{ "id": 8471599, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. OTIS TREMAINE HIGHTOWER", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hightower", "decision_date": "2005-03-01", "docket_number": "No. COA04-324", "first_page": "661", "last_page": "670", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "168 N.C. App. 661" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "610 S.E.2d 710", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12632576, 12632575 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/610/0710-02", "/se2d/610/0710-01" ] }, { "cite": "512 U.S. 1254", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 39539 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/512/1254-01" ] }, { "cite": "149 L. Ed. 2d 305", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "532 U.S. 931", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9315009, 9314948, 9314725, 9314661, 9314695, 9314631, 9314793, 9314822, 9315113, 9314863, 9315060, 9314585, 9314909 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/532/0931-11", "/us/532/0931-10", "/us/532/0931-05", "/us/532/0931-03", "/us/532/0931-04", "/us/532/0931-02", "/us/532/0931-06", "/us/532/0931-07", "/us/532/0931-13", "/us/532/0931-08", "/us/532/0931-12", "/us/532/0931-01", "/us/532/0931-09" ] }, { "cite": "533 S.E.2d 168", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 N.C. 364", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 684963 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/352/0364-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 L. Ed. 2d 370", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "541 U.S. 944", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 5878913, 5918562, 5913478, 5872903, 5871369, 3634891, 5895147, 5905774, 5887894, 3634328, 5890777, 5872730, 5910715, 5924797 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/541/0944-02", "/us/541/0944-14", "/us/541/0944-05", "/us/541/0944-03", "/us/541/0944-07", "/us/541/0944-12", "/us/541/0944-01", "/us/541/0944-09", "/us/541/0944-10", "/us/541/0944-04", "/us/541/0944-11", "/us/541/0944-06", "/us/541/0944-13", "/us/541/0944-08" ] }, { "cite": "584 S.E.2d 740", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "357 N.C. 366", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 491669 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/357/0366-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 L. Ed. 2d 180", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "519 U.S. 901", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11655456, 11655075, 11655271, 11655178, 11655310, 11654959, 11654928, 11655153, 11654898, 11655038, 11654996, 11655221, 11655383, 11655422 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/519/0901-14", "/us/519/0901-06", "/us/519/0901-10", "/us/519/0901-08", "/us/519/0901-11", "/us/519/0901-03", "/us/519/0901-02", "/us/519/0901-07", "/us/519/0901-01", "/us/519/0901-05", "/us/519/0901-04", "/us/519/0901-09", "/us/519/0901-12", "/us/519/0901-13" ] }, { "cite": "469 S.E.2d 919", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "923" }, { "page": "923" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "343 N.C. 216", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 798820 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "224" }, { "page": "224" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/343/0216-01" ] }, { "cite": "114 S. Ct. 2784", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "129 L. Ed. 2d 895", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "433 S.E.2d 144", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "151" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "334 N.C. 208", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2530367 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "223" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/334/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 L. Ed. 2d 688", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "482 U.S. 921", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6284141, 6284419, 6284709 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/482/0921-01", "/us/482/0921-02", "/us/482/0921-03" ] }, { "cite": "481 U.S. 137", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6211931 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/481/0137-01" ] }, { "cite": "458 U.S. 782", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 636586 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/458/0782-01" ] }, { "cite": "169 S.E.2d 846", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "851", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 584", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559259 ], "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "592", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0584-01" ] }, { "cite": "211 S.E.2d 201", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "204" }, { "page": "207" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 377", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566835 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "382" }, { "page": "386" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "324 S.E.2d 241", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "248" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 553", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4753359 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "562" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0553-01" ] }, { "cite": "595 S.E.2d 219", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "224", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Braswell, 312 N.C. 553, 562, 324 S.E.2d 241, 248 (1985)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "164 N.C. App. 204", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8896515 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "211", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Braswell, 312 N.C. 553, 562, 324 S.E.2d 241, 248 (1985)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/164/0204-01" ] }, { "cite": "551 S.E.2d 439", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 729", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135619, 135982, 135568, 135706, 135866 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0729-01", "/nc/353/0729-05", "/nc/353/0729-04", "/nc/353/0729-02", "/nc/353/0729-03" ] }, { "cite": "546 S.E.2d 145", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "151" }, { "page": "153" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "143 N.C. App. 187", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11434065 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "193" }, { "page": "196" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/143/0187-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 912, "char_count": 20024, "ocr_confidence": 0.746, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.063134263947378e-07, "percentile": 0.557591002409793 }, "sha256": "4ccca10b5916f9834b9a9c4f5eb72f356e489cbee79abade5935e8dd6d73268d", "simhash": "1:832a42a2126fddfe", "word_count": 3338 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:36:09.557360+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges TIMMONS-GOODSON and GEER concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. OTIS TREMAINE HIGHTOWER" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "TYSON, Judge.\nOtis Tremaine Hightower (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals from judgment entered after a jury found him to be guilty of first-degree felony murder and first-degree burglary. We hold defendant received a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nI. Background\nA. The Brothers\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that on 4 January 2003, nineteen-year-old Brian Bigelow (\u201cBigelow\u201d), his seventeen-year-old brother T.W., and others were present at Marcus Sellars\u2019 (\u201cSellars\u201d) house \u201cplaying Playstation 2\u201d and \u201csmoking marijuana.\u201d Defendant \u201ccame in the house smoking, smoking a blunt[,] holding a beer and with his gun.\u201d Defendant told those present, including the brothers, Bigelow and T.W., that he needed \u201cto do a lick\u201d because \u201che had spent all his money on Christmas presents . . . .\u201d Bigelow testified that a \u201click\u201d meant \u201ca robbery.\u201d\nDefendant asked Bigelow and T.W. to participate. Bigelow at first refused because the intended victim, Edgar Williamson (\u201cWilliamson\u201d), also known as \u201cEck,\u201d was his friend. Sellars and others harassed Bigelow and T.W. for not wanting to participate and called them names. Sellars informed Bigelow, \u201cIf you pull something like that, y\u2019all be in Jericho. You would be done did [sic] something that showed you got heart.\u201d\nBigelow testified that the \u201cJericho Gang\u201d consisted of his cousins and a few outsiders. To become a member of the gang, one had either to be \u201cbeaten in\u201d by the members or rob someone. This gang would \u201chang out\u201d at Sellars\u2019 house where they would drink, smoke marijuana, and sell drugs. According to Bigelow, defendant was one of the older members of the gang.\nLater, Sellars asked defendant to take Bigelow and T.W. to the store and purchase \u201csome beer and blunts.\u201d Sell\u00e1rs handed Bigelow and T.W. guns. Sellars also gave Bigelow a black toboggan with holes in it, and T.W. was given a \u201cgrayish stocking.\u201d\nDefendant, Bigelow, and T.W. went to the convenience store and purchased \u201cbeer and blunts.\u201d After leaving the store, defendant drove past Sellars\u2019 house, but did not stop. Defendant told Bigelow, \u201cWe\u2019re going to pull this lick.... you want to get out, jump out.\u201d Bigelow and T.W. remained in the vehicle while defendant drove to Williamson\u2019s house. Williamson was standing outside in his yard. Defendant drove by the house about \u201cfive times\u201d before parking the car two houses up the street from Williamson\u2019s house. Defendant told Bigelow and T.W. to \u201cget out of the car and don\u2019t get in the house acting like no bitch,\u201d or he would shoot them. Defendant was wearing a \u201cred stocking cap, [with] a camouflaged hat over top of it with a towel around his neck.\u201d T.W. pulled the stocking cap over his head. Bigelow wore a ski mask over his face.\nDefendant kicked in the door of the house, threw a \u201cbig woman\u201d onto the floor, and put a gun to her head. Defendant instructed Bigelow and T.W. to \u201cget the weed.\u201d T.W. entered one of the bedrooms and informed defendant that he could not locate the marijuana. Defendant walked down the hall, holding his gun to the \u201cbig woman\u2019s\u201d head. He ordered her to give him \u201cthe weed.\u201d She retrieved a \u201cbig bag of marijuana\u201d from under a mattress and handed it to defendant.\nDefendant, Bigelow, and T.W. entered the kitchen area. Upon a knock at the door, Bigelow opened the rear door, and Lenny Benoit (\u201cBenoit\u201d) entered the kitchen. Benoit recognized the brothers and stated, \u201cThat\u2019s Brian and Tom-Tom.\u201d Defendant stated, \u201cI don\u2019t know no mo\u2014 f-Brian and Tom-Tom; I should knock your mo\u2014 f-\u2014 teeth out right now.\u201d In response, according to Bigelow, Benoit just laughed and smiled. Defendant pointed his gun toward Benoit and fired. Bigelow and T.W. immediately left Williamson\u2019s house and ran towards the car, leaving defendant inside the house. About \u201cthirty-seconds later,\u201d defendant returned to the car and drove away from the house. Bigelow and T.W. told defendant, \u201cyou didn\u2019t have to kill that boy,\u201d to which defendant responded, \u201cShut the f\u2014 up before I shoot you.\u201d\nDefendant, Bigelow, and T.W. returned to Sellars\u2019 house and divided up the marijuana. Sellars received two ounces, and Bigelow and T.W. each received one ounce. Defendant left Sellers\u2019 house.\nOn 13 Janu\u00e1ry 2003, both Bigelow and T.W. went to the Caswell County Sheriff\u2019s Department and gave a statement. Bigelow\u2019s statement was admitted into evidence. T.W. also testified and recounted his involvement in the 4 January 2003 shooting, which was consistent with his brother\u2019s statement.\nB. Rose Webb\nRose Webb (\u201cWebb\u201d) testified that she knew Williamson and was visiting at his home on the evening of 4 January 2003 with her nine-year-old son and her fourteen-year-old-cousin, J.C. After Williamson and her son went to the store, someone knocked at the door while Webb was in the kitchen. She looked out and saw a person standing against the house wearing a red mask, like a toboggan. Later, this person kicked in the door. The person pointed a gun to her head, and she went down on her knees onto the kitchen floor. Webb stated that after someone ran past her, she was told to get up and go into the back room, where her cousin J.C. was also located. Webb heard a gunshot and a girl scream. When she heard the scream, she saw a \u201cteenager\u201d standing near the door.\nWebb entered the living room and saw a body lying on the kitchen floor and blood splattered by the stove. She also observed a girl crying and screaming, and asked whether the man on the floor was breathing.\nC. Ashlev Coble\nAshley Coble (\u201cCoble\u201d) testified that she went to high school with Benoit. On 4 January 2003, Benoit and his girlfriend, J.C., picked her up and drove to Williamson\u2019s home around 7:30 p.m. Williamson and Benoit were cousins.\nThey parked outside near the back door. When J.C. turned the radio off, Benoit told her \u201csomething wasn\u2019t right\u201d because the back door was open, that it was \u201cnever opened.\u201d As Benoit approached the door, he saw and read a note on the door. Three men came and slammed the door in his face. Benoit told the men to \u201cquit playing\u201d and knocked on the door again.\nThe men opened the door and all three huddled around Benoit. Coble described each of the three men and stated that two were wearing what appeared to be ski masks. The third had \u201csomething\u201d on top of his head. Coble testified all three men had guns. Coble testified Benoit called for J.C., and Coble and J.C. ran into the house. Benoit was lying wounded on the floor.\nD. Deputy Brandon\nCaswell County Deputy Sheriff Gwynn Brandon (\u201cDeputy Brandon\u201d) responded to a call at 881 Boy Scout Camp Road on 4 January 2003 around 8:00 p.m. When he arrived, he found Benoit lying halfway out of the back door of the residence.\nBenoit appeared to have been shot in the lower stomach on the left side. Deputy Brandon stated that he could see several spots of blood on the floor inside the kitchen that appeared to be \u201cfairly fresh.\u201d In addition, he observed that Benoit\u2019s condition was extremely critical. His eyes had rolled back in his head, and he was gasping for breath. Benoit later died from his wounds. Inside the front part of the house, Deputy Brandon found Webb and J.C. The front door had been blocked with a sofa and chairs.\nDefendant did not testify or offer any evidence. The jury found defendant to be guilty of first-degree felony murder and first-degree burglary. As the burglary conviction was an element of the crime of felony murder, the trial court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment without parole for the first-degree murder conviction. Defendant appeals.\nII. Issues\nThe issues on appeal are whether the trial court erred by: (1) admitting evidence of defendant\u2019s prior illegal activity; (2) informing the jury pool that the case would be tried non-capitally; and (3) imposing a sentence of life without parole without a jury finding of the Enmund/Tison issues.\nDefendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error are explicitly waived in his brief. He concedes pursuant to the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, these assignments of error \u201ccannot be pursued based upon the record currently before the Court.\u201d See N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2004) (\u201cAssignments of error not set out in the appellant\u2019s brief or in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned.\u201d). These remaining assignments of error are deemed abandoned.\nIII. Prior Bad Acts\nDefendant contends the trial court committed plain error by allowing evidence of defendant\u2019s involvement in the Jericho gang, prior robberies, and drug dealing. We disagree.\nDefendant failed to object to the admission of this evidence and argues plain error.\nWhere evidence is admitted without objection, the benefit of a prior objection to the same or similar evidence is lost, and the defendant is deemed to have waived his right to assign as error the prior admission of evidence. Having failed to object, defendant is entitled to relief based on this assignment of error only if he can demonstrate plain error. Under the plain error rule, defendant must convince this Court not only that there was error, but that absent the error, the jury probably would have reached a different result. The appellate court must study the whole record to determine if the error has such an impact on the guilt determination, therefore constituting plain error.\nState v. Berry, 143 N.C. App. 187, 193, 546 S.E.2d 145, 151 (internal quotations and citations omitted), disc. rev. denied, 353 N.C. 729, 551 S.E.2d 439 (2001).\nRule 404(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence states:\nEvidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake, entrapment or accident.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 404(b) (2003). Rule 404(b) is:\na clear general rule of inclusion of relevant evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by a defendant, subject to but one exception requiring its exclusion if its only probative value is to show that the defendant has the propensity or disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the crime charged.\nBerry, 143 N.C. App. at 196, 546 S.E.2d at 153.\nA. Gang Activity\nAt trial, the State presented evidence through Bigelow\u2019s testimony that defendant was a member of the Jericho Gang. This testimony provides evidence of defendant\u2019s motive, as well as the reason for Bigelow\u2019s involvement in the crime. Defendant approached Bigelow, stated that he needed to do a \u201click,\u201d and told Bigelow that in order to become a gang member, you had to \u201crob someone.\u201d\nPresuming error, without finding the trial court erred, defendant failed to show that the jury would have reached a different result had the trial court excluded this evidence. Considering the other overwhelming evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt, presented through numerous eyewitnesses, we hold the admission of this testimony is not plain error. This assignment of error is overruled.\nB. Past Robberies and Drug Dealing\nDefendant also argues the trial court committed plain error by allowing into evidence defendant\u2019s past robberies and prior drug dealing. Both Bigelow and T.W. testified that defendant had a pattern of robbing others of illegal drugs and selling them. This testimony provided evidence of defendant\u2019s \u201cmotive,\u201d and \u201cintent\u201d to commit the crimes at bar, as well as his modus operandi. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 404(b). Prior to encountering the victim, defendant, Bigelow, and T. W. planned to rob Williamson of his marijuana. Defendant executed this plan, stole marijuana from Williamson\u2019s home, and subsequently distributed the stolen drugs. Benoit was murdered during the commission of this crime.\nAdmission of this evidence was not error under Rule 404(b). Further, defendant has failed to show that under plain error review, the admission of this evidence prejudiced his defense such that the jury would have reached a different result. This assignment of error is overruled.\nC. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel\nDefendant also argues his attorney\u2019s failure to object to the evidence of defendant\u2019s prior bad acts constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. \u201cIn reviewing an appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel, this Court must first determine whether there was a reasonable probability that without counsel\u2019s alleged errors, the outcome of the trial would have been different.\u201d State v. Carrillo, 164 N.C. App. 204, 211, 595 S.E.2d 219, 224 (2004) (citing State v. Braswell, 312 N.C. 553, 562, 324 S.E.2d 241, 248 (1985)), appeal dismissed and disc. rev. denied, - N.C. -, 610 S.E.2d 710 (2005). We held the admission of this Rule 404(b) evidence was not error. This assignment of error is without merit.\nIV. Statements During Jury Selection\nDefendant argues the trial court erred by informing the jury, prior to trial, that he was not being charged with capital murder. We disagree.\nAt the outset of jury selection, the trial court informed the jury:\nThe defendant is charged with the offense of first-degree murder. Members of the jury, this is a noncapital murder case. If you find the defendant guilty of the offense [of] first-degree murder, the highest punishment would be life imprisonment in the Department of Correction without the benefit of parole and not the death penalty. The death penalty is not a possible punishment in this case. . . .\nDefendant cites only one case, State v. Hines, 286 N.C. 377, 211 S.E.2d 201 (1975), to support his argument. In Hines, our Supreme Court granted a new trial because of statements by the prosecutor during jury selection in a rape trial, where the defendant was being tried capitally: \u201cAnd to ease your feeling, I might say to you that no one has been put to death in North Carolina since 1961.\u201d 286 N.C. at 382, 211 S.E.2d at 204. The Hines Court reasoned that the defendant was entitled to a new trial because the prosecutor\u2019s \u201cstatement was intended to, and in all probability did, lighten the solemn burden of the jurors in returning their verdict.\u201d 286 N.C. at 386, 211 S.E.2d at 207.\nHere, defendant argues the trial court\u2019s statement that this case was to be tried non-capitally \u201cwas intended to\u201d and did \u201clighten the solemn burden of the jurors ....\u201d Id. The State argues the trial court\u2019s statement was made for no other purpose other than to inform the jury regarding the status and posture of the case before it.\nOur Supreme Court has stated, \u201cthe trial judge should not inform the jurors as to punishment in non-capital cases. . . . When, however, such information is inadvertently given, the error will be evaluated like any other.\u201d State v. Rhodes, 275 N.C. 584, 592, 169 S.E.2d 846, 851 (1969) (citation omitted). In Rhodes, the Court held, \u201cit was error for the trial judge to tell the jury the punishment for assault with intent to commit rape, but we can perceive no prejudice to defendant from the disclosure.\u201d Id. Similarly, defendant has failed to show and we find no prejudice to defendant in the trial court\u2019s statement. This assignment of error is overruled.\nV. Enmund/Tison\nDefendant contends the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment without parole constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment under the United States Supreme Court cases of Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1140 (1982), and Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 95 L. Ed. 2d 127, reh\u2019g denied, 482 U.S. 921, 96 L. Ed. 2d 688 (1987).\nIn Enmund, \u201cthe Court held that the Eighth Amendment forbids the imposition of the death penalty on a defendant who aids and abets in the commission of a felony in the course of which a murder is committed by others, when the defendant does not himself kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place or that lethal force will be employed.\u201d State v. McCollum, 334 N.C. 208, 223, 433 S.E.2d 144, 151 (1993), cert. denied, [512] U.S. [1254], 129 L. Ed. 2d 895, 114 S. Ct. 2784 (1994). A later case, Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 95 L. Ed. 2d 127, 107 S. Ct. 1676 (1987), limited the holding in Enmund to exclude defendants who were major participants in a felony that results in death when their actions constituted reckless indifference to human life.\nState v. Walker, 343 N.C. 216, 224, 469 S.E.2d 919, 923, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 901, 136 L. Ed. 2d 180 (1996).\nBoth Enmund and Tison involved proportionality review of death sentences. Walker, 343 N.C. at 224, 469 S.E.2d at 923. Our review of North Carolina Supreme Court cases discussing Enmund and Tison fails to disclose any application in non-capitally tried cases. See, e.g., State v. Watts, 357 N.C. 366, 584 S.E.2d 740 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 944, 158 L. Ed. 2d 370 (2004); State v. Golphin, 352 N.C. 364, 533 S.E.2d 168 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 931, 149 L. Ed. 2d 305 (2001); State v. McCollum, 334 N.C. 208, 433 S.E.2d 144 (1993), cert. denied and reh\u2019g denied, 512 U.S. 1254, 129 L. Ed. 2d 895 (1994).\nOn the facts at bar, defendant has failed to show any basis to extend the application of proportionality factors to a non-capital verdict and judgment. This assignment of error is overruled.\nVI. Conclusion\nThe trial court did not err by admitting evidence of defendant\u2019s gang membership and prior bad acts under Rule 404(b). Both provided evidence of defendant\u2019s motive and intent in committing the crime at bar. The trial court\u2019s statement to the jury regarding the non-capital nature of the trial was not error. Defendant has failed to show Enmunds/Tison review applies to this non-capital verdict judgment. Defendant received a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo Prejudicial Error.\nJudges TIMMONS-GOODSON and GEER concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "TYSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General C. Norman Young, Jr., for the State.", "Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. OTIS TREMAINE HIGHTOWER\nNo. COA04-324\n(Filed 1 March 2005)\n1. Evidence\u2014 prior crimes or bad acts \u2014 involvement in gang\u2014 robberies \u2014 drug dealing \u2014 motive and intent \u2014 modus operandi\nThe trial court did not commit plain error in a first-degree felony murder case by admitting evidence of defendant\u2019s prior illegal activity including involvement in the Jericho gang, prior robberies, and drug dealing, because: (1) the testimony about the gang provided evidence of defendant\u2019s motive as well as the reason for a coparticipant\u2019s involvement in the crime; (2) the testimony about defendant\u2019s pattern of robbing others of illegal drugs and selling them provided evidence of defendant\u2019s motive and intent to commit the crimes at bar as well as his modus operandi; (3) considering the other overwhelming evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt presented through numerous eyewitnesses, the admission of this evidence was not plain error; and (4) although defendant contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on his attorney\u2019s failure to object to the evidence of defendant\u2019s prior bad acts, the admission of the Rule 404(b) evidence was not error.\n2. Jury\u2014 selection \u2014 stating murder case tried noncapitally\nThe trial court did not err in a first-degree felony murder case by informing the jury pool that the case would be tried non-capitally because defendant failed to show, and the Court of Appeals did not find, any prejudice to defendant in the trial court\u2019s statement.\n3. Sentencing\u2014 life without parole \u2014 Enmund/Tison issues\nThe trial court did not err in a first-degree felony murder case by imposing a sentence of life without parole without a jury finding of the Enmund/Tison issues, because: (1) both Enmund and Tison involved proportionality review of death sentences, and their application is not implied in noncapitally tried cases; and (2) defendant failed to show any basis to extend the application of proportionality to a noncapital verdict and judgment.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 31 October 2003 by Judge Orlando Hudson in Caswell County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 December 2004.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General C. Norman Young, Jr., for the State.\nBruce T. Cunningham, Jr., for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0661-01", "first_page_order": 691, "last_page_order": 700 }