State v. Smith
2005 N.C. LEXIS 28, 607 S.E.2d 607, 359 N.C. 199 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When considering aggravating circumstances in a capital sentencing proceeding, multiple aggravating circumstances arising from the same criminal transaction are permissible if each is supported by separate and distinct evidence, and a trial court's rulings on jury selection, evidence exclusion, and prosecutorial arguments will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion or gross impropriety, especially where objections are not preserved.
Facts:
- At 6:00 a.m. on March 10, 2001, Reche Smith knocked on Charles King’s door in Plymouth, North Carolina, and asked for a glass of water.
- King invited Smith into his home and headed toward his kitchen.
- Before King reached the kitchen, Smith grabbed King around his neck, choked him unconscious, bound his wrists with packaging tape and an extension cord, bound his ankles, and then covered King’s entire face, including his nose and mouth, with tape.
- Smith pushed King under a hospital bed to die of asphyxiation while he searched King’s house for items to steal.
- Smith stole $250, $20 from King’s wallet, King’s cell phone, bank card, and car keys, then took King’s car and drove to Williamston, North Carolina, to rent a motel room and buy crack cocaine.
- The next day, Smith drove King’s car to a Burger King, stole a woman’s purse, and fled, leading to a police chase and his eventual arrest.
- Upon arrest, police found King’s bank card, cell phone, and other stolen items in King’s car.
- Rita Smith, Reche Smith’s wife, contacted the police after Reche Smith confessed to her on the phone that he had killed someone in Plymouth, leading Chief John Floyd and Officer Heather Thompkins to find King’s body under the hospital bed in his ransacked home.
Procedural Posture:
- Reche Smith was convicted of first-degree murder and felony larceny by a jury on March 8, 2002.
- Following a capital sentencing hearing, the jury recommended a sentence of death for the murder.
- The trial court imposed a sentence of death for the murder and a sentence of fifteen to eighteen months imprisonment for the felony larceny.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err by submitting aggravating circumstances for both robbery and kidnapping during a capital sentencing proceeding, which the defendant argued were duplicative and based on the same evidence, and were other trial court rulings on jury selection, expert testimony, and prosecutorial arguments reversible error?
Opinions:
Majority - Wainwright, Justice
No, the trial court did not err by submitting aggravating circumstances for both robbery and kidnapping, nor did its other rulings constitute reversible error. The court held that separate and distinct evidence supported the aggravating circumstances for both robbery and kidnapping; the robbery was supported by Smith choking King and stealing his possessions, while the kidnapping involved the additional and unnecessary restraint of binding King's wrists and ankles and taping his face, which was not inherent in the robbery itself. The court found that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying a challenge to a prospective juror whose initial bias against drug use was rehabilitated through questioning, as trial judges are afforded deference in assessing juror bias. The trial court also correctly excluded self-serving hearsay statements made by the defendant to his expert witness about his drug use on the day of the murder, applying Rule 403 to determine that the risk of confusion or unfair prejudice outweighed their probative value. Regarding prosecutorial arguments, the court found no gross impropriety requiring intervention without objection, and in the case of the 'walk out again' comment, determined it was cured by repeated jury instructions on 'life imprisonment without parole' and the context of the arguments. Finally, the court concluded that the 'especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel' aggravating circumstance was adequately supported by the evidence of King's agonizing death and Smith's depraved conduct, and affirmed its constitutionality. The court also conducted a proportionality review and found the death sentence not disproportionate.
Concurring - Brady, Justice
Although I agree with the majority that the defendant's trial and capital sentencing proceeding were free from prejudicial error, I write separately to emphasize the special responsibility of prosecutors to promote justice and fair play. The prosecutor's closing argument statement that the only way to ensure the defendant would never "walk out again" was to impose the death penalty was inaccurate, misleading, and unfounded in North Carolina law. Defendants convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment remain confined for their natural life with no opportunity for parole. This type of misrepresentation, even if not prejudicial in this specific instance due to other curative instructions, risks inviting legislative scrutiny and diminishing public trust in the criminal justice system. Prosecutors, as "ministers of justice," have a duty to seek justice and maintain truth and accuracy in their statements, particularly to a jury.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle that separate aggravating circumstances under N.C.G.S. § 15A-2000(e)(5) can be submitted if supported by distinct evidence, even if related to a single criminal transaction, particularly clarifying the distinction between restraint for robbery versus kidnapping. It underscores the broad discretion afforded to trial judges in jury selection and evidentiary rulings under Rule 403, and the high bar for appellate courts to find gross impropriety in unobjected-to prosecutorial arguments. The concurrence serves as a critical reminder of prosecutorial ethical obligations regarding factual accuracy, especially concerning parole eligibility in capital cases, signaling a potential area for future challenges or heightened judicial scrutiny over such arguments.
