State v. Baker
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA14-260 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 17 February 2015 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Davidson County Nos. 10 CRS 4180; 55741 PHILLIP SCOTT BAKER Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 6 September 2013 by Judge W. David Lee in Davidson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 September 2014. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special General I. Faison Hicks, for the State. Deputy Attorney Jarvis John Edgerton, IV, for defendant-appellant. CALABRIA, Judge. Phillip Scott Baker (“defendant”) appeals from a judgment entered upon jury verdicts finding him guilty of first degree murder and robbery with a dangerous weapon. We find no error. On 31 July 2010, Chad Newsome (“Newsome”) and Gary Wilson (“Wilson”) travelled together to an abandoned home located at 117 Dacotah Street in Lexington, North Carolina, in order to -2purchase drugs from LeCourtney Murphy (“Murphy”). When they arrived at the house, they were met by defendant, who indicated that only Newsome was permitted to enter the house. Newsome agreed and went into the house with defendant to conduct the transaction while Wilson waited outside. A few minutes later, Wilson heard gunshots from inside the house. obtain assistance from a nearby home. Wilson ran to While Wilson was away, Newsome drove himself to a nearby hospital, where he died from complications resulting from two gunshot wounds to the chest. Officer Christopher Giordano (“Officer Giordano”) of the Lexington Police Department (“LPD”) arrived at the scene and determined from a witness that the shooting had occurred at the house at 117 Dacotah Street. Officer Giordano and two other LPD officers location then entered unoccupied. Officer witnesses the in that Giordano area. He and began quickly to came determined search into it was for any contact with Wilson, who told Giordano that he had come to 117 Dacotah Street with Newsome and then fled when he heard gunshots. Giordano reentered the house and discovered, inter Officer alia, scattered currency, an empty handgun magazine and shells, an empty black bag, and blood. On 2 August 2010, Daquon Littles (“Littles”), who lived one -3block away from the abandoned home, provided a statement to law enforcement. According to the statement, on the day of the shooting, Littles saw defendant and Murphy arrive together in front of his apartment. bag. Defendant walked off, carrying a black Murphy spoke briefly with Littles and then left. Murphy was subsequently arrested and charged with robbery and first degree murder in connection with Newsome’s death. He then provided law enforcement with a statement implicating defendant as the shooter. According to Murphy’s statement, he had been contacted by Newsome on 31 July 2010, regarding the purchase of a pound of marijuana. marijuana in that However, he did not personally possess quantity, and as a result, defendant seeking to supplement his supply. he contacted When both Murphy and defendant pooled their marijuana supply together, the amount was still less than one pound. Defendant then suggested that they rob Newsome instead. According to Murphy, defendant had placed a gun in Murphy’s black bag, which he then took to meet with Newsome. Sometime later, defendant came running back to Murphy and told him to drive away. Defendant had blood on his clothing. During their escape, defendant confessed to Murphy that he had shot Newsome twice during a struggle in the abandoned home. -4Defendant was arrested and indicted for first degree murder and robbery with a dangerous weapon. On 26 August 2013, defendant was tried by a jury in Davidson County Superior Court. At the close of the State’s evidence, defendant made a motion to dismiss, which was denied. evidence. Defendant then presented his own Defendant did not renew his motion to dismiss at the close of his own evidence or at the close of all the evidence. On 6 September 2013, the jury returned verdicts finding defendant guilty dangerous weapon. robbery with a of first degree murder and robbery with a The trial court arrested judgment on the dangerous weapon conviction and sentenced defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the first degree murder conviction. Defendant appeals. Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss because the State failed to present substantial evidence that individual who robbed and shot Newsome. defendant was the We disagree. As an initial matter, we note that both parties agree that defendant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. Pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 10(a)(3) (2013), when a defendant makes a motion to dismiss after the State has presented all its evidence and has rested its case and that -5motion is denied and the defendant then introduces evidence, defendant’s motion for dismissal or judgment in case of nonsuit made at the close of State’s evidence is waived. Such a waiver precludes the defendant from urging the denial of such motion as a ground for appeal. This is precisely the scenario that occurred in the instant case. While defendant moved to dismiss the charges against him at the close of the State’s case, he failed to renew this motion after he presented his own evidence. appellate review of this issue. Nonetheless, defendant As a result, he has waived See id. requests that this Court invoke N.C.R. App. P. 2 (2013), which permits our appellate courts to suspend the appellate rules in order to “prevent manifest injustice to a party,” so that we can address the merits of his argument. “The Supreme Court and this Court have regularly invoked N.C.R. App. P. 2 in order to address challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction.” State v. Gayton-Barbosa, 197 N.C. App. 129, 134, 676 S.E.2d 586, 590 (2009). After careful consideration, we likewise invoke our authority under N.C.R. App. P. 2 to review defendant’s argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence in this case. “‘Upon defendant’s motion for dismissal, the question for the Court is whether there is substantial evidence (1) of each -6essential element of the offense charged, or of a lesser offense included therein, and (2) of defendant’s being the perpetrator of such offense. If so, the motion is properly denied.’” State v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373, 378, 526 S.E.2d 451, 455 (2000) (quoting State v. Barnes, 334 N.C. 67, 75, 430 S.E.2d 914, 918 (1993)). “This Court reviews the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss de novo.” State v. Smith, 186 N.C. App. 57, 62, 650 S.E.2d 29, 33 (2007). In the instant case, defendant challenges whether the State presented sufficient evidence that he was the perpetrator of the robbery and murder. Defendant contends that the State’s case against primarily him relied on defendant’s extrajudicial confession to Murphy, and that this alleged confession was not supported by corroborating evidence. It is well established Defendant is mistaken. that “a naked extrajudicial confession, uncorroborated by other evidence, is not sufficient to support produce a criminal corroborative conviction. evidence, The State independent must of at least defendant’s confession, which tends to prove the commission of the charged crime.” State v. Ash, 193 N.C. App. 569, 574, 668 S.E.2d 65, 69 (2008) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “Under the corpus delicti rule, the State may not rely solely on the -7extrajudicial confession of a defendant, but must produce substantial independent corroborative evidence that supports the facts underlying the confession.” State v. Smith, 362 N.C. 583, 588, 669 S.E.2d 299, 303 (2008). satisfied “if substantial the accused’s independent The corpus delicti rule is confession evidence tending is to supported establish by its trustworthiness, including facts that tend to show the defendant had the opportunity to commit the crime.” State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222, 236, 337 S.E.2d 487, 495 (1985). In the evidence, instant beyond case, the defendant’s State presented confession to substantial Murphy, that defendant was the individual who robbed and murdered Newsome. Murphy testified that he personally saw defendant place a handgun in a black bag similar to the one recovered at the scene of the murder. Littles testified that he saw defendant carry a black him bag with as he walked toward the abandoned home. Wilson testified that he and Newsome were met at the abandoned home by defendant, and that a few minutes after Newsome went inside with defendant, he heard gunshots. had been shot twice, consistent with Furthermore, Newsome defendant’s confession. Finally, Murphy testified that he and defendant fled together after the murder. Taking this evidence in the light most -8favorable to corroborate the State, defendant’s this is confession sufficient such that evidence the case to was properly submitted to the jury. See Ash, 193 N.C. App. at 575, 668 S.E.2d at 70 murder and robbery (holding that the defendant's confession to was corroborated by ballistics evidence recovered from the scene of the murder, as well as by evidence that the defendant hid in hotel rooms, in an attempt to avoid detection). This argument is overruled. Defendant received a fair trial, free from error. No error. Judges ELMORE and STEPHENS 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.
