State v. Vann

900 S.E.2d 638

STATE of North Carolina

v.Tevin Demetrius VANN

No. 157PA22

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed May 23, 2024

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 from an unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, No. COA20-907 (N.C. Ct. App. May 3, 2022) (unpublished), finding error and granting defendant a new trial after appeal from a judgment finding defendant guilty of first-degree murder, felony murder of an unborn child, and robbery with a dangerous weapon entered on 16 December 2019 by Judge Henry Stevens in Superior Court, New Hanover County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 1 November 2023.

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Sherri Horner Lawrence, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.

James R. Glover, Chapel Hill, for defendant.¹

BERGER, Justice.

Prior to finding defendant guilty of first-degree murder, murder of an unborn child, and robbery with a dangerous weapon, a New Hanover County jury made multiple requests to review evidence admitted during defendant’s trial. The trial court allowed the jury to review some of the requested exhibits but denied the jury’s attempts to obtain partial transcripts of testimony from the lead detective, the medical examiner, and defendant. The Court of Appeals granted a new trial after it concluded that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1233 when it denied the jury’s request to review the partial transcripts. We reverse.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On 12 August 2016, officers with the Wilmington Police Department responded to a call regarding an unconscious female at a local hotel. Upon arrival, the officers found Ashley Ann McLean cold to the touch and lying beside a blood-soaked pillow. The officers observed extensive swelling and bruising on the victim’s face and puncture wounds on her chin and cheeks.

Dr. John Ameida Jr. performed the autopsy on Ms. McLean, and he concluded that McLean died from blunt force trauma which caused rupturing of her liver and intraperitoneal hemorrhaging. Dr. Ameida confirmed at trial that McLean's ruptured liver was "consistent with being stomped or kicked," and testified that the severity of the injuries the victim suffered were more akin to what is typically observed "in motorcycle or aircraft accidents." The autopsy showed that the victim also had bruising and swelling on the right side of her face, an abrasion on the face consistent with being stomped, three superficial incised wounds to the right side of the face, linear abrasions of the neck, bruising of the left upper shoulder, a subarachnoid hem- orrhage in the brain, and a fractured rib. McLean was eight weeks pregnant at the time of her death.

In the hotel room where McLean’s body was found, officers discovered items that led them to believe that the hotel room was used to facilitate prostitution. Officers also noticed a purse lying on the floor, with its contents dumped out and strewn across the room. One officer observed that there was a phone charger and an empty phone case lying close to McLean, which suggested that her phone was missing. With the assistance of the cell service provider and the victim’s boyfriend, officers located McLean’s phone in a nearby ditch.

The officers accessed McLean’s phone and discovered missed calls and text messages between her and a number that was later determined to belong to defendant. At 5:21 a.m. on 12 August 2016, defendant began texting McLean, and she responded with fees and the hotel address. At 9:13 a.m., defendant texted the victim, stating that he was attempting to locate her at the hotel. McLean responded that he was at the correct location and that she would let him in the hotel. An extraction report of the victim’s phone generated by the Wilmington Police Department showed that at 9:30 a.m. that morning, the victim ceased all outgoing communications on her phone despite numerous incoming messages and calls.

Officers confirmed defendant’s presence at the location with hotel surveillance footage showing defendant arriving at the hotel on a bicycle around 9:29 a.m. He parked his bicycle and walked towards the back entrance of the hotel. At 9:49 a.m., defendant was shown exiting the hotel, pulling a hood over his head, and leaving on his bicycle.

On 16 August 2016, defendant was arrested at his place of work pursuant to an outstanding warrant on an unrelated matter. Once at the police station, detectives Lee Odham and David Short informed defendant of his Miranda rights and then interviewed defendant regarding his association with the victim around the time of her death. Defendant initially denied being at the hotel but later admitted to the officers that he was the individual in the hotel surveillance footage. Defendant told the officers that he went to the hotel "[f]or a back massage and stuff," but he left because the woman never came down to meet him.

However, as the interview continued, defendant admitted to entering McLean’s room for sexual services. In addition, defendant confessed to assaulting McLean, telling detectives that he hit her multiple times in the face and ribs. Defendant explained that he hit McLean after she demanded additional money, threatened to accuse him of sexually assaulting her, and then threatened him with a knife. Defendant repeatedly denied killing McLean stating, "all I did was knock her out." According to defendant, McLean was snoring on the bed when he left the room.

Defendant also admitted to taking the victim’s phone, the money he paid her, and the knife he claimed the victim used. In addition, defendant told the officers that he burned the shirt and shoes he was wearing when he was with McLean and stated that he threw the knife down a drain near the hotel.

Defendant was subsequently indicted for first-degree murder, murder of an unborn child, and robbery with a dangerous weapon. At trial, defendant testified that he visited McLean at the hotel for sexual services and that she was alive when he left the hotel. However, defendant denied taking the victim’s phone, the money he had given her, or anything else from out of the room, and he denied burning his shirt and shoes. Defendant testified that he did not hit McLean and that he only told the police he had hit the victim because he "didn’t want to be charged with murder." Defendant asserted that part of the story he initially told officers was not true because "[t]hey wouldn’t listen to the answers" he was giving.

During deliberations, the jury made multiple requests to review evidence. The jury first asked the court to provide a transcript of the interview of defendant by detectives Odham and Short and the phone extraction report for McLean’s cell phone. The trial court discussed this request with the State and defendant, summoned the jury into the courtroom, and provided the interview transcript and extraction report to the jury. In addition, the trial court chose to provide additional reports to the jury at this time, including the victim’s phone records from 10 August 2016 to 12 August 2016.

The jury subsequently asked the court for "Defendant’s Exhibit No. 3," which was a map of the route defendant took entering and leaving the hotel. The trial court granted this request after consulting with the State and defendant.

The jury later sent a note to the court requesting the testimony of detective Odham, defendant, the medical examiner, and the medical examiner’s report. The trial court discussed this request with the State and defendant:

THE COURT: Do we - do we know what exhibit the medical[ ] examiner’s report is?

[THE STATE]: Judge, I pulled out the three exhibits, State’s Exhibit 121, 122, and 123. It includes Dr. Almeida’s report; the - Dr. Nicks, the medical - the local coroner; and the toxicology report.

THE COURT: Okay. And I think that’s what they’re asking.

Ms. Harjo, do you want to check it?

[DEFENSE]: May I see? May I approach?

THE COURT: Yes.

THE COURT: Are you okay with that?

[DEFENSE]: Yes, sir.

….

[THE STATE]: And - are you going to bring them in and tell them that, regarding their other requests, that it’s their duty to recall testimony?

THE COURT: Yes.

[THE STATE]: Okay. Thank you.

After this discussion, the trial court summoned the jury back to the courtroom and addressed the request, stating:

I have received a request from the jury that we have entered into evidence as Court’s Exhibit No. 7 in which the jury is requesting Detective Odham’s testimony when he was on the stand specific to Reed and Hamby; second, Vann’s testimony when he was on the stand; third, the medical examiner - examiner’s testimony and his report.

The testimony of the detective, Mr. Vann, and the medical - medical examiner from the stand, it’s your duty to recall their testimony. So you will have to remember that. We’re not - we can’t provide a transcript as to that.

With regards to the medical examiner’s report, we are going to provide what was admitted into evidence as State’s Exhibit 121, 122, and 123, which are the reports from the medical examiner.

Defendant did not object to the trial court’s denial of the jury’s request for the transcripts.

That afternoon, the jury returned a unanimous verdict finding defendant guilty of first-degree murder, murder of an unborn child, and robbery with a dangerous weapon. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole and timely appealed.

At the Court of Appeals, defendant argued that the trial court failed to exercise discretion pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1233(a) when it did not allow the jury to review the requested transcripts. According to defendant, the trial court’s language that "[w]e’re not - we can’t provide a transcript as to that" indicated a failure to exercise discretion. Defendant asserted that because there was a "reasonable possibility that, had the error not been committed, a different result would have been reached," he was entitled to a new trial.

In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals...