State v. Andrews
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA14-544 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 16 December 2014 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Forsyth County No. 12 CRS 60457 DARIAN DENARD ANDREWS, JR. Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 18 July 2013 by Judge Edwin G. Wilson in Forsyth County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 November 2014. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Deborah M. Greene, for the State. James W. Carter for defendant-appellant. ELMORE, Judge. Defendant Darian Denard Andrews, Jr. appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon and two counts of resisting a public officer. We find no prejudicial error at trial. On 22 April 2013, defendant was indicted by a Forsyth County grand jury for one count of robbery with a dangerous weapon and two counts of resisting a public officer. The case -2came on Forsyth for trial County at the Superior 15 Court July 2013 before Criminal Judge Session Edwin G. of Wilson. Once the jury pool was seated in the courtroom, Judge Wilson announced the case and asked defendant to around, and face the members of the jury.” “stand up, turn Judge Wilson then identified defense counsel, the prosecutor, the alleged robbery victim, Jonathan Zackoff, and the two officers alleged to be victims in the resisting a public officer cases. Subsequently, a jury found defendant guilty of all charges and the trial court sentenced defendant to 72-99 months imprisonment. Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court. Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is the trial court impermissibly expressed its opinion by introducing defendant to the jury and identifying defendant as “the defendant.” Defendant contends the trial court violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1222 (2013) which states “[t]he judge may not express during any stage of the trial, any opinion in the presence of the jury on any question of fact to be decided by the jury[;]” and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1232 (2013) which states that “[i]n instructing the jury, the judge shall not express an opinion as to whether or not a fact has been proved and shall not be required to state, summarize or recapitulate the evidence, or to explain the -3application of the law to the evidence.” is Defendant’s argument without merit. Prior to selection of jurors, the judge must identify the parties and their counsel and briefly inform the prospective jurors, as to each defendant, of the charge, the date of the alleged offense, the name of any victim alleged in the pleading, the defendant’s plea to the charge, and any affirmative defense of which the defendant has given pretrial notice as required by Article 52, Motions Practice. The judge may not read the pleadings to the jury. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1213 (2013). In this case, the trial court did not express its opinion by identifying defendant as “the defendant.” The trial judge complied with his obligation pursuant to section 15A-1213 to inform the prospective jurors about the case, which includes an obligation to identify the parties. Moreover, our Supreme defendant’s argument. Court has previously rejected In State v. Brown, 306 N.C. 151, 175, 293 S.E.2d 569, 584-85, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1080, 74 L. Ed. 2d 642, (1982), the defendant argued that “the trial court impermissibly expressed its opinion by refusing to grant the defendant’s request that he be referred to by his name and not as ‘the “unable defendant.’” to imagine Our the Supreme slightest Court stated prejudice that it was resulting to -4defendant from the historical practice in our trial courts of referring to the defendant as ‘the defendant.’” S.E.2d at 585. Id. at 175, 293 Likewise, in this case, we discern no prejudice to defendant. No error. Judges STEELMAN and 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.
