waste." Furthermore, Davis flushed Meeks's toilet and "didn't see any water leaking ... or anything ... that would suggest a water leak." Defendant returned to Meeks's house during Officer Bailey's investigation and was taken into custody.

¶ 8 After Defendant was taken into custody, Meeks asked Wayne Scott, later qualified by the trial court as an expert in roofing repair and insulation, to inspect the roof of her house. Scott reported that he did not see any evidence new shingles had been installed, rotten wood had been removed, or any work had been done to prevent damage. Although Scott did observe minimal work had been performed on Meeks's roof, he estimated the value of the work to be $300.00.

¶ 9 On November 16, 2018, Defendant's mother went to Meeks's home, presented a pre-drafted affidavit, and had Meeks sign it. This pre-drafted affidavit stated:

This statement is in reference to the work I hired Mr. Randall L. Joyner to do. Mr. Joyner cleaned my gutters. Mr. Joyner kindly informed me of some rotten wood that he noticed on my roof. Mr. Joyner showed me the rotten wood that he was referring to. I asked Mr. Joyner to fix it. Mr. Joyner and I agreed on a price. I saw the rotten wood that Mr. Joyner removed and I saw the new wood he replaced along with my shingles.

The pre-drafted affidavit Defendant's mother presented to Meeks misspelled her name as "Weeks." The pre-drafted affidavit was subsequently notarized.

¶ 10 On January 14, 2019, Defendant was indicted for obtaining property by false pretenses and exploitation of an older adult or disabled adult while in a business relationship. Afterwards, Meeks filed an action for a civil no-contact order against Defendant. Defendant was properly served with a complaint for and a notice of the hearing for the civil no-contact order but chose not to appear. Defendant's attorney noted that Defendant "didn't really care" that the court had conducted the no-contact order hearing in Defendant's absence. On March 11, 2019, the district court entered a civil no-contact order against Defendant, prohibiting him from communicating with Meeks. On September 16 and September 23, 2020, Defendant filed motions with the trial court seeking permission to inspect Meeks's property. The trial court denied Defendant's motions on October 1, 2019. Seven days later, on October 8, 2019, Meeks passed away. Thereafter, the trial court entered an order permitting Meeks's testimony from the hearing for the civil no-contact order to be admitted at Defendant's criminal trial.

¶ 11 Defendant's criminal trial was held February 3 to February 5, 2020. The jury found Defendant guilty of obtaining property by false pretenses and exploitation of an older adult by a person in a business relationship. The trial court imposed an active sentence of 15 to 27 months for the offense of obtaining property by false pretenses and 15 to 27 months for exploitation of an older adult by a person in a business relationship upon Defendant to be served consecutively.

Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court.

II. Discussion

¶ 12 Defendant raises multiple issues on appeal; each will be addressed in turn.

A. Confrontation Clause

¶ 13 Defendant first argues the trial court erred by admitting Meeks's former testimony from the civil court hearing on the no-contact order and the no-contact order because it violated his constitutional right to cross-examine and confront his accuser. We disagree.

¶ 14 We review an alleged violation of a defendant's constitutional right to confrontation de novo.

State v. Glenn , 220 N.C. App. 23, 25, 725 S.E.2d 58, 60–61 (2012) ; see State v. Hurt , 208 N.C. App. 1, 6, 702 S.E.2d 82, 87 (2010). "Under a de novo review, the Court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the trial court." Peninsula Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Crescent Res., LLC , 171 N.C. App. 89, 92, 614 S.E.2d 351, 353 (2005) (internal brackets omitted) (citing In re Greens of Pine Glen , 356 N.C. 642, 647, 576 S.E.2d 316, 319 (2003) ).

¶ 15 The Confrontation Clause provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." U.S. Const. amend. VI ; see Pointer v. Texas , 380 U.S. 400, 405, 85 S. Ct. 1065, 1068, 13 L. Ed. 2d 923, 927 (1965) ("[T]he right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal."). Courts have generally acknowledged "an exception to the confrontation requirement where a witness is unavailable and has given testimony at previous judicial proceedings against the same defendant which was subject to cross-examination by that defendant." Barber v. Page , 390 U.S. 719, 722, 88 S. Ct. 1318, 1320, 20 L. Ed. 2d 255, 258 (1968) ; see Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 59, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1369, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177, 197 (2004) ("Testimonial statements of witnesses absent from trial have been admitted only where the declarant is unavailable, and only where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine."); State v. Graham , 303 N.C. 521, 523, 279 S.E.2d 588, 590 (1981) ; State v. Tate , 187 N.C. App. 593, 600, 653 S.E.2d 892,...