State v. Johnson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA13-792 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 21 January 2014 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Guilford County No. 11 CRS 85063 JOHN MARKEITH JOHNSON Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 12 December 2012 by Judge Steve A. Balog in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 December 2013. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special General E. Burke Haywood, for the State. Deputy Attorney M. Alexander Charns for defendant-appellant. HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge. Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon his conviction for assault inflicting serious bodily injury. We find no error. Evidence background. at trial establishes the following factual Joseph Carter, the victim, knew defendant because Mr. Carter dated Lisa Bethea, the grandmother of defendant s -2son, for approximately eight years. Mr. Carter described his relationship with defendant as friendly. In late July of 2011, Mr. Carter borrowed twenty dollars from defendant. He repaid defendant approximately a week and a half later. thirty dollars On 17 August 2011, Mr. Carter went to the home of Lisa Bethea s daughter, Tasha Bethea. Defendant arrived shortly thereafter. Defendant asked Mr. Carter for an additional twenty dollars, and Mr. Carter replied that he did not have it and did not owe defendant any more money. Defendant became angry, belligerent, and threatening, but Mr. Carter tried to ignore him. Mr. Carter left Tasha Bethea s house and walked to Lisa Bethea s house, approximately five minutes appeared a minutes and demanded Carter. The two spoke privately in a bedroom, and defendant few later away. to Defendant speak to Mr. told Mr. Carter that there would be consequences if he did not pay defendant. As Mr. Carter turned to leave, defendant struck him on the left side of his face. After Mr. Carter fell to the floor, he felt about three or four more blows about my face and head[.] Lisa Bethea then entered the room, got between defendant and Mr. Carter, and ordered defendant to leave her house. Mr. Carter went to the hospital and subsequently spoke -3to police about the incident. The parties entered a stipulation that Mr. Carter suffered serious bodily injury. Defendant later called Mr. Carter in an attempt to have him drop the charges. He said that it would be in everybody s interest if Mr. Carter dropped the charges, that he did not want to go to jail, and that he would pay Mr. Carter to say he was not the assailant. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Carter received a threatening text message from defendant. A few weeks before trial, defendant again told Mr. Carter to drop the charges and to make up a story about the assault. Lisa Bethea testified that she and Mr. Carter were friends, but were never romantically involved. Ms. Bethea stated that Mr. Carter was at her home on 17 August 2011, but denied that defendant was there. She denied having any knowledge of the assault. On assault 12 December inflicting sentenced 2012, serious defendant imprisonment. Defendant to an a jury found defendant bodily injury. The active term of the trial 17 guilty trial to 21 of court months Defendant appeals. solely argues that court erred by failing to intervene when the prosecutor characterized him as a loan shark during his closing argument. During closing -4argument, the prosecutor made the following statements, which defendant challenges on appeal: Clearly, Mr. Carter had no idea that he was dealing with a loan shark. Because that s essentially what a loan shark does. He gives you money and he threatens use of violence until he thinks you re done paying. And that s what happened in this case. . . . . Loan sharking, the use of threat to extract money. Part and parcel of the job title. Exactly what the defendant did. Defendant contends that [c]alling someone a loan shark is a slander that conjures up mob ties, and that the characterization was prejudicial because there was no evidence that defendant was involved with organized crime. In the instant case, defendant did not prosecutor s use of the term loan shark. review fail for to assessing provoke alleged timely improper objection to the The standard of closing from object arguments opposing that counsel is whether the remarks were so grossly improper that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to intervene ex mero motu. State v. Jones, 355 N.C. 117, 133, 558 S.E.2d 97, 107 (2002). In other words, the reviewing court must determine whether the argument in question strayed far enough from the parameters of propriety that the trial court, in order to -5protect the rights of the parties and the sanctity of proceedings, should have intervened on its own accord[.] the Id. We disagree that the prosecutor s comment rose to the level of extreme impropriety. evidence linking First, the record is devoid of any defendant to organized crime, prosecutor did not make any such suggestion. and the Second, a loan shark is defined as one who lends money to individuals at exorbitant rates of Dictionary p. 638 interest. Merriam-Webster s (10th ed. 1995). Collegiate This definition notably lacks any organized crime component, and as the State points out, defendant did in fact loan Mr. Carter money which repaid less than two weeks later with 50% interest. was Finally, even if the characterization was improper, it has little bearing on the offense for which defendant was being tried, inflicting serious bodily injury. assault The parties stipulated that Mr. Carter sustained serious bodily injury, and thus, the only issue at trial was whether defendant committed assault on Mr. Carter. The jury evidently believed Mr. Carter s version of the events and was not persuaded by Ms. Bethea. Based on our review of believing the record, we have a difficult time that the prosecutor s use of the term loan shark tipped the balance and -6prejudiced defendant. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court s failure to intervene ex mero motu. No error. Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge DILLON concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
