{
  "id": 4177988,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LAKENDRA SHERRELL GRADY, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Grady",
  "decision_date": "2010-08-17",
  "docket_number": "No. COA09-823",
  "first_page": "566",
  "last_page": "572",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "206 N.C. App. 566"
    }
  ],
  "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": "683 S.E.2d 785",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "788-89",
          "parenthetical": "finding Confrontation Clause violation harmless beyond reasonable doubt in light of \" [defendant's own statement, in conjunction with the unchallenged' testimony of law enforcement officers\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 N.C. App. 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4172492
      ],
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "415",
          "parenthetical": "finding Confrontation Clause violation harmless beyond reasonable doubt in light of \" [defendant's own statement, in conjunction with the unchallenged' testimony of law enforcement officers\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/200/0410-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "681 S.E.2d 293",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "305",
          "parenthetical": "finding Confrontation Clause violation. harmless beyond reasonable doubt where \"State presented copious evidence\" of defendant's guilt"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "363 N.C. 438",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4151754
      ],
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "453",
          "parenthetical": "finding Confrontation Clause violation. harmless beyond reasonable doubt where \"State presented copious evidence\" of defendant's guilt"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/363/0438-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 L. Ed. 2d 314",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3657952
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 2009,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/557/0305-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "577 U.S. 305",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2009,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 753,
    "char_count": 15221,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.74,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.13712498296232714
    },
    "sha256": "2752a8214bd038172c99ff704efc7809d83dd5d9ad0f45709d5cd94d57ba7cb4",
    "simhash": "1:8737e4a34e18147d",
    "word_count": 2508
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:24:03.194595+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges CALABRIA and STEPHENS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LAKENDRA SHERRELL GRADY, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GEER, Judge.\nDefendant Lakendra Sherrell Grady appeals her conviction of first degree murder and first degree burglary. Defendant\u2019s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in admitting testimony by an SBI special agent about the results of DNA testing that had been conducted by another agent who did not testify. Defendant argues that the admission of this testimony deprived defendant of her constitutional right of confrontation in violation of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 305, 174 L. Ed. 2d 314, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009). We conclude, however, that the admission of the testimony, even if error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because of the evidence\u2019s very limited probative impact and the overwhelming evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt.\nFacts\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show the following. On 21 January 2006, Johnny Odell Southerland, Jr. was telling people he had found a silver and black 9ihm handgun in a field across from a school and wanted to sell it. He offered to sell it to defendant for $250.00 if she met him later that day. In the late afternoon or early evening, defendant and Delicia \u201cDee-Dee\u201d Hardwrich drove to Southerland\u2019s apartment, and defendant asked Southerland to show her the gun. When Southerland handed the gun to defendant in her car, defendant told him that \u201che was beat\u201d and drove off without paying for the gun.\nThe next day, a group of people gathered at Hardwrich\u2019s sister\u2019s home. While they were playing the Grand Theft Auto video game, two of the men \u2014 Rufus Lamar Bowser and Darion Graham \u2014 indicated that they \u201chad guns like on the game.\u201d Because Hardwrich did not believe them, they showed her the guns. Bowser had a Tec-9 assault rifle, and Graham had a .357 pistol. Hardwrich called defendant and told her that \u201cthey got this Tec-9 and you should come see it and you should bring the gun you got yesterday.\u201d Later, defendant arrived at Hardwrich\u2019s sister\u2019s house with the 9mm handgun. Eventually, the group\u2019s conversation turned to the possibility of robbing someone. Defendant mentioned that she knew Pervis Owens, Jr. and that he had \u201ca lot of money and stuff.\u201d\nAfter midnight, defendant left the house with Bowser, Graham, and Maurice Miller. At this point, Bowser had the Tec-9, Graham had the .357 pistol, and it was unclear who had the 9mm handgun. Defendant drove them around as they tried to find someone to rob. Defendant, Graham, and Miller wanted to rob a man named Nate, but Bowser said \u201cno, he cool,\u201d so they kept driving. Next, they wanted to rob a local \u201cgambling house,\u201d but when they found no one there, they left.\nBowser then turned to defendant and asked, \u201cWhat about the dude you was talking about earlier?\u201d Defendant responded, \u201cThat\u2019s the one I\u2019m about to call right now.\u201d Defendant called Owens as they drove toward his house, but he did not answer the phone. When they arrived at his house, a lot of people were outside. They drove down another street, parked, and waited. Defendant kept trying to call Owens and eventually made contact.\nMeanwhile, everyone in the car agreed that defendant would convince Owens to come outside his house. The three males, who would be waiting behind another house, would \u201crush\u201d Owens when he came outside. Bowser still had the Tec-9, Graham had the .357 pistol, and Miller was in possession of the 9mm handgun. After Owens refused to leave his house, defendant told the others: \u201cI go in the house, y\u2019all come in and tell him to give it up.\u201d She said she would leave the door open for them, but told them to wait about five minutes before entering.\nA few minutes after defendant went inside Owens\u2019 house, Bowser and Miller followed with their faces covered with their shirts. Graham waited outside. When the men got inside, they found Owens asleep in a living room chair. Bowser cocked his gun and told Owens to \u201cget up.\u201d Owens screamed, \u201cNo,\u201d and rushed at Bowser, knocking him to the ground. Bowser got to his feet and ran out of the house. As he was running, he heard a shot. When Miller came out of the house, he said, \u201c[G]o,\u201d and the three males ran to Graham\u2019s house. Defendant arrived at Graham\u2019s house about 10 to 15 minutes later and told them that Owens was dead.\nLater that morning, at about 7:00 a.m., Rose Samuel, Owens\u2019 next door neighbor, went outside and found Owens lying in front of his house. Although Samuel had heard a gunshot a little after 5:00 a.m., she had ignored it because she lived in a \u201cbad neighborhood\u201d and was accustomed to hearing gunshots. Samuel or someone else called 911. Owens had a weak pulse when the paramedics first checked him, but he had no vital signs by the time he was loaded into the ambulance. Owens was pronounced dead at the hospital at 7:44 a.m.\nDr. William Kelly performed Owens\u2019 autopsy. Dr. Kelly determined that Owens suffered a single gunshot wound that entered his left back in the left shoulder area. The bullet traveled left to right and downward, traversing his chest, penetrating the top of the left lung, and passing through the aorta and into the right lung before exiting the chest and lodging in his right arm. Dr. Kelly determined that Owens had bled to death.\nApproximately one week after Owens\u2019 death, Detectives Andrew Korwatch and Chris Adams of the Wilmington Police Department spoke with Graham. As a result of their conversation, Graham turned over the 9mm handgun. Special Agent Jessica Rosenberg, an SBI firearms and toolmark technician, compared a bullet and shell casing test-fired from the 9mm handgun to the bullet recovered from Owens\u2019 body and a shell casing found by officers at Owens\u2019 house. Special Agent Rosenberg determined that the test-fired shell casing and the shell casing obtained from the crime scene were both fired from the 9mm handgun obtained from Graham. The bullets had similar characteristics, but the agent could not say that the 9mm handgun had in fact fired the bullet recovered from Owens\u2019 body.\nDetective Lee Odham also reviewed a surveillance tape taken from Samuel\u2019s house \u2014 Samuel had installed a surveillance camera on her porch that fed to a VCR in her house. The audio of the camera had recorded a gunshot and a screen door slamming, as well as Owens saying, \u201cNo.\u201d Detective Odham testified that another voice could be heard saying \u2018\u201cBro, Bro, where\u2019s your phone, Bro,\u2019 something to that effect.\u201d After receiving information that defendant was involved, Detective Odham brought Hardwrich to the police station. Hardwrich identified the voice on the tape as being defendant\u2019s, although, at trial, Hardwrich denied doing so.\nDefendant was then brought in for questioning. Because she was 17, she was read her Miranda rights and given the required juvenile warnings. After indicating that she understood her rights, defendant made both oral and written statements \u2014 the interrogation was also videotaped. She admitted getting the 9mm handgun from Southerland. When it came to what happened inside Owens\u2019 house, she gave three different versions of what transpired. In the third version, she said that she, Bowser, Graham, and Miller \u201cmade a plan to rob Mr. Owens.\u201d Defendant explained that she went inside Owens\u2019 house and that the others were to come in five minutes later. Bowser entered the house first, with his Tec-9, and Miller followed with the 9mm handgun. There was a struggle inside the house, and Miller ended up shooting Owens. Everyone then ran away, including Graham, who had remained outside the house during the struggle and shooting. Defendant confirmed that thes\u00e9 events occurred sometime between 5:15 and 5:20 a.m. on the morning of 23 January 2006.\nDefendant was subsequently indicted for first degree burglary, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and first degree murder. At trial, Bowser, who had pled guilty to second degree murder and armed robbery in exchange for testifying, testified essentially consistent with the above. Hardwrich testified that defendant had taken the gun from Southerland, but also testified that defendant. had not left with Bowser, Graham, and Miller. Southerland also testified, admitting that he told defendant he had a gun to sell and suggested she meet him at a particular location that night. Southerland testified that a car did arrive at that location and that he showed the gun to a woman in the car who took the gun without paying for it, saying, \u201cYou beat.\u201d Although he claimed at trial that he did not know whether the woman was defendant, he also admitted that he did not want to testify and that his testimony conflicted with what he had previously told Detective Odham. Defendant did not present any evidence at trial.\nOn 10 October 2008, the jury found defendant guilty of first degree burglary, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and first degree murder under the felony murder rule, with robbery with a dangerous weapon and first degree burglary as the underlying felonies. The court arrested judgment on the conviction of robbery with a dangerous weapon, combined for sentencing the convictions for first degree murder and first degree burglary, and sentenced defendant to a term of life imprisonment without parole. Defendant timely appealed to this Court.\nDiscussion\nAt trial, the State presented the testimony of Special Agent Christy Fischer, an SBI analyst, regarding the results of DNA testing done on blood found in holes in the trigger of the 9mm handgun turned over by Graham. SBI Special Agent Jill Applebee had actually conducted the testing, but was no longer working for the SBI at the time of the trial. Special Agent Fischer testified that based on her review of Special Agent Applebee\u2019s report, she believed that Special Agent Applebee had complied with all the required procedures for the testing. Special Agent Fischer also testified that she agreed with the results of Special Agent Applebee\u2019s testing, which had concluded that the predominant DNA profile from the blood on the 9mm handgun did not match the DNA profile of Owens or any profile contained in the North Carolina convicted offender indexes.\nOn appeal, defendant argues that the United States Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 305, 174 L. Ed. 2d 314, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009), establishes that the admission of this testimony violated her constitutional right to confrontation. Even assuming, arguendo, that the testimony was admitted in error, we hold that the State has established that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1443(b) (2009) (\u201cA violation of the defendant\u2019s rights under the Constitution of the United States is prejudicial unless the appellate court finds that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is upon the State to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error was harmless.\u201d).\nDefendant gave both oral and written statements regarding the murder. In each of her three versions, she admitted being inside Owens\u2019 house when he was shot. In her final version, she admitted that she took Southerland\u2019s 9mm handgun, that she, Miller, Bowser, and Graham made a plan to rob Owens, that she entered Owens\u2019 house first followed by Miller and Bowser (with Graham waiting outside), and that Miller shot Owens with the 9mm handgun she had obtained. This confession was further supported by testimony from Bowser, Hardwrich, Southerland, and the firearms expert.\nAlthough defendant notes various inconsistencies in the testimony, the evidence was essentially undisputed that defendant was present during the shooting. The conflicts in the evidence identified by defendant include the differing stories told by defendant; whether defendant took the 9mm handgun from Southerland or someone else stole it; whether there were serious conversations about robbing someone at Hardwrich\u2019s sister\u2019s home or just casual discussions; whether defendant left alone or with Bowser, Graham, and Miller; and discrepancies about the time of the shooting. The DNA evidence, however, was not pertinent to any of these conflicts in the evidence. The testing merely suggested that Owens was not connected with the gun and precluded an argument by the defense that the State had not followed every possible lead.\nDefendant argues, however, that \u201c[t]he results of the DNA testing done by Jill Applebee provided some support for the State\u2019s theory of the facts, that Owens [sic] death was the result of being shot about 5:15 a.m. by Maurice Miller, using a 9 mm [sic] pistol that Defendant Grady gave to him before he went in the house.\u201d We do not see how that is the case. The DNA evidence regarding the blood on the 9mm handgun\u2019s trigger did nothing to address the discrepancy about the time of the shooting and did not identify the shooter. Moreover, on the question of who provided Miller with the 9mm handgun, the fact that the testing did not match the blood to defendant supported defendant\u2019s suggestion at trial that she had not been the source of the 9mm handgun.\nIn sum, even if we accept arguendo defendant\u2019s view that the evidence was in serious conflict, our review of the record indicates that there is no plausible basis for concluding that the DNA testing played any material role in the jury\u2019s decision to convict defendant. We note that 27 witnesses testified for the State over five days at defendant\u2019s trial. Special Agent Fischer\u2019s testimony lasted approximately 16 minutes, and defendant has challenged only a portion of that testimony. The challenged portion did not shed any light on the overarching issue: whether defendant was a participant in the robbery and, therefore, also in the felony murder.\nThus, absent the admission of the testimony, we conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the jury would not have reached a different decision. See State v. Locklear, 363 N.C. 438, 453, 681 S.E.2d 293, 305 (2009) (finding Confrontation Clause violation. harmless beyond reasonable doubt where \u201cState presented copious evidence\u201d of defendant\u2019s guilt); State v. Galindo, 200 N.C. App. 410, 415, 683 S.E.2d 785, 788-89 (2009) (finding Confrontation Clause violation harmless beyond reasonable doubt in light of \u201c [defendant's own statement, in conjunction with the unchallenged' testimony of law enforcement officers\u201d).\nNo error.\nJudges CALABRIA and STEPHENS concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GEER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Steven M. Arbogast, for the State.",
      "Glover & Petersen, P.A., by James R. Glover, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LAKENDRA SHERRELL GRADY, Defendant\nNo. COA09-823\n(Filed 17 August 2010)\nConstitutional Law\u2014 right to confrontation \u2014 testimony about DNA testing done by another agent \u2014 harmless error\nThe trial court did not err in a first-degree murder and first-degree burglary case by admitting testimony by an SBI special agent about the results of DNA testing that had been conducted by another agent who did not testify. Even if the admission was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence\u2019s very limited probative impact and the overwhelming evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 10 October 2008 by Judge Jerry Cash Martin in New Hanover County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 January 2010.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Steven M. Arbogast, for the State.\nGlover & Petersen, P.A., by James R. Glover, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0566-01",
  "first_page_order": 590,
  "last_page_order": 596
}
