{
  "id": 4131716,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NATHANIEL KENJIVO HATFIELD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hatfield",
  "decision_date": "2013-03-05",
  "docket_number": "No. COA 12-961",
  "first_page": "765",
  "last_page": "773",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "225 N.C. App. 765"
    }
  ],
  "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": "651 S.E.2d 867",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12639492
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "875",
          "parenthetical": "holding that the defendant's argument was waived when he failed to \"specifically and distinctly\" assign plain error to a trial court's ruling"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/651/0867-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "378 S.E.2d 237",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "241"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 N.C. App. 394",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8528058
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "401"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/93/0394-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "379 S.E.2d 696",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "698"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 N.C. App. 204",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526869
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "206"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/94/0204-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 S.E.2d 123",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "125",
          "parenthetical": "holding that the trial court's \"comment to the jury that the transcript was not available to them was an indication that he did not exercise his discretion\" and that such \"denial of the jury's request as a matter of law was error.\""
        },
        {
          "page": "125"
        },
        {
          "page": "125",
          "parenthetical": "holding that testimony from an alibi witness was material when the defendant's only defense was his alibi"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 N.C. 508",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568158
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "511",
          "parenthetical": "holding that the trial court's \"comment to the jury that the transcript was not available to them was an indication that he did not exercise his discretion\" and that such \"denial of the jury's request as a matter of law was error.\""
        },
        {
          "page": "511"
        },
        {
          "page": "511"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/301/0508-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "595 S.E.2d 176",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "187",
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks and citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "187",
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks and citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "164 N.C. App. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8895190
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "20",
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks and citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "20"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/164/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "484 S.E.2d 372",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "377",
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks and citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "377"
        },
        {
          "page": "377"
        },
        {
          "page": "377",
          "parenthetical": "holding the requested evidence was \"clearly material to the determination of [the] defendant's guilt or innocence\" because it \"was the only evidence directly linking defendant to the alleged crimes\""
        },
        {
          "page": "377"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "346 N.C. 119",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        139354
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "126",
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks and citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "126"
        },
        {
          "page": "126"
        },
        {
          "page": "126"
        },
        {
          "page": "126"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/346/0119-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "674 S.E.2d 696",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "700",
          "parenthetical": "internal citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "700"
        },
        {
          "page": "700",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "707",
          "parenthetical": "holding that when testimony of a victim and a defendant was \"contradicting,\" the trial court committed prejudicial error by refusing the jury's request to review the testimony"
        },
        {
          "page": "707",
          "parenthetical": "\"As we are granting defendant's request for a new trial, and the other issues he has raised may not be repeated in a new trial, we will not address his other assignments of error.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 N.C. App. 22",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4166890
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "28",
          "parenthetical": "internal citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "28"
        },
        {
          "page": "28"
        },
        {
          "page": "40-41"
        },
        {
          "page": "41"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/196/0022-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "517 S.E.2d 374",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 7,
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "378",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "375"
        },
        {
          "page": "377"
        },
        {
          "page": "378"
        },
        {
          "page": "379",
          "parenthetical": "\"[T]he trial court stated that it did not have the ability to present the transcript to the jury, indicating a failure to exercise discretion.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "350 N.C. 640",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        132055
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "646",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/350/0640-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "515 S.E.2d 885",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "899"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "350 N.C. 483",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        131924
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "506"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/350/0483-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "331 S.E.2d 652",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "659",
          "parenthetical": "\"[F]aUure of the trial court to comply with [this] statutory [mandate] entitles [Defendant to press [this] point[] on appeal, notwithstanding a failure to object at trial.\""
        },
        {
          "page": "656"
        },
        {
          "page": "656",
          "parenthetical": "holding that it was error for the trial court to respond to the jury's request simply by saying \"[t]here is no transcript at this point.\""
        },
        {
          "page": "658"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 N.C. 28",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4689817
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "40",
          "parenthetical": "\"[F]aUure of the trial court to comply with [this] statutory [mandate] entitles [Defendant to press [this] point[] on appeal, notwithstanding a failure to object at trial.\""
        },
        {
          "page": "34"
        },
        {
          "page": "35"
        },
        {
          "page": "38"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/314/0028-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "718 S.E.2d 362",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 6,
      "year": 2011,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "365",
          "parenthetical": "holding that the \"alleged error is preserved by law even when the defendant fails to object\""
        },
        {
          "page": "365"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks omitted and citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "366",
          "parenthetical": "holding that although the \"trial court is not required to state a reason for denying access to the transcript,\" it must at least say \" 'In the exercise of my discretion, I deny the request,' and instruct the jury to rely on its recollection of the trial testimony.''(citation omitted)"
        },
        {
          "page": "366",
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks and citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "366",
          "parenthetical": "holding that error is prejudicial if the defendant shows \" 'a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial out of which the appeal arises' \" (citation omitted)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "365 N.C. 314",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4154177
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 2011,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "317",
          "parenthetical": "holding that the \"alleged error is preserved by law even when the defendant fails to object\""
        },
        {
          "page": "318"
        },
        {
          "page": "319"
        },
        {
          "page": "319"
        },
        {
          "page": "319"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/365/0314-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "426 S.E.2d 692",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "697"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "333 N.C. 431",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2546948
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "440"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/333/0431-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 S.E.2d 375",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "378",
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks and citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 N.C. 655",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565416
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "660",
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks and citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/307/0655-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "467 S.E.2d 28",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "31",
          "parenthetical": "holding that courts will only \"review . . . unpreserved issues for plain error when they involve either (1) errors in the judge's instructions to the jury, or (2) rulings on the admissibility of evidence.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "342 N.C. 580",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        795978
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "584",
          "parenthetical": "holding that courts will only \"review . . . unpreserved issues for plain error when they involve either (1) errors in the judge's instructions to the jury, or (2) rulings on the admissibility of evidence.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/342/0580-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "361 N.C. 610",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3739107
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "622",
          "parenthetical": "holding that the defendant's argument was waived when he failed to \"specifically and distinctly\" assign plain error to a trial court's ruling"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/361/0610-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-33",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 2011,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(c)(2)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-34",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 2011,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 809,
    "char_count": 20473,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.733,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3557309711878955
    },
    "sha256": "14632f12885bdf8b68b409324c1b676661d3abc0cfbcb551dca84b7f6e385220",
    "simhash": "1:8be8d02a64268dd4",
    "word_count": 3405
  },
  "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 ERVIN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NATHANIEL KENJIVO HATFIELD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge.\nNathaniel Kenjivo Hatfield (\u201cDefendant\u201d) appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of: (i) two counts of assault by pointing a gun (N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-34 (2011)) and (ii) one count of assault on a female (N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-33(c)(2) (2011)). The trial court sentenced Defendant as a level II offender to: (i) a 75-day active sentence for assault on a female; and (ii) a 75-day suspended sentence with two years of supervised probation for the two assault by pointing a gun convictions. On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred by: (i) admitting testimony from Defendant\u2019s wife about Defendant\u2019s alleged threats to co-workers; (ii) admitting testimony from a police officer concerning whether Defendant was the aggressor; (iii) admitting testimony from Defendant\u2019s wife about the presence of unrelated martial arts weapons in Defendant\u2019s home; and (iv) refusing to exercise its discretion in considering the jury\u2019s request for a copy of Defendant\u2019s wife\u2019s testimony. Upon review, we vacate and remand for a new trial.\nI. Facts & Procedural History\nDefendant faced trial during the 4 April 2011 Criminal Session of Wake County Superior Court for: (i) two counts of assault by pointing a gun and (ii) one count of assault on a female. The State\u2019s evidence at trial tended to show the following facts.\nOn the night of 28 February 2010, Defendant and his wife, Elizabeth Hatfield (\u201cElizabeth\u201d), argued in their living room over whether to allow their children to watch a particular movie. After Elizabeth\u2019s four-week-old baby son fell sleep in her arms around 11:00 P.M, she took the baby upstairs to his crib. Elizabeth and Defendant then went to their bedroom to sleep.\nWhen they got into the bedroom, Elizabeth began putting pillow cases on the pillows. Defendant insisted he help, but Elizabeth said it was a one-person job. She suggested he eat and take his medication before bed. Defendant became angry with Elizabeth and told her to \u201cshut the hell up.\u201d He then grabbed Elizabeth by the ears and shook her head, causing Elizabeth\u2019s glasses to fall. When Defendant released her, he turned and punched a three-inch hole in the wall.\nAt that point, the baby had awakened. Elizabeth went into the baby\u2019s bedroom to soothe him back to sleep. Defendant followed Elizabeth into the baby\u2019s bedroom. He continued to yell at her and punched the baby\u2019s bedroom wall, leaving a dent. He also shook the baby\u2019s crib so violently Elizabeth thought it would break. Defendant then pulled out a black semi-automatic Beretta 9MM pistol, showed Elizabeth a bullet, and asked her if she thought the gun and the bullet were real. When she responded affirmatively, Defendant loaded the bullet into the gun\u2019s magazine. Defendant then alternated between pointing the gun at Elizabeth\u2019s head and the baby\u2019s head. During this display, Defendant said he wanted to leave Elizabeth and that he would rather see their children in heaven than with her.\nDefendant then grabbed Elizabeth by the throat and threw her on the bed. Defendant pinned down Elizabeth\u2019s arms and legs so she could not move. When he finally got up, Elizabeth immediately called 911. The police arrived at 1:00 A.M. on 1 March 2010. Officer Lindsay Wygonik (\u201cOfficer Wygonik\u201d), the first officer to arrive, investigated the scene and questioned both Defendant and Elizabeth. She then arrested Defendant for three offenses: (i) assault by pointing a gun at Elizabeth; (ii) assault by pointing a gun at the baby; and (iii) assault on a female for pinning Elizabeth down and shaking her head.\nDefendant\u2019s trial occurred during the 4 April 2011 Criminal Session of Wake County Superior Court. The State called Elizabeth and Officer Wygonik to testify. In addition to the facts discussed previously, Elizabeth testified Defendant had said \u201csome pretty nasty things\u201d about co-workers at IBM and that IBM \u201cended up filing a restraining order against him.\u201d Additionally, Elizabeth testified Defendant kept numerous martial arts weapons in their home.\nOfficer Wygonik then testified. On direct examination, the State asked Officer Wygonik why she charged Defendant with the three crimes. She replied that \u201cMr. Hatfield was the primary aggressor in the situation, and with what Mr. Hatfield told me in relation to the guns, in my four years of experience, [it is] very unusual for anyone to handle a firearm during an argument for any reason.\u201d Defendant did not object to this testimony.\nDefendant then took the stand and denied ever grabbing his wife, punching the walls, or pointing a gun at his wife or child. At the close of all the evidence, the trial court instructed the jury and sent it to deliberate. During deliberation, the jury asked to \u201chear a reading of Elizabeth\u2019s sworn testimony.\u201d In response, the trial judge told the jury:\nWe can\u2019t do that because we haven\u2019t done daily copy and so you have to rely on your best recollection among the 12 of you of what it was. To do daily copy is quite expensive and so you may have seen that on TV, but that\u2019s not how we do it.\nThe jury was then sent back to resume its deliberations.\nOn 6 April 2011, the jury returned a verdict finding Defendant guilty of all three- charges. Defendant was sentenced to: (i) an active sentence of 75 days imprisonment for assault on a female and (ii) a suspended sentence of 75 days with supervised probation for two years for the two convictions for assault by pointing a gun. On 14 April 2011, Defendant filed timely notice of appeal.\nII. Jurisdiction & Standard of Review\nThis Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant case pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-27(b) (2011) and \u00a7 15A-1444(a) (2011) (\u201cA defendant who has entered a plea of not guilty to a criminal charge, and who has been found guilty of a crime, is entitled to appeal as a matter of right when final judgment has been entered.\u201d).\nDefendant\u2019s arguments regarding (i) the admission of Elizabeth\u2019s testimony about his threats to IBM; (ii) the admission of Elizabeth\u2019s testimony about other martial arts weapons in the house; and (iii) the admission of Officer Wygonik\u2019s testimony that Defendant was the first aggressor were not preserved at trial and thus are only reviewable for plain error. See N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(4) (\u201c[A]n issue that was not preserved by objection ... at trial and . . . not deemed preserved by rule or law without any such action nevertheless may be made the basis of an issue presented on appeal when the judicial action questioned is specifically and distinctly contended to amount to plain error.\u201d); see also State v. Goss, 361 N.C. 610, 622, 651 S.E.2d 867, 875 (2007) (holding that the defendant\u2019s argument was waived when he failed to \u201cspecifically and distinctly\u201d assign plain error to a trial court\u2019s ruling); State v. Gregory, 342 N.C. 580, 584, 467 S.E.2d 28, 31 (1996) (holding that courts will only \u201creview . . . unpreserved issues for plain error when they involve either (1) errors in the judge\u2019s instructions to the jury, or (2) rulings on the admissibility of evidence.\u201d).\nPlain error arises when an error is \u201cso basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done.\u201d State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660, 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983) (quotation marks and citation omitted). To prevail under plain error review, a \u201cdefendant must convince this Court not only that there was error, but that absent the error, the jury probably would have reached a different result.\u201d State v. Jordan, 333 N.C. 431, 440, 426 S.E.2d 692, 697 (1993).\nDefendant\u2019s argument regarding the jury\u2019s request for Elizabeth\u2019s testimony is reviewable even though Defendant did not object at trial. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1233(a) (2011); State v. Starr, 365 N.C. 314, 317, 718 S.E.2d 362, 365 (2011) (holding that the \u201calleged error is preserved by law even when the defendant fails to object\u201d); State v. Ashe, 314 N.C. 28, 40, 331 S.E.2d 652, 659 (1985) (\u201c[F]aUure of the trial court to comply with [this] statutory [mandate] entitles [Defendant to press [this] point[] on appeal, notwithstanding a failure to object at trial.\u201d). Still, Defendant must \u201cdemonstrate that there is a reasonable possibility that a different result would have been reached had the trial court\u2019s error not occurred.\u201d State v. Nobles, 350 N.C. 483, 506, 515 S.E.2d 885, 899 (1999).\nIII. Analysis\nOn appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred by: (i) admitting Elizabeth\u2019s testimony about Defendant\u2019s alleged threats to co-workers; (ii) admitting Officer Wygonik\u2019s testimony that Defendant was the aggressor; (iii) admitting Elizabeth\u2019s testimony about the presence of unrelated martial arts weapons found in Defendant\u2019s home; and (iv) failing to exercise its discretion when the jury asked to review Elizabeth\u2019s testimony. Because we vacate the trial court\u2019s judgment and remand for new trial based on Defendant\u2019s fourth argument, we address that issue first.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1233(a) provides:\nIf the jury after retiring for deliberation requests a review of certain testimony or other evidence, the jurors must be conducted to the courtroom. The judge in his discretion, after notice to the prosecutor and defendant, may direct that requested parts of the testimony be read to the jury and may permit the jury to reexamine in open court the requested materials admitted into evidence. In his discretion the judge may also have the jury review other evidence relating to the same factual issue so as not to give undue prominence to the evidence requested. .\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1233(a) (2011). Therefore, the statute:\nimposes two duties upon the trial court when it receives a request from the jury to review evidence. First, the court must conduct all jurors to the courtroom. Second, the trial court must exercise its discretion in determining whether to permit requested evidence to be read to or examined by the jury.\nAshe, 314 N.C. at 34, 331 S.E.2d at 656. In sum, the \u201cissue is whether the trial court exercised its discretion as required by [the statute].\u201d State v. Barrow, 350 N.C. 640, 646, 517 S.E.2d 374, 378 (1999) (citations omitted).\nThe test to determine whether a defendant should receive a new trial due to the trial court\u2019s failure to exercise discretion has two parts. First, we \u201cmust consider if the trial court failed to exercise its discretion. If the trial court did indeed fail to exercise its discretion, this would constitute error.\u201d State v. Long, 196 N.C. App. 22, 28, 674 S.E.2d 696, 700 (2009) (internal citation omitted). Our Supreme Court has held that \u201c[w]hen the trial court gives no reason for a ruling that must be discretionary,\u201d the reviewing court will presume \u201cthat the court exercised its discretion.\u201d Starr, 365 N.C. at 318, 718 S.E.2d at 365. But, \u201cwhere the statements of the trial court show that the trial court did not exercise discretion,\u201d the \u201cpresumption is overcome, and the denial is deemed erroneous.\u201d Id. (quotation marks omitted and citation omitted).\nSecond, we must \u201cconsider whether this error was prejudicial.\u201d Long, 196 N.C. App. at 28, 674 S.E.2d at 700. The error is prejudicial if the testimony was \u201cmaterial to the determination of [the] defendant\u2019s guilt or innocence.\u201d State v. Johnson, 346 N.C. 119, 126, 484 S.E.2d 372, 377 (1997) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Testimony is material if \u201cthe defendant can show that (1) such testimony or evidence involved issues of some confusion and contradiction, and (2) it is likely that a jury would want to review such testimony.\u201d State v. Johnson, 164 N.C. App. 1, 20, 595 S.E.2d 176, 187 (2004) (quotation marks and citation omitted). If the defendant satisfies this requirement, we will determine the error was prejudicial because there exists \u201ca reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial out of which the appeal arises.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1443(a) (2011).\nIn the present case, Defendant argues: (i) the trial court failed to exercise its discretion regarding the jury\u2019s request to review Elizabeth\u2019s testimony, and (ii) this error was prejudicial. We agree.\nA. Failure to Exercise Discretion\nHere, the trial court failed to exercise its discretion in considering the jury\u2019s request.\nA similar situation was addressed by our Supreme Court in Barrow, 350 N.C. 640, 517 S.E.2d 374. In Barrow, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. Id. at 641, 517 S.E.2d at 375. On appeal, he contended the trial court erred by \u201cfailing to affirmatively exercise its discretion\u201d under section 15A-1233(a) when responding to the jury\u2019s request to review testimony. Id. at 645, 517 S.E.2d at 377. There, the trial court said it \u201cdoesn\u2019t have the ability to now present to you the transcription of what was said during the course of the trial.\u201d Id. at 647, 517 S.E.2d at 378.\nIn Barrow, our Supreme Court held the statement \u201csuggests a failure to exercise discretion\u201d and the \u201cresponse could be interpreted as a statement that the trial court did not believe that it had the discretion to consider the jury\u2019s request.\u201d Id. The Barrow court distinguished that case from others where the trial court had actually exercised its discretion to refuse the jury\u2019s request. See id. at 647-48, 517 S.E.2d at 379 (\u201c[T]he trial court stated that it did not have the ability to present the transcript to the jury, indicating a failure to exercise discretion.\u201d); Ashe, 314 N.C. at 35, 331 S.E.2d at 656 (holding that it was error for the trial court to respond to the jury\u2019s request simply by saying \u201c[t]here is no transcript at this point.\u201d); State v. Lang, 301 N.C. 508, 511, 272 S.E.2d 123, 125 (1980) (holding that the trial court\u2019s \u201ccomment to the jury that the transcript was not available to them was an indication that he did not exercise his discretion\u201d and that such \u201cdenial of the jury\u2019s request as a matter of law was error.\u201d).\nThe instant case is closely analogous to Barrow, Ashe and Lang. Here, after the jury requested Elizabeth\u2019s testimony, the trial court simply told the jury \u201c[w]e can\u2019t do that.\u201d Like in Barrow, Ashe and Lang, this statement; suggests the trial court did not have discretion to grant the jury\u2019s request. However, even if no written transcript was available, the trial court still had the discretion to allow the jury to rehear the testimony. See, e.g., Ashe, 314 N.C. at 35 n.6, 331 S.E.2d at 657 n.6 (\u201cThe existence of a transcript is .. . not a prerequisite to permitting review of testimony. The usual method ... is to let the court reporter read to the jury his or her notes under the supervision of the trial court. . .\u201d).\nConsequently, we hold the trial court erred by failing to exercise its discretion as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1233(a). Although we do not decide whether the trial court should have granted the jury\u2019s request, the trial court must clearly exercise its discretion. See Starr, 365 N.C. at 319, 718 S.E.2d at 366 (holding that although the \u201ctrial court is not required to state a reason for denying access to the transcript,\u201d it must at least say \u201c \u2018In the exercise of my discretion, I deny the request,\u2019 and instruct the jury to rely on its recollection of the trial testimony.\u2019\u2019(citation omitted)).\nB. Prejudicial Error\nHaving concluded the trial court erred, we now consider whether this error was prejudicial. See Long, 196 N.C. App. at 28, 674 S.E.2d at 700 (citation omitted).\nError is prejudicial if it involves testimony that is \u201cmaterial to the determination of [the] defendant\u2019s guilt or innocence.\u201d Starr, 365 N.C. at 319, 718 S.E.2d at 366 (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Johnson, 346 N.C. at 126, 484 S.E.2d at 377; Ashe, 314 N.C. at 38, 331 S.E.2d at 658; Lang, 301 N.C. at 511, 272 S.E.2d at 125; State v. Hanible, 94 N.C. App. 204, 206, 379 S.E.2d 696, 698 (1989); State v. Helms, 93 N.C. App. 394, 401, 378 S.E.2d 237, 241 (1989). Testimony is material if \u201cthe defendant can show that (1) such testimony or evidence involved issues of some confusion and contradiction, and (2) it is likely that a jury would want to review such testimony.\u201d Johnson, 164 N.C. App. at 20, 595 S.E.2d at 187 (quotation marks and citation omitted). See also Starr, 365 N.C. at 319, 718 S.E.2d at 366 (holding that error is prejudicial if the defendant shows \u201c \u2018a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial out of which the appeal arises\u2019 \u201d (citation omitted)). Our Supreme Court has previously held that a jury is likely to want to review testimony that is \u201cthe only evidence directly linking defendant to the alleged crimes.\u201d Johnson, 346 N.C. at 126, 484 S.E.2d at 377.\nHere, Defendant directly contradicted Elizabeth\u2019s testimony at trial. Specifically, Defendant testified he never grabbed his wife, punched the walls, or pointed a gun at his wife and baby. Therefore, Elizabeth\u2019s testimony satisfies the first prong of the Johnson test. See Long, 196 N.C. App. at 40-41, 674 S.E.2d at 707 (holding that when testimony of a victim and a defendant was \u201ccontradicting,\u201d the trial court committed prejudicial error by refusing the jury\u2019s request to review the testimony).\nFurthermore, it is likely the jury would have wanted to review Elizabeth\u2019s testimony because Elizabeth was the only eyewitness to Defendant\u2019s alleged crimes. See, e.g., Johnson, 346 N.C. at 126, 484 S.E.2d at 377 (holding the requested evidence was \u201cclearly material to the determination of [the] defendant\u2019s guilt or innocence\u201d because it \u201cwas the only evidence directly linking defendant to the alleged crimes\u201d) (quotation marks and citation omitted); Lang, 301 N.C. at 511, 272 S.E.2d at 125 (holding that testimony from an alibi witness was material when the defendant\u2019s only defense was his alibi). Thus, Elizabeth\u2019s testimony was material to the determination of Defendant\u2019s guilt or innocence because it was the \u201conly evidence directly linking [Defendant to the alleged crimes.\u201d See Johnson, 346 N.C. at 126, 484 S.E.2d at 377.\nTherefore, we hold the trial court\u2019s failure to exercise its discretion under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1233(a) was prejudicial. First, Defendant directly contradicted Elizabeth\u2019s testimony at trial. Second, Elizabeth was the only eyewitness to his alleged crimes. Consequently, we vacate the trial court\u2019s judgment and remand for new trial. As we vacate and remand based on Defendant\u2019s fourth argument, we need not address his other arguments. See Long, 196 N.C. App. at 41, 674 S.E.2d at 707 (\u201cAs we are granting defendant\u2019s request for a new trial, and the other issues he has raised may not be repeated in a new trial, we will not address his other assignments of error.\u201d).\nIV. Conclusion\nWe conclude the trial court erred by failing to exercise its discretion in responding to the jury\u2019s request for Elizabeth\u2019s testimony. Moreover, this error was prejudicial because the testimony was material to the determination of Defendant\u2019s guilt or innocence. Therefore, we vacate the trial court\u2019s judgment and remand for new trial.\nNEW TRIAL.\nChief Judge MARTIN and Judge ERVIN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Kimberly A. D Arruda, for the State.",
      "Irving Joyner for Defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NATHANIEL KENJIVO HATFIELD\nNo. COA 12-961\nFiled 5 March 2013\n1. Appeal and Error \u2014 jury request to review testimony\u2014 no objection at trial \u2014 plain error review\nDefendant\u2019s argument regarding the jury\u2019s request to review certain testimony was reviewable for plain error even though defendant did not object at trial.\n2. Criminal Law \u2014 jury request to review testimony \u2014 failure to exercise discretion\nThe trial court erred in a prosecution arising from an assault on defendant\u2019s wife by failing to exercise its discretion as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1233(a) when the jury asked to review the testimony of the wife. Even if no written transcript was available, the trial court still had the discretion to allow the jury to rehear the testimony.\n3. Criminal Law \u2014 jury request to review instructions \u2014 failure to exercise discretion \u2014 prejudicial\nThe trial court\u2019s failure to exercise its discretion in response to a jury request to review testimony in a prosecution of an assault on defendant\u2019s wife was prejudicial.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 6 April 2011 by Judge Abraham Penn Jones in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 December 2012.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Kimberly A. D Arruda, for the State.\nIrving Joyner for Defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0765-01",
  "first_page_order": 775,
  "last_page_order": 783
}