State v. Smith
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA14-384 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 4 November 2014 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Craven County Nos. 11 CRS 54777, 13 CRS 132 HAROLD DEAN SMITH, JR. Appeal by the State by writ of certiorari from order entered 20 March 2013 by Judge Benjamin G. Alford in Craven County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 September 2014. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Teresa M. Postell, for the State-appellant. Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defenders Charlesena Elliott Walker and Katherine Jane Allen, for defendant-appellee. CALABRIA, Judge. The State appeals by writ of certiorari an order granting Harold Dean prosecuting Smith Jr.’s witness’s (“defendant”) psychiatric and motion to obtain psychological the medical records, requiring the State to interview and obtain a sworn statement from health history. the -2prosecuting witness regarding her mental We reverse. On 13 November 2011, defendant and his girlfriend Angela Quinn (“Ms. Quinn”) argued at a home where they resided together in New Bern, North Carolina. During the argument, defendant allegedly set some bedding on fire. Both defendant and Ms. Quinn were able to exit the residence before the fire spread to other parts of the house. charged, and indicted Defendant was subsequently arrested, for first degree arson and malicious burning of personal property. In May 2012 and again in February 2013, defendant filed pretrial motions for voluntary discovery, to which the State timely responded. On 11 March 2013, defendant filed a pretrial “motion for disclosure of pyschiatric[sic]/psychological medical records of prosecution witness.” In this motion, defendant alleged that Ms. Quinn, a witness for the prosecution and the only witness defendant that to she the had alleged crimes, participated treatment at Cherry Hospital. in had previously inpatient told psychiatric In addition, defendant believed “[Ms. Quinn] was admitted . . . for psychiatric treatment after the events that [gave] rise” to defendant’s charged offenses. Defendant also alleged, inter alia, that “[b]ecause the mental health and/or illness/defects of a witness is grounds for cross- examination, the Defendant -3would be prejudiced in his opportunity for effective confrontation and cross-examination if he were not allowed access to the mental health records of the complaining motion. witness[.]” The trial court granted defendant’s On 20 March 2013, the trial court ordered the district attorney to, inter alia, “interview the Prosecuting Witness [Ms. Quinn] to determine the names dates, [sic] and locations of all voluntary and involuntary commitments over the past ten (10) years[,]” and to provide defense to enable Ms. Quinn’s defendant’s sworn statement to the counsel to “draw Order(s) directing all records be mailed to” the court for in camera inspection and disclose to defendant’s counsel any favorable and material evidence. On 25 March 2013, the State filed a motion for a temporary stay, a certiorari petition with for this writ Court. of supersedeas This Court and denied a the writ of State’s petition for certiorari and dismissed the petitions for writ of supersedeas and temporary stay on 30 April 2013. On 3 May 2013, the State filed an application for a temporary stay, a petition for writ of supersedeas, and a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of North Carolina. the Supreme Court of North Carolina On 20 December 2013, allowed the State’s application for temporary stay and writ of supersedeas. The -4Supreme Court also allowed the State’s petition for writ of certiorari for the limited purpose of remanding to this Court for review of the trial court’s order following full briefing by the parties. On appeal, the State argues that the trial court erred in ordering the State to interview Ms. Quinn and have her provide a sworn statement Specifically, the regarding State information regarding possession, and her contends Ms. ordering mental that Quinn’s such an it health does mental interview not treatment. have any in its health amounts to an investigation to locate evidence favorable to the defendant. We agree. Generally, “a criminal defendant is entitled to potentially exculpatory evidence[.]” State v. Lynn, 157 N.C. App. 217, 220, 578 S.E.2d 628, 631 (2003). “[S]uppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 10 L.Ed.2d 215, 218 (1963). The State’s duty to disclose “encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence.” State v. Holadia, 149 N.C. App. 248, 256, 561 S.E.2d 514, 520 (2002) (citing United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676, 87 L.Ed.2d -5481, 490 (1985)). [I]mpeachment evidence may include evidence that a witness suffers from a serious psychiatric or mental illness. The rationale behind allowing impeachment by evidence of prior treatment for psychiatric problems is that although “instances of . . . mental instability are not directly probative of truthfulness, they may bear upon credibility in other ways, such as to cast doubt upon the capacity of a witness to observe, recollect, and recount[.]” Lynn, 157 N.C. App. at 220-21, 578 S.E.2d at 631 (quoting State v. Williams, 330 N.C. 711, 719, 412 S.E.2d 359, 364 (1992)). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-903 provides, in pertinent part, that upon a defendant’s motion, the court must order: (1) The State to make available to the defendant the complete files of all law enforcement agencies, investigatory agencies, and prosecutors’ offices involved in the investigation of the crimes committed or the prosecution of the defendant. a. The term “file” includes the defendant’s statements, the codefendants’ statements, witness statements, investigating officers’ notes, results of tests and examinations, or any other matter or evidence obtained during the investigation of the offenses alleged to have been committed by the defendant. When any matter or evidence is submitted for testing or examination, in addition to any test or examination results, all other data, calculations, or writings of any kind shall be made available to the defendant, including, but not limited to, preliminary test or screening results and bench notes. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-903(a) (2013). “The State, however, is -6under a duty to disclose only those matters in its possession and is not required to conduct an independent investigation to locate evidence favorable to a defendant.” ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 758 S.E.2d 47, 52 internal quotations omitted). interpreted the provisions production by the State of State v. Foushee, (2014) (citation and “[W]e note that this Court has of Section 15A-903 to require already existing documents. The statute imposes no duty on the State to create or continue to develop additional documentation regarding an investigation.” State v. Dorman, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 737 S.E.2d 452, 471 (2013) (citation omitted). The State relies, the in State part, is Lynn to additional investigation defendant. In Lynn, the defendant shot his girlfriend’s husband evidence several times while the husband slept. 578 S.E.2d at 630. to its that locate required support contention to not on conduct favorable to an a 157 N.C. App. at 218, The defendant was arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. Id. The defendant made an unsuccessful pretrial motion requesting the trial court to “order the State to conduct an inquiry to determine who, if anyone, had previously treated [the defendant’s girlfriend] for emotional or psychological -7Id. at 219, 578 S.E.2d at 631. problems.” This Court found that the defendant failed to allege that information about the girlfriend’s mental health was either in the State’s possession or in the possession of persons acting on the State’s behalf, and the denial of the defendant’s motion did not prevent him from exploring the issue at trial. 632. Id. at 222, 578 S.E.2d at Therefore, “the trial court did not err by denying [the] defendant’s pretrial motion to require the State to investigate in order to learn the identities of any mental health professionals with whom [the girlfriend] had previously sought treatment.” In Id. at 223, 578 S.E.2d at 633. the requested an instant case, in order from the his pretrial trial court motion, defendant “commanding the prosecution to inquire of the complaining witness . . . as to the identities and contact information of any and all mental health and medical professionals and requiring the disclosure of any and all mental health and related medical records of the complaining witness . . . to the defense[.]” In the alternative, defendant requested that the trial court conduct an in camera inspection of Ms. Quinn’s mental health and related medical records and disclose to the defense any favorable and material evidence. Defendant did not allege that the requested information was in the State’s possession, nor did he allege -8that it was in the possession of anyone acting on behalf of the State. On appeal, defendant acknowledges that the request presented in his motion is substantially similar to the pretrial motion in Lynn, and concedes that he is unable to distinguish his motion in any meaningful way from the motion in Lynn. Although the trial court specifically found that the district attorney did not have the records of Ms. Quinn’s mental health treatment in her possession, and had only learned of Ms. Quinn’s mental health pretrial motion, However, the the State treatment trial “is court under a after defendant granted duty filed defendant’s to disclose his motion. only those matters in its possession and is not required to conduct an independent defendant.” investigation to locate evidence favorable to a Foushee, ___ N.C. App. at ___, 758 S.E.2d at 52 (citation and internal quotations omitted). Therefore, since the health State did not have Ms. Quinn’s mental treatment records in its possession, nor did it have any notice that Ms. Quinn had participated in mental health treatment until after defendant had filed his pretrial motion, we hold that the State does not have a duty “to create or continue to develop additional documentation regarding an investigation[,]” Dorman, ___ N.C. App. at ___, 737 S.E.2d at 471, and the denial of defendant’s motion will not prevent him from exploring the issue at trial. -9Lynn, 157 N.C. App. at 222, 578 S.E.2d at 632. therefore reverse the trial court’s order. Reversed. Judges ELMORE and STEPHENS concur. Report per Rule 30(e). We
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.
