{ "id": 4132686, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOMRI JARELLE WILSON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wilson", "decision_date": "2013-02-05", "docket_number": "No. COA12-954", "first_page": "498", "last_page": "501", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "225 N.C. App. 498" } ], "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": "432 U.S. 98", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6177400 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "114" }, { "page": "154" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/432/0098-01" ] }, { "cite": "727 S.E.2d 351", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2012, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "357" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "562 S.E.2d 859", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "868" }, { "page": "869" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 N.C. 420", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 220022 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "432" }, { "page": "433" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/355/0420-01" ] }, { "cite": "322 S.E.2d 148", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "151" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 286", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4749024 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "290" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0286-01" ] }, { "cite": "682 S.E.2d 754", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "759" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "200 N.C. App. 74", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4171697 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "81" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/200/0074-01" ] }, { "cite": "568 S.E.2d 657", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "662" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "152 N.C. App. 564", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9250857 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "572" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/152/0564-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 378, "char_count": 6829, "ocr_confidence": 0.754, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.856319230494445e-08, "percentile": 0.30532127548748983 }, "sha256": "f4846236c1412253ce06de6447e21c945d51e525c01d6577c6d8460860aafa58", "simhash": "1:8f6975e2762ecdd1", "word_count": 1059 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:12:03.865649+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge CALABRIA concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOMRI JARELLE WILSON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McGEE, Judge.\nJomri Jarelle Wilson (Defendant) filed a motion on 5 December 2011 to suppress the identification of Defendant, based on violations of his due process rights and the Eyewitness Identification Reform Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-284.52. The trial court entered an order on 13 January 2012 denying Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress. A jury found Defendant guilty of larceny after breaking or entering on 13 January 2012. Defendant appeals.\nDefendant\u2019s first argument on appeal is that the trial court erred by failing \u201cto make findings of fact and conclusions on the record at the conclusion of the suppression hearing.\u201d We disagree.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-977(f), which governs procedures for motions to suppress, requires that the judge \u201cset forth in the record his findings of facts and conclusions of law.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-977(f) (2011). Defendant appears to contend that the trial court should make findings immediately after the suppression hearing. However, the statute does not require the trial court to do so. \u201cThe statute does not require that the findings be made in writing at the time of the ruling. Effective appellate review is not thwarted by the subsequent order.\u201d State v. Lippard, 152 N.C. App. 564, 572, 568 S.E.2d 657, 662 (2002). The trial court complied with N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-977(f), and did not err by entering its written order on 13 January 2012.\nDefendant\u2019s second argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial. A \u201ctrial court\u2019s decision concerning a motion for mistrial will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear showing that the trial court abused its discretion.\u201d State v. Horton, 200 N.C. App. 74, 81, 682 S.E.2d 754, 759 (2009). \u201cThe judge must declare a mistrial upon the defendant\u2019s motion if there occurs during the trial an error or legal defect in the proceedings . . . resulting in substantial and irreparable prejudice to the defendant\u2019s case.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1061 (2011).\nDefendant contends that the procedure was impermissibly suggestive because Defendant\u2019s photograph was smaller, officers failed to ensure the photograph resembled Defendant at the time of the offense, and officers failed to ensure the other photographs resembled the eyewitness\u2019s description.\nDefendant conflates two separate arguments. The failure to ensure that the photograph resembled Defendant and that the other photographs resembled the witness\u2019s description is relevant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-284.52, the Eyewitness Identification Reform Act. Remedies for statutory violations are specifically provided in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-284.52(d). In accordance with that subsection, the trial court in this case instructed the jury that it \u201cmay consider what evidence [it] find[s] to be credible concerning compliance or noncompliance with such requirements in determining the reliability of eyewitness identification.\u201d\nThe size of the photographs is relevant to a second argument, a due process challenge. Our Supreme Court held that \u201cidentification procedures which are so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of misidentification violate a defendant\u2019s right to due process.\u201d State v. Hannah, 312 N.C. 286, 290, 322 S.E.2d 148, 151 (1984). We employ a two-step analysis to review this type of challenge. First, we determine \u201cwhether an impermissibly suggestive procedure was used in obtaining the out-of-court identification.\u201d Id. The \u201ctest is whether the totality of the circumstances reveals a pretrial procedure so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identity as to offend fundamental standards of decency and justice.\u201d Id.\nIn challenges to photographic lineup identifications, our Supreme Court \u201chas considered pertinent aspects of the array, such as similarity of appearance of those in the array and any attribute of the array tending to focus the witness\u2019 attention on any particular person therein, as factors in determining whether the identification procedures are impermissibly suggestive.\u201d State v. Rogers, 355 N.C. 420, 432, 562 S.E.2d 859, 868 (2002).\nThe trial court found that the officer \u201cused fillers for the line-up of young black men with similar hair styles, height, weight and facial expressions. ... The photograph of [Defendant was smaller than the photographs of the five fillers.\u201d\nDefendant cites no case in support of the proposition that admission of an identification based on a smaller photograph is an error resulting in substantial and irreparable prejudice requiring mistrial, and our research reveals no such case. The size discrepancy was not impermissibly suggestive.\nBecause we have determined that the procedure was not impermissibly suggestive, our due process analysis ends here. State v. Stowes,__ N.C. App._,_, 727 S.E.2d 351, 357 (2012); Rogers, 355 N.C. at 433, 562 S.E.2d at 869. Therefore, we need not determine, under the second step in the due process review, whether the procedure created a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification by weighing the factors of the identification\u2019s reliability against the \u201ccorrupting effect of the suggestive identification itself\u2019 set out in Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114, 53 L. Ed. 2d. 140, 154 (1977).\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant\u2019s motion for a mistrial.\nNo error.\nChief Judge MARTIN and Judge CALABRIA concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "McGEE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General V. Lori Fuller, for the State.", "Heather L. Rattelade for Defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOMRI JARELLE WILSON\nNo. COA12-954\nFiled 5 February 2013\n1. Larceny \u2014 after breaking or entering-findings of fact\u2014 conclusions of law \u2014 immediately after conclusion of suppression hearing not required\nThe trial court did not err in a larceny after breaking or entering case by failing to make findings of fact and conclusions on the record immediately at the conclusion of the suppression hearing. The trial court complied with N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-977(f) and did not err by entering its written order.\n2. Identification of Defendants \u2014 motion for mistrial \u2014 smaller photograph of defendant \u2014 not impermissibly suggestive\u2014 due process\nThe trial court did not err in a larceny after breaking or entering case by denying defendant\u2019s motion for a mistrial. There was no case supporting the proposition that admission of an identification based on a smaller photograph was an error resulting in substantial and irreparable prejudice requiring mistrial. The size discrepancy was not impermissibly suggestive. Because the procedure was not impermissibly suggestive, the due process analysis ended.\nAppeal by Defendant from judgment entered 13 January 2012 by Judge Yvonne Mims Evans in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 January 2013.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General V. Lori Fuller, for the State.\nHeather L. Rattelade for Defendant." }, "file_name": "0498-01", "first_page_order": 508, "last_page_order": 511 }