State v. Sanford

867 S.E.2d 426 (Table)

STATE of North Carolina,

v.James Wesley SANFORD, Defendant.

No. COA20-607

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 1, 2022

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Gail E. Carelli, for the State.

Sandra Payne Hagood, for Defendant-Appellant.

WOOD, Judge.

¶ 1 Defendant James Wesley Sanford ("Defendant") appeals from his convictions of felony larceny, felony breaking and entering, and injury to real property. On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred by granting the State's motions to preclude Defendant from making certain arguments and using photographs for illustrative purposes; failing to instruct the jury on his theory of defense; and allowing the State's witness to testify over objection. Defendant further contends the trial court deprived him of the right to put forth a defense. After careful review of the record and applicable law, we grant Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari to conduct appellate review and hold Defendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 2 Defendant completes renovations and remodeling work as a trade. In spring 2017, Defendant and David Patneaude ("Patneaude") entered into a verbal agreement in which Defendant would renovate an office building owned by Patneaude, and Patneaude would provide the materials required for completion of the renovations. In exchange for his labor, Patneaude agreed to permit Defendant to showcase and advertise the renovation work in Patneaude's building. The work was scheduled to be competed in October 2017.

¶ 3 Defendant began the renovations in September 2017. In October 2017, Patneaude described Defendant's progress as "slow." Defendant testified that Patneaude failed to provide materials in a timely manner so that he often had to purchase materials for the project out of pocket and wait for Patneaude to reimburse him for the cost later in the month. Defendant also described how Patneaude's delay in purchasing materials needed to finish certain projects caused delays.

¶ 4 In or around February 2018, Patneaude discovered that the renovations had not been completed, and Defendant did not provide an updated projected completion date. Patneaude called Defendant to ask when the renovations would be completed. Defendant responded that he did not know when the work would be completed, as he had to prioritize various remodeling jobs. Thereafter, Patneaude "started thinking about [his] alternatives" and asked Curtis Grant ("Grant"), another contractor, to complete the renovations.

¶ 5 On March 19, 2018, Patneaude changed the locks to the building so that Defendant could no longer enter the building and posted a letter on the back door of the building, because Defendant usually parked his personal vehicle "by the back door or the back porch." In the letter, Patneaude terminated Defendant's services because he "ha[d] lost all confidence in [Defendant's] ability to complete this project in a professional manner, and certainly ... in a timely manner." The letter also referenced two missed project completion dates, specifically October 2017 and November 2017, that had been previously discussed with Defendant. In addition to changing the locks, Patneaude instructed Grant to "put two by fours down into the plywood or bead board and so forth." Patneaude and Grant boarded up the door so that Defendant "couldn't shoulder in." Patneaude did not speak with Defendant about terminating their agreement. When asked to explain why he wrote a note, Patneaude said, "I had no way of really contacting him at that point because I wasn't getting any response." Defendant stated that he had not heard from Patneaude since the second week in March when he changed the locks.

¶ 6 On March 25, 2018, Defendant returned to the building to retrieve some tools he had left there. Defendant testified he used several keys to attempt to unlock the back door but did not see the letter Patneaude had taped there. Failing to gain entry through the back door, Defendant then walked around the building to try to gain access through the front door.

¶ 7 Defendant described the front door of the building as "an old door built in the 1800s." Although there was a lockbox, Defendant did not attempt to use it as he previously had trouble using the lockbox. Defendant knew, however, that he could "just pick[ ] the door up," "without turning the knob." Defendant testified he believed he still "had complete authority to enter that building." Defendant intended to retrieve a saw he had left in the building. Once inside, Defendant noticed someone else had been working there. Defendant testified that "it was dark back there, but as [he] walked through" it looked as though "[t]hings had changed just a little bit." Defendant went on to say that when he reached the back of the building, he "looked over in the bathroom ... where [he] was wanting to put a piece of marble threshold [and saw] somebody had taken a piece of tile and set it there like they was [sic] going to try to finish that shower up. All it needed was that threshold." He retrieved his tools and exited through the back door, where he then saw the letter.

¶ 8 After reading the letter, Defendant became concerned he could not finish the renovation work, because he knew there were faults in the completed work that had not been fixed. He thought, "Well, if I'm not going to be able to fix it, I'm going to make it where somebody else has to fix it, and you can't say that's my work because it wasn't finished." Defendant proceeded to damage the property and to take a "hot water heater, [a] toilet, [a] sink, and a partial box of tiles." Defendant testified at trial that he took those items from the building because he "thought that would be the only pay [he] got."

¶ 9 On March 26, 2018, Patneaude received an urgent phone call from Grant who had arrived at the building early that morning to begin the renovations and discovered the building "had been broken into." Grant told Patneaude there was "lots of damage, lots of – seems like there's a lot of stuff – a lot of damage and ... ‘major vandalism.’ " According to Patneaude, a desk was "busted, just destroyed"; "[t]he phone system was busted out"; "[t]here was chemical or water ... poured out on, on top of stuff and going throughout the building"; and "the Sheetrock was just hit with a hammer up and down ... where you couldn't just fix it." Patneaude also discovered several items were missing, including doors, interior locks, and a water heater.

¶ 10 On August 6, 2018, Defendant was indicted for injury to real property, felony larceny, and felony breaking and entering. Defendant's trial began on September 16, 2019. That same day, the State moved to preclude Defendant from arguing as a defense that Patneaude should not have engaged in self-help eviction. The trial court granted the State's motion in limine , stating that Defendant "didn't own the property. And the key didn't work. And it's a commercial property, so he needs to go by the regular civil action to find out, you know, why he's being locked out of the building." The following morning, the trial court reiterated its stance on the State's motion but allowed defense counsel to make arguments for a mistake defense.

¶ 11 During defense counsel's direct examination of Defendant, defense counsel moved to introduce photographs for illustrative purposes. The State objected, arguing that the photographs were not produced during discovery. Defense counsel acknowledged he had not produced the photographs during discovery. Defense counsel explained that he did not plan to publish the photographs to the jury, but they were "recently developed" and he planned to use them "for illustrative purposes." Thereafter, the trial court granted the State's motion to exclude the photographs.

¶ 12 Defendant was convicted of injury to real property, felony larceny, and felony breaking and entering on September 19, 2019. On September 20, 2019, Defendant filed a pro se notice of appeal. Because Defendant's notice of appeal did not comply with Rule 4 of our rules of appellate procedure, Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari on November 12, 2020. In our discretion, we grant Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari and consider the merits of his appeal.

II. Analysis

¶ 13 On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred by precluding Defendant "from arguing his theory of defense and by granting the State's motion to preclude [Defendant's] use of photographs for illustrative purposes"; plainly erred by failing to adequately instruct the jury; and plainly erred by allowing Patneaude to testify on a pure question of law.

A. The State's Motion in Limine

¶ 14 Defendant first argues the trial court erred by allowing the State's motion to preclude Defendant from arguing Patneaude could not engage in self-help eviction.¹ We disagree.

¶ 15 Defendant contends the standard of review is de novo and asks this Court to review for plain error in the event that Defendant's assignment of error is not preserved for appellate review. See N.C. R. App. P. 10. However, the appropriate standard of review of a decision to grant or deny a motion in limine is an abuse of discretion. Smith v. Polsky , 251 N.C. App. 589, 594, 796 S.E.2d 354, 358 (2017) ; State v. Wilkerson , 223 N.C. App. 195, 198, 733 S.E.2d 181, 183 (2012). "Abuse 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) (citation omitted).

¶ 16 To properly preserve an argument relating to a motion in limine , the "party objecting to the grant of a motion in limine must attempt to offer the evidence at trial to properly preserve the objection for appellate review." State v. Reaves , 196 N.C. App. 683, 687, 676 S.E.2d 74, 77 (2009) (citation and emphasis omitted); ...