{ "id": 4179144, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAMIEN LANEL GABRIEL", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Gabriel", "decision_date": "2010-10-19", "docket_number": "No. COA09-1669", "first_page": "440", "last_page": "452", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "207 N.C. App. 440" } ], "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": "608 S.E.2d 59", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12632440 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/608/0059-01" ] }, { "cite": "683 S.E.2d 216", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2009, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "363 N.C. 586", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 2009, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "676 S.E.2d 546", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "555" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "197 N.C. App. 78", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4167356 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "93" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/197/0078-01" ] }, { "cite": "343 S.E.2d 885", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "890", "parenthetical": "stating that \"highly probative evidence necessarily is prejudicial to the defendant^] otherwise it would not have such great probative value [,]\" and finding that Rule 403 requires exclusion only where the prejudicial effect is found to be undue" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "317 N.C. 87", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4777958 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "95", "parenthetical": "stating that \"highly probative evidence necessarily is prejudicial to the defendant^] otherwise it would not have such great probative value [,]\" and finding that Rule 403 requires exclusion only where the prejudicial effect is found to be undue" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/317/0087-01" ] }, { "cite": "295 S.E.2d 453", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "456", "parenthetical": "holding that a witness's \"prior statement . . ., which was inconsistent with her testimony at [trial], has a strong probative value, especially since it relates directly to her account of the incident and those events leading up to it\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 692", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573479 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "697", "parenthetical": "holding that a witness's \"prior statement . . ., which was inconsistent with her testimony at [trial], has a strong probative value, especially since it relates directly to her account of the incident and those events leading up to it\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0692-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 195", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3800192, 3796582, 3802248, 3803629, 3800433, 3796312, 3799355, 3794559 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0195-04", "/nc/359/0195-06", "/nc/359/0195-01", "/nc/359/0195-02", "/nc/359/0195-03", "/nc/359/0195-08", "/nc/359/0195-05", "/nc/359/0195-07" ] }, { "cite": "598 S.E.2d 596", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "606" }, { "page": "606" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "165 N.C. App. 337", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8997518 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "352" }, { "page": "352" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/165/0337-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 S.E.2d 288", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "292", "parenthetical": "emphasis in original" }, { "page": "292" }, { "page": "292" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "87 N.C. App. 626", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8358965 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "633", "parenthetical": "emphasis in original" }, { "page": "633" }, { "page": "633" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/87/0626-01" ] }, { "cite": "734 F.2d 1191", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 416517 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1192" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/734/1191-01" ] }, { "cite": "319 S.E.2d 584", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "589", "parenthetical": "holding that because a witness's prior statement was inconsistent with her testimony in part, and because the prior statement was material, the trial court did not err in allowing the State to prove the witness's prior inconsistent statements with extrinsic evidence" }, { "parenthetical": "holding that the witness's prior statement was \"material in that it related to events immediately leading to [the crime committed]\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 656", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4681279 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "663" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0656-01" ] }, { "cite": "250 S.E.2d 197", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "203", "parenthetical": "cited in Hunt, 324 N.C. at 348, 378 S.E.2d at 757" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 183", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565376 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "192-93", "parenthetical": "cited in Hunt, 324 N.C. at 348, 378 S.E.2d at 757" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0183-01" ] }, { "cite": "521 S.E.2d 263", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "264-65" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "135 N.C. App. 504", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11241799 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "507" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/135/0504-01" ] }, { "cite": "378 S.E.2d 754", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 13, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "757" }, { "page": "757" }, { "page": "757" }, { "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and brackets omitted; emphasis in original" }, { "page": "758", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "758-59" }, { "page": "759" }, { "page": "758" }, { "page": "758" }, { "page": "758" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 343", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2487826 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "348" }, { "page": "349" }, { "page": "350" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0343-01" ] }, { "cite": "439 S.E.2d 158", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "335 N.C. 241", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2532064, 2531496, 2531241, 2528778, 2527964 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/335/0241-01", "/nc/335/0241-03", "/nc/335/0241-02", "/nc/335/0241-04", "/nc/335/0241-05" ] }, { "cite": "432 S.E.2d 146", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "151" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "111 N.C. App. 40", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520504 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "48-49" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/111/0040-01" ] }, { "cite": "310 S.E.2d 20", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "134" }, { "page": "25" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "310 N.C. 126", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2399015 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/310/0126-01" ] }, { "cite": "386 S.E.2d 555", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "561" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "325 N.C. 583", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2491770 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "595" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/325/0583-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 L. Ed. 2d 734", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "case_ids": [ 12448568, 12448569, 12448570, 12448571, 12448572, 12448573, 12448574, 12448575 ], "year": 2010, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/l-ed-2d/176/0734-01", "/l-ed-2d/176/0734-02", "/l-ed-2d/176/0734-03", "/l-ed-2d/176/0734-04", "/l-ed-2d/176/0734-05", "/l-ed-2d/176/0734-06", "/l-ed-2d/176/0734-07", "/l-ed-2d/176/0734-08" ] }, { "cite": "683 S.E.2d 174", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "200" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "363 N.C. 382", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4151061 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "424" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/363/0382-01" ] }, { "cite": "428 S.E.2d 150", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "156" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "333 N.C. 501", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2548206 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "512" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/333/0501-01" ] }, { "cite": "484 S.E.2d 553", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "560" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "346 N.C. 26", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 139330 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "39" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/346/0026-01" ] }, { "cite": "255 S.E.2d 390", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "395" }, { "page": "396" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 N.C. 349", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570297 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "357" }, { "page": "358" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/297/0349-01" ] }, { "cite": "237 S.E.2d 834", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "840" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.C. 263", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563804 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "272" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/293/0263-01" ] }, { "cite": "675 S.E.2d 144", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "149" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "196 N.C. App. 458", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4166318 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "466" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/196/0458-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1086, "char_count": 29385, "ocr_confidence": 0.735, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.518461695170957e-08, "percentile": 0.28321631878924214 }, "sha256": "e7440382148e2f16d55d66455f385098286ca74361c7fa6dea96070922e6391e", "simhash": "1:9975622a251f99f2", "word_count": 4782 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:56:31.092499+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges STEELMAN and HUNTER, JR. concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAMIEN LANEL GABRIEL" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "STEPHENS, Judge.\nFacts\nOn 28 August 2006, Defendant Damien Lanel Gabriel was indicted in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina on one count of first-degree murder and one count of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. Defendant pled not guilty to the charges and was tried by a jury in Mecklenburg County Superior Court.\nThe evidence presented at trial tended to show the following: On the evening of 3 August 2006, murder victim Jerome Tallington and assault victim Kenneth Lackey were at the home of Tallington\u2019s fianc\u00e9e Tara McGhee. McGhee\u2019s home was across the street from the residence of Dennis Brown. That evening, Brown was at his home with his mother and Shaun Ryan, the brother of Brown\u2019s girlfriend.\nShortly after Lackey and Tallington arrived at McGhee\u2019s home, Defendant pulled up to Brown\u2019s house in a gray station wagon and exited the vehicle holding a long gun, described by witnesses as having a banana-shaped bullet pouch and being similar in size and shape to an AK-47. Defendant entered Brown\u2019s house and re-emerged shortly thereafter. Witnesses testified that after an exchange of words in the street between the victims and Defendant, several gun shots were fired.\nFollowing the shooting, Defendant was seen entering Brown\u2019s home. When police officers arrived at the scene, Defendant\u2019s gray station wagon was still parked in front of Brown\u2019s house, Lackey was on McGhee\u2019s porch, and Tallington, who had been shot twice, was lying dead at the end of Brown\u2019s driveway. The SWAT team was called in, the neighborhood was locked down, and a stand-off between law enforcement officers and the occupants of Brown\u2019s house ensued for several hours until, at last, Brown and his mother came out of Brown\u2019s house. During their investigation of the crime scene, police found several spent bullet cartridges near the end of Brown\u2019s driveway. Bullet holes were found in McGhee\u2019s truck, as well as in other vehicles parked in front of McGhee\u2019s house, and in McGhee\u2019s porch posts and in the house next door to McGhee.\nThe evidence showed that along the back edge of Brown\u2019s backyard was a fence that separated Brown\u2019s backyard and a wooded area, and beyond the wooded area was a shopping center. A gate in the fence opened to a path, through the wooded area and came out at the back of the shopping center. An officer who was positioned behind the shopping center on the night of the shooting testified that a black male, whom she later identified as Defendant, walked by her car that night.\nOn 4 August 2006, the day after the shooting, officers found a weapon resembling an AK-47 in the woods behind Brown\u2019s house. The shell casings and a bullet from the scene of the shooting were matched to the gun found in the woods. Another shell casing was found near the side of Brown\u2019s house, but this casing did not match the gun from the woods.\nOn the afternoon of August 4, Defendant turned himself in to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. While in police custody, Defendant made several phone calls to Brown, in which Defendant asked Brown to look for the \u201cchopper.\u201d Testimony at trial revealed that \u201cchopper\u201d is a slang term that often refers to a semiautomatic rifle.\nWhile imprisoned, Defendant also called his father Effrod Young. According to Young\u2019s testimony, Defendant told Young, \u201cI was just taking [the gun] to give it to him. I got caught in the middle. When I got out of the car, they ran up on me and started talking.\u201d Young also testified that he spoke with Ryan, who admitted to Young that he was in Brown\u2019s backyard when he heard a gunshot that came from in front of the house. According to Young\u2019s testimony, Ryan stated that he then ran around to the front of Brown\u2019s house, ducked behind a car, and \u201cemptied\u201d his ammunition clip while firing at a \u201cguy.\u201d Ryan testified, however, that although he did not recall any specific events from 3 August 2006, he knew he did not shoot anyone.\nFollowing the presentation of the evidence, the trial court instructed the jury on possible verdicts of murder and assault with a deadly weapon. The court further instructed that the jury could find Defendant guilty of any of the crimes if they found that the Defendant, \u201cor someone with whom he acted in concert,\u201d committed the crime.\nOn 8 April 2009, the jury returned verdicts finding Defendant guilty of first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with the intent to kill. On 9 April 2009, Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for the murder charge and to 46 to 65 months imprisonment for the assault charge. Defendant appeals.\nDiscussion\nI. Improper instruction of the jury on acting in concert\nOn appeal, Defendant first argues that the trial court\u2019s jury instruction on acting in concert was error because that theory of guilt was not supported by the evidence. We disagree.\nAssignments of error challenging the trial court\u2019s jury instructions are reviewed de novo by this Court. State v. Osorio, 196 N.C. App. 458, 466, 675 S.E.2d 144, 149 (2009). Our Supreme Court has held that it is error for the trial judge \u201cto permit a jury to convict upon some abstract theory not supported by the evidence^]\u201d State v. Dammons, 293 N.C. 263, 272, 237 S.E.2d 834, 840 (1977).\nIn order to support a jury instruction on acting in concert, the evidence must be sufficient to show that the defendant was present at the scene of the crime and that the defendant was acting together with another who did the acts necessary to constitute the crime pursuant to a common plan or purpose to commit the crime. See State v. Joyner, 297 N.C. 349, 357, 255 S.E.2d 390, 395 (1979). Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court\u2019s instruction on acting in concert must be determined based on the varying facts of each case. State v. Dickens, 346 N.C. 26, 39, 484 S.E.2d 553, 560 (1997); State v. Jefferies, 333 N.C. 501, 512, 428 S.E.2d 150, 156 (1993); Joyner, 297 N.C. at 358, 255 S.E.2d at 396.\nDefendant argues that the evidence tended to support only two theories: (1) that Defendant committed all of the acts constituting the crimes of felonious assault and murder, or (2) that Ryan committed all, and Defendant committed none, of the acts constituting the alleged crimes. Defendant contends that neither of these views of the evidence supported an instruction on concerted action.\nDefendant argues that the first theory of the evidence did not support an instruction on acting in concert because it tended to show that Defendant acted alone, and not \u201ctogether with another.\u201d We agree that under this view of the evidence, an instruction on acting in concert would be erroneous. It is well settled in North Carolina that the doctrine of acting in concert requires the action of two or more people. See, e.g., State v. Wilkerson, 363 N.C. 382, 424, 683 S.E.2d 174, 200 (2009), cert. denied, \u2014 U.S. \u2014, 176 L. Ed. 2d 734 (2010); State v. Thomas, 325 N.C. 583, 595, 386 S.E.2d 555, 561 (1989).\nAs for Defendant\u2019s second theory, Defendant argues there was a lack of evidentiary support for a common plan or shared purpose between Ryan and Defendant such that this second view of the evidence did not support a jury instruction on acting in concert. We disagree with Defendant\u2019s theory in this respect.\nDefendant cites State v. Forney, 310 N.C. 126, 310 S.E.2d 20 (1984), in support of his argument. In Forney, our Supreme Court found that although the evidence showed that the defendant was present during, and aware of, a sexual assault committed by others, the defendant\u2019s statement that he was \u201c \u2018thrown\u2019 on the victim but \u2018didn\u2019t do nothin[g]\u2019 \u201d tended to be \u201cexculpatory with respect to his willingness to participate in or even his knowledge or acquiescence in consummating this offense.\u201d Id. at 134, 310 S.E.2d at 25. The Court reversed the defendant\u2019s conviction because the evidence was insufficient to permit a reasonable inference that the defendant and the others were acting together in pursuance of a common plan to commit sexual assault. Id.\nIn this case, as in Forney, Defendant\u2019s statement that he was just taking the gun to Brown\u2019s house when he \u201cgot caught in the middle\u201d tended to be \u201cexculpatory with respect to his willingness to participate\u201d in the shooting. However, unlike in Forney, there was other evidence to support a reasonable inference that Defendant and Ryan acted together pursuant to a common plan or purpose.\nThe evidence in support of Defendant\u2019s theory tended to show that Ryan came around die house after hearing a gunshot and fired repeatedly at, and consistently hit, a person in the front yard. Assuming its truth, this evidence did not contradict any of the other evidence tending to show that Ryan was at Brown\u2019s house on the day of the shooting; that when Defendant arrived he went inside Brown\u2019s house with the weapon; that Defendant claimed to have brought the gun for someone else; and that, at the time of the shooting, Defendant was in front of Brown\u2019s house with a weapon and was firing in the direction of the victims in the street. We conclude that this evidence did permit a reasonable inference that Defendant and Ryan were shooting at the victims pursuant to a shared or common purpose.\nAccordingly, the reasonable inference of a common plan or purpose, along with Defendant\u2019s undisputed presence at the scene, was sufficient to support the court\u2019s instruction on acting in concert. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err by instructing the jury on acting in concert.\nII. Improper admission of Dennis Brown\u2019s out-of-court statements\nDefendant next argues that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence Dennis Brown\u2019s out-of-court statements to the police.'We review de novo a trial court\u2019s determination of whether an out-of-court statement is admissible. See, e.g., State v. Minter, 111 N.C. App. 40, 432 S.E.2d 146 (reviewing de novo a trial court\u2019s decision to allow extrinsic evidence of a witness\u2019s hearsay statements), disc. rev. denied, 335 N.C. 241, 439 S.E.2d 158 (1993).\nAt trial, the State called Brown to testify regarding the events leading up to, and immediately following, the shooting. Brown testified that he did not call Defendant on the day of the shooting and ask Defendant to bring a gun to Brown\u2019s house and also that he did not recall wheth\u00e9r he saw Defendant enter Brown\u2019s house with a weapon immediately after the shooting. Because this testimony was inconsistent with Brown\u2019s prior statements to police, the State moved the court to allow the State to treat Brown as a hostile witness. After the court granted the motion over Defendant\u2019s objection, the State extensively cross-examined Brown on his prior statements. Brown denied telling police officers that he called Defendant to bring a gun and denied telling officers that he saw Defendant with a gun following the shooting.\nThe State later attempted to introduce a redacted version of a transcript of Brown\u2019s prior statements. Over Defendant\u2019s objection, the trial court ruled the statements admissible for the purpose of impeaching Brown\u2019s credibility. The portion of the transcript at issue in this appeal is excerpted below:\nP Alright. Um, earlier we were talking about you said that Sean . . \u25a0. or I mean that [Defendant] had something in his hand. What did you notice that [Defendant] had in his hand?\nB Something long[] ....\nP Okay.\nB ... like a rifle or something.\nP Alright. So you saw him with a gun?\nB Yes.\nP Okay, but you saw [Defendant] with the gun.\nB Yes.\nH Uh huh. Well, this shooting happened at 10:46.\nB I don\u2019t know, maybe fifteen minutes before he got there . . . cause he called me like bring a gun if your [sic] coming back.\nH So he called you or you called him?\nB I called him.\nOn appeal, Defendant asserts three separate grounds to support his argument that admission of these statements was error. Because each argument proceeds on a different theory, we address each separately.\nA. Improper use of extrinsic evidence for impeachment\nDefendant first argues that the admission of the transcript of the statements for the purpose of impeachment by prior inconsistent statements was error because it was introduced to impeach Brown on the collateral matter of whether Brown did or did not make the statements.\nIn support of this argument, Defendant cites State v. Hunt, 324 N.C. 343, 378 S.E.2d 754 (1989). In Hunt, our Supreme Court applied the longstanding rule against using extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness on collateral matters, to prohibit the introduction of the substance of a prior statement to impeach a witness\u2019s denial that he made that prior statement because the truth or falsity of that denial was a collateral matter. Id. at 348-49, 378 S.E.2d at 757.\nHowever, this Court has since held that in cases where the witness not only denies making the prior statements but also testifies inconsistently with the prior statements, Hunt does not prohibit impeaching a witness\u2019s inconsistent testimony with the substance of the prior statements. See State v. Wilson, 135 N.C. App. 504, 507, 521 S.E.2d 263, 264-65 (1999); Minter, 111 N.C. App. at 48-49, 432 S.E.2d at 151. In this case, the substance of Brown\u2019s prior statements was admitted to impeach Brown\u2019s inconsistent testimony, and not Brown\u2019s denial. Therefore, the holding in Hunt does not require exclusion of the prior statements here.\nRegardless, Defendant further argues that because Brown denied making the relevant statements, \u201cthe [S]tate could impeach Brown regarding whether he made the entire statement, but it could not properly introduce extrinsic evidence of the substance of those statements.\u201d We are unpersuaded by Defendant\u2019s argument.\nIt has long been the law in North Carolina that where a witness\u2019s prior inconsistent statements are material, those statements may be proved by extrinsic evidence without first calling the prior statements to the attention of the witness on cross-examination. See, e.g., State v. Green, 296 N.C. 183, 192-93, 250 S.E.2d 197, 203 (1978) (cited in Hunt, 324 N.C. at 348, 378 S.E.2d at 757).\nUnder this rule, impeaching counsel need not give the witness an opportunity to admit or deny making the prior inconsistent statements before presenting extrinsic evidence of those statements. Id. Therefore, Brown\u2019s denial is irrelevant to the determination of whether extrinsic evidence could have been presented. Rather, all that was necessary was that the witness testified inconsistently and that the subject matter of the prior statements was material. See State v. Whitley, 311 N.C. 656, 663, 319 S.E.2d 584, 589 (1984) (holding that because a witness\u2019s prior statement was inconsistent with her testimony in part, and because the prior statement was material, the trial court did not err in allowing the State to prove the witness\u2019s prior inconsistent statements with extrinsic evidence).\nIn this case, there can be no doubt that Brown\u2019s statement that he called Defendant to bring a gun and Brown\u2019s two statements that he saw Defendant with a gun were material in that these statements related to the events leading up to, and immediately following, the shooting in front of Brown\u2019s house. See id. (holding that the witness\u2019s prior statement was \u201cmaterial in that it related to events immediately leading to [the crime committed]\u201d). Further, Brown\u2019s testimony was inconsistent in part with the prior statements. Accordingly, extrinsic evidence of Brown\u2019s prior statements was permissible to impeach Brown\u2019s testimony. Id. Defendant\u2019s argument is overruled.\nB. Violation of Rule 607\nDefendant next argues that the admission of Brown\u2019s out-of-court statements for the purpose of impeachment was error on the ground that \u201cthe prosecutor used the guise of impeaching its own witness as a subterfuge for putting otherwise inadmissible hearsay before the jury when the record failed to show the prosecutor was surprised by Brown\u2019s in-court testimony[.]\u201d Specifically, Defendant argues that while North Carolina Rule of Evidence 607 allows any party to attack the credibility of a witness, the use of Rule 607 to mask impermissible hearsay as impeachment is improper because of the likelihood a jury will consider the statements as substantive evidence rather than as impeachment evidence. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 607 (2009).\nDefendant again cites Hunt in support of his argument. In Hunt, our Supreme Court recognized \u201cthe difficulty with which a jury distinguishes between impeachment and substantive evidence and the danger of confusion that results[.[\u201d Hunt, 324 N.C. at 349, 378 S.E.2d at 757. Accordingly, our Supreme Court acknowledged that the \u201coverwhelming weight of federal authority with regard to the use of the identical Fed. R. Evid. 607 has long been that impeachment by prior inconsistent statement may not be permitted where employed as a mere subterfuge to get before the jury evidence not otherwise admissible.\u201d Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted; emphasis in original).\nThe Court in Hunt further noted that\n[i]t is the rare case in which a federal court has found that the introduction of hearsay statements by the state to impeach its own witness was not motivated primarily (or solely) by a desire to put the substance of that statement before the jury. Circumstances indicating good faith and the absence of subterfuge in these exceptional cases have included the facts that the witness\u2019s testimony was extensive and vital to the government\u2019s case; that the party calling the witness was genuinely surprised by his reversal; or that the trial court followed the introduction of the statement with an effective limiting instruction.\nId. at 350, 378 S.E.2d at 758 (citations omitted).\nOur Supreme Court went on to apply these indicia of \u201cgood faith and the absence of subterfuge\u201d to the facts in Hunt and ultimately found that the \u201ccircumstances accompanying the introduction of [the witness\u2019s] prior unsworn statement provide no assurance either that [the witness\u2019s] testimony was critical to the state\u2019s case or that it was introduced altogether in good faith and followed by effective limiting instructions.\u201d Id. at 351, 378 S.E.2d at 758-59.\nIn this case, Defendant argues that none of the circumstances indicating good faith were present with respect to the impeachment of Brown, such that the impeachment by prior inconsistent statements was impermissible. We disagree.\nThe most notable difference between this case and Hunt is the presence of an effective limiting instruction. In Hunt,\n[while] the trial court initially indicated that the jury was to consider [the witness\u2019s] prior unsworn statements for the limited purpose of later determining the officer\u2019s credibility, the court failed to include a subsequent similar warning either when the statements were read to and denied by [the witness] or when they were reiterated during the direct examination of the officer. Instructions regarding the statements during the final charge were no less ambiguous.\nMoreover, by the time the statements were actually introduced as exhibits, they were before the jury as substantive evidence, and all earlier apparent efforts to restrict their use to impeachment of [the witness] or corroboration of the officer\u2019s testimony were mooted by their substantive use.\nId. at 351-52, 378 S.E.2d at 759.\nIn this case, however, the introduction of Brown\u2019s prior statements was preceded by a limiting instruction explaining to the jury that \u201cthe Court is allowing these exhibits to be admitted for one purpose and for one purpose alone, and that purpose is what is known as impeachment of certain testimony of the witness, Dennis Brown.\u201d These instructions are sufficient for the jury to distinguish this evidence as impeachment evidence, rather than substantive evidence.\nFurther, unlike in Hunt where the witness\u2019s testimony \u201cconsisted entirely of responding to challenges to her credibility[,]\u201d in this case Brown\u2019s testimony was valuable to the State\u2019s case in that it described Brown\u2019s home and backyard in relation to the path through the woods leading to the shopping center where Defendant was spotted after the shooting, it laid the foundation for admission of Defendant\u2019s telephone calls from prison to Brown, and it corroborated other eyewitness testimony. Id. at 351, 378 S.E.2d at 758.\nFinally, the facts of this case do not indicate, as the facts in Hunt did, that \u201cthe state appeared to know before [the witness] was called to the stand that she would not cooperate by reiterating her prior statements.\u201d Id. In this case, while Brown\u2019s \u201clack of cooperation with the State and his failure to appear voluntarily until []after being served with a show-cause order\u201d certainly tend to show that Brown was reluctant to testify at Defendant\u2019s trial, there is nothing to indicate that the State knew Brown would refuse to testify to, or would testify inconsistently with, the matters contained in Brown\u2019s prior statement.\nBased on the foregoing, we conclude that the circumstances in this case indicate that the State called Brown to testify in good faith and not as a subterfuge to put Brown\u2019s out-of-court statements before the jury \u201cin the hope that the jury would miss the subtle distinction between impeachment and substantive evidence[.]\u201d Id. at 349-50, 378 S.E.2d at 758 (quoting United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1191, 1192 (7th Cir. 1984)). Defendant\u2019s argument is overruled.\nC. Violation of Rule 403\nFinally, Defendant argues that the redacted transcript of Brown\u2019s out-of-court statements should have been excluded under Rule 403 because any probative value of the statements was substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury. The State contends, however, that because Defendant failed to object to the introduction of Brown\u2019s prior statements at trial based on Rule 403, our review is limited to plain error.\nBased on this Court\u2019s review of the record, Defendant objected to the introduction of Brown\u2019s prior statements solely on the bases of improper use of extrinsic evidence and improper introduction of hearsay statements under the guise of impeachment.\nAs discussed supra, Defendant\u2019s objection based on the State\u2019s alleged improper introduction of the statements under the guise of impeachment implicates North Carolina Rule of Evidence 607, which provides that \u201c[t]he credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling him.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 607. This Court has noted that Rule 607 \u201ctoo easily camouflages a ruse whereby a party may call an unfriendly witness solely to justify the subsequent call of a second witness to testify about a prior inconsistent statement.\u201d State v. Bell, 87 N.C. App. 626, 633, 362 S.E.2d 288, 292 (1987) (emphasis in original). Because of the real danger that Rule 607 \u201cwould make fair game of almost any out-of-court statement ever made by any witness[,]\u201d id., including those statements that do not actually impeach the witness but only tend to confuse the jury or unfairly prejudice the defendant, our Courts have grafted onto Rule 607 the requirement that the \u201cimpeachment should only be allowed when \u2018[c]ircumstances indicating good faith and the absence of subterfuge\u2019 are present.\u201d State v. Lanier, 165 N.C. App. 337, 352, 598 S.E.2d 596, 606 (quoting Hunt, 324 N.C. at 350, 378 S.E.2d at 758) (brackets in original), disc. rev. denied, 359 N.C. 195, 608 S.E.2d 59 (2004). Further, this Court has noted that the Commentary to Rule 607 \u201ccautions that \u2018[t]he impeaching proof must be relevant within the meaning of Rule 401 and Rule 403 and must in fact be impeaching.\u2019 \u201d Bell, 87 N.C. App. at 633, 362 S.E.2d at 292 (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 607 (Commentary)) (brackets and emphasis in original).\nAccordingly, where a party seeks to impeach its own witness under Rule 607, that impeachment must not be a subterfuge to get hearsay statements in front of the jury and must be relevant within the meaning of Rule 403. Lanier, 165 N.C. App. at 352, 598 S.E.2d at 606; Bell, 87 N.C. App. at 633, 362 S.E.2d at 292. Therefore, we hold that Defendant\u2019s Rule 607 objection to the introduction of Brown\u2019s hearsay statements \u201cunder the guise of impeachment\u201d sufficiently implicated the application of Rule 403.\nAs for the substance of Defendant\u2019s objection, Defendant argues that the prejudicial effect of the statements far outweighed the State\u2019s need to attack Brown\u2019s credibility, such that the evidence should have been excluded. We disagree.\nThe State introduced the hearsay statements to impeach Brown\u2019s inconsistent testimony regarding the material matters of whether Brown saw Defendant with a gun and whether Brown called Defendant and asked Defendant to bring a weapon to Brown\u2019s house. Our Supreme Court has held that evidence tending to impeach material testimony has probative value. State v. Younger, 306 N.C. 692, 697, 295 S.E.2d 453, 456 (1982) (holding that a witness\u2019s \u201cprior statement . . ., which was inconsistent with her testimony at [trial], has a strong probative value, especially since it relates directly to her account of the incident and those events leading up to it\u201d).\nDefendant argues further that the hearsay statements were obviously prejudicial because they \u201csignificantly strengthened the [S]tate\u2019s proof that [Defendant] was the actual shooter or acted in concert with someone who was.\u201d Defendant\u2019s argument misapprehends the meaning of Rule 403. Evidence is not excluded under the Rule simply because it is probative of the offering party\u2019s case and is prejudicial to the opposing party\u2019s case. Rather, the evidence must be unfairly prejudicial. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 403 (2009); see also State v. Mercer, 317 N.C. 87, 95, 343 S.E.2d 885,890 (1986) (stating that \u201chighly probative evidence necessarily is prejudicial to the defendant^] otherwise it would not have such great probative value [,]\u201d and finding that Rule 403 requires exclusion only where the prejudicial effect is found to be undue).\nIn this case, any unfair prejudice from Brown\u2019s statements could only have come from the jury\u2019s improper consideration of the impeachment evidence as substantive evidence. As discussed supra, however, the trial court preceded the admission of the statements with an effective limiting instruction. Furthermore, although Defendant objected to the introduction of the statements, Defendant did not object to the instruction itself. Because the law presumes that the jury properly considered the statements only for their effect on Brown\u2019s credibility, any prejudice to Defendant\u2019s case cannot be deemed unfair. See State v. Miller, 197 N.C. App. 78, 93, 676 S.E.2d 546, 555 (stating that our Courts presume that jurors attend closely the particular language of the trial court\u2019s instructions in a criminal case and strive to understand, make sense of, and follow the instructions given them), disc. rev. denied, 363 N.C. 586, 683 S.E.2d 216 (2009). Therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting Brown\u2019s statements under Rule 403. Defendant\u2019s argument is overruled.\nDefendant received a fair trial, free of error.\nNO ERROR.\nJudges STEELMAN and HUNTER, JR. concur.\n. In the excerpt, P and H are police officers and B is Brown.", "type": "majority", "author": "STEPHENS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General H. Dean Bowman, for the State.", "Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Constance E. Widenhouse, for Defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAMIEN LANEL GABRIEL\nNo. COA09-1669\n(Filed 19 October 2010)\n1. Criminal Law\u2014 jury instructions \u2014 acting in concert \u2014 first-degree murder \u2014 assault with deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury\nThe trial court did not err in a first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury case by instructing the jury on acting in concert. It was undisputed that defendant was present at the scene and there was sufficient evidence that defendant and another individual were shooting at the victims pursuant to a common plan or purpose.\n2. Evidence\u2014 extrinsic evidence \u2014 impeachment\u2014not improper\nThe trial court did not err by admitting into evidence the transcript of a witness\u2019s out-of-court statements to the police to impeach his testimony. The witness\u2019s statements were material and his testimony was inconsistent in part with his prior statements.\n3. Evidence\u2014 transcript of out-of-court statements \u2014 impeachment \u2014 not as subterfuge for inadmissible hearsay\nThe trial court did not err by admitting into evidence the transcript of a witness\u2019s out-of-court statements to the police to impeach his testimony. The circumstances indicated that the State called the witness to testify in good faith and not as a subterfuge to put his otherwise inadmissible hearsay before the jury.\n4. Evidence\u2014 impeachment \u2014 probative value not outweighed by prejudicial effect\nThe trial court did not err by admitting into evidence the transcript of a witness\u2019s out-of-court statements to the police to impeach his testimony. The probative value of the transcripts was not substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.\nAppeal by Defendant from judgments entered 9 April 2009 by Judge Jesse B. Caldwell, III in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 August 2010.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General H. Dean Bowman, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Constance E. Widenhouse, for Defendant." }, "file_name": "0440-01", "first_page_order": 464, "last_page_order": 476 }