State v. Melvin

377 N.C. 187

856 S.E.2d 525

STATE of North Carolina

v.Jamell Cha MELVIN and Javeal Aaron Baker

No. 486PA19

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed April 16, 2021

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Benjamin O. Zellinger, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State-appellee.

Sarah Holladay, for defendant-appellant Jamell Cha Melvin.

EARLS, Justice.

¶ 1 In the summer of 2015, armed robbers stole nearly half a million dollars from Raleigh's Walnut Creek Amphitheater. The narrow question in this appeal is whether one of the defendants in this case, Jamell Cha Melvin, properly preserved for appellate review his claim that he should not have been tried jointly with another defendant because the two had antagonistic defenses at trial. Three defendants, Mr. Melvin, Javeal Aaron Baker, and Kianna Baker, were tried together as co-defendants for their involvement in the crime after their motions for separate trials were denied. Following their convictions, Mr. Melvin and Mr. Javeal Baker appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court should have granted their motions for severance. The Court of Appeals concluded that their claims had not been properly preserved for appeal because the grounds for severance argued at the beginning of the trial were not the same as the grounds relied upon by defendants on appeal. However, the Court of Appeals erroneously analyzed the case as one involving severance of offenses rather than severance of defendants. Mr. Melvin sought and was allowed discretionary review by this Court. We reverse and remand to the Court of Appeals for consideration on the merits of Mr. Melvin's claim for severance of defendants.¹

I. Background

¶ 2 At trial, the State presented evidence that three armed men entered the Walnut Creek Amphitheater in Raleigh, North Carolina, on 13 July 2015. The men were wearing dark clothing, except for one who was wearing a tan coat, and all three men had their faces concealed. The assailants corralled five employees in one or two offices, holding them all at gunpoint and threatening to shoot them. After forcing one of the employees, a supervisor, to call the general manager, the men compelled the general manager to open the safe. Two of the armed men then began packing money into bags while the third moved some of the employees into a walk-in freezer. The men stole approximately $497,000 and then fled the scene. The State alleged that Mr. Melvin was the driver of a car that transported the three men who robbed the amphitheater.

¶ 3 On 8 June 2017, the State filed motions (1) to join for trial the offenses of six counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon, one count of conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon, and five counts of second degree kidnapping against each of four defendants (Mr. Melvin, Mr. Baker, Shymale Robertson, and Adjani Bryant); and (2) to join for trial six defendants (Mr. Melvin, Mr. Javeal Baker, Shymale Robertson, Adjani Bryant, Ms. Kianna Baker, and Lorenzo McNeil) on the theory that the offenses charged against each defendant were all part of a common scheme or plan. The motion for joinder of offenses and the motion for joinder of defendants were included in the same document for each defendant, titled "Motion and Order for Joinder." The record contains a subsequent motion by the State, made 28 June 2017, that sought to join all of the same defendants with the exception of Adjani Bryant, who testified against Mr. Melvin and Mr. Baker at trial.

¶ 4 At a hearing to consider the State's motions for joinder, the defendants made various arguments about why they should be tried separately. Counsel for Mr. Robertson argued, in part, that Mr. Robertson's case should be severed because he intended to call a witness named Chicago Smith who would provide information, in the form of a statement from Mr. Melvin, that was potentially exculpatory for Mr. Robertson and potentially incriminating for Mr. Baker and Mr. Melvin. Mr. Robertson's counsel also argued that much of the evidence expected to be presented in the case did not pertain to Mr. Robertson, that he intended to elicit information from one of the State's witnesses that would likely be prejudicial to the other defendants and to Mr. Melvin in particular, that the other defendants (and Mr. Melvin particularly) were more culpable than Mr. Robertson, and that Mr. Robertson might be convicted on the basis of his association with the other defendants rather than on the basis of his guilt.

¶ 5 Mr. Baker's counsel asked for Mr. Baker's trial to be severed from Mr. Robertson's trial because of Mr. Robertson's plan to call Chicago Smith, arguing that if they were tried jointly, he would be unable to cross-examine Mr. Melvin, a co-defendant who was the source of Chicago Smith's information. However, Mr. Baker's counsel suggested that the problem could be solved if Mr. Baker's and Mr. Melvin's trials were severed from each other. Mr. Baker's counsel also requested severance from Ms. Kianna Baker (Mr. Baker's mother) and Mr. Melvin (Ms. Baker's partner), on the basis that he might be convicted based on the conduct of Ms. Baker and Mr. Melvin. Mr. Baker's counsel argued that the dearth of direct evidence related to his client and the more substantial evidence forecast to be presented against Mr. Melvin and Ms. Kianna Baker made it more likely that he might be convicted as a result of his relationship to Mr. Melvin and Ms. Baker.

¶ 6 Mr. Melvin's counsel argued that Mr. Robertson's trial should be severed because Chicago Smith's testimony, expected to be elicited by Mr. Robertson, was likely to conflict with the State's evidence presented through the testimony of Adjani Bryant. On his own motion to sever, Mr. Melvin's counsel argued that, because the State alleged that Mr. Melvin was the driver rather than one of the three armed men who robbed the amphitheater, Mr. Melvin should be tried separately to avoid confusing the jury.

¶ 7 Ms. Kianna Baker's counsel argued that she should be tried separately because (1) Ms. Baker was charged as an accessory after the fact rather than a principal, and (2) Ms. Baker was likely to be convicted on the basis of her associations rather than on the evidence. Mr. McNeil's counsel did not make any arguments as to joinder in anticipation that Mr. McNeil's case would be resolved before the trial began.

¶ 8 After taking the motions under advisement, the trial court ultimately granted the State's motion to join the defendants and offenses for trial as to Mr. Baker, Mr. Melvin, Ms. Kianna Baker, and Mr. McNeil. As to Mr. Robertson, the trial court denied the State's motion to join him as a defendant for trial, but granted the State's motion to join his charged offenses. The joint trial of Mr. Melvin, Ms. Kianna Baker, and Mr. Javeal Baker began on 10 July 2017.

¶ 9 During the joint trial, Mr. Melvin moved to sever defendants an additional five times. First, Mr. Melvin asked to be heard following direct examination testimony by Kelly Ann Kinney, a detective with the Raleigh Police Department. Mr. Melvin argued that the detective had testified to statements made by Ms. Baker to Detective Kinney indicating that Mr. Melvin sold marijuana and had purchased two vehicles. Mr. Melvin argued that he had "wanted to sever for these particular reasons" and renewed his motion to sever the defendants, which was denied. Second, Mr. Melvin renewed his objection to joinder of defendants, without further explanation, at the close of the State's evidence. Third, Mr. Melvin renewed his objection to joinder of defendants, again without further argument, at the close of all evidence.

¶ 10 Mr. Melvin's final two objections to joinder of the defendants came after the parties’ closing arguments. The first of the two objections, Mr. Melvin's fifth overall objection to the defendants’ joinder, came at the end of the jury's first day of deliberations. After the trial court dismissed the jury for the evening, the trial court asked whether there were any additional objections from counsel regarding instructions that had been provided. Mr. Melvin's counsel stated, "Nothing as to that. I did want to revisit a matter and renew my objection to the joinder of this matter based on [Mr. Baker's counsel's] comments in his closing arguments." The trial court denied the motion. The following day, the jury returned its verdicts. The day after that, before the trial court conducted sentencing, Mr. Melvin's counsel asked to be heard and explained that his objection after the closing argument from Mr. Baker's counsel was because Mr. Melvin "not only had to contest [the State] but had to contest [Mr. Baker]." In the view of Mr. Melvin's counsel, this was in violation of Mr. Melvin's rights under the United States and North Carolina constitutions.

¶ 11 During his closing argument, Mr. Baker's counsel had argued to the jury that Mr. Melvin had committed the actual robbery, stating:

The Walnut Creek Amphitheater was robbed. Those six victims were robbed. Those six victims were then kidnapped in the sense of being put in a cooler or left in the cash room. The question is who did that? And the defense that we've been trying to present to you through the questions is that it wasn't Javeal Baker, but it was Adjani Bryant, who you know did go into this robbery, and it was Jamell Melvin, and it was Lorenzo [McNeil].

Mr. Baker's counsel then emphasized that "the evidence that [he'd] tried to present" through his questions was that the robbery "was committed by Adjani Bryant, by Jamell Melvin, and by Lorenzo [McNeil]."² Mr. Baker's counsel went on to assert that Mr. Melvin (rather than Mr. Baker) had been in the building committing the robbery, arguing that Mr. Melvin matched the physical description of one of the robbers and that Mr. Melvin was more closely associated with the other suspects in the case.

¶ 12 At the trial's conclusion, Mr. Melvin and Mr. Baker were each convicted of six counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon, five...