State v. Gamble

Citations: 777 S.E.2d 158; 243 N.C. App. 414; 2015 N.C. App. LEXIS 821Docket: 15-71

Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina; October 6, 2015; North Carolina; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Ezekiel Eligha Gamble was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to 80 to 108 months in prison. His appeal claims the trial court erred in admitting eyewitness testimony, contravening the North Carolina Eyewitness Identification Reform Act of 2007, and asserts ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court of Appeals found no error in admitting the testimony and dismissed the ineffective assistance claim without prejudice, allowing for a future motion for appropriate relief.

The incident occurred on December 11, 2012, when Maurice Stimpson encountered Gamble outside his apartment in Greensboro, North Carolina. Stimpson observed Gamble searching the area and later answered the door when Gamble knocked, asking for a person named Rob. After pointing out Rob's location, Gamble returned with another man, who brandished a gun. Gamble demanded Stimpson's wallet, which Stimpson reluctantly surrendered after being pressured. Following the robbery, Stimpson called the police and provided details about the incident, including descriptions of the assailants and a white Lexus linked to the crime. Police later traced the vehicle's registration to Tynisha Fordham. During the trial, Stimpson identified Gamble as the robber multiple times without objection from the defense.

Detective Curry identified Tynisha Fordham and her brother Johnston as acquaintances and indicated that the Defendant matched the description of a robbery suspect. Officer Schlanger, based on this information, targeted the Defendant for further investigation. Detective Scott Russell arranged a photographic lineup with Mr. Stimpson on December 12, 2012, using a selection of eight photographs of African-American men in their twenties with dreadlocks, including the Defendant. Detective Russell prepared and shuffled the lineup to avoid bias, followed the EIRA instructions before presenting the photos, and ensured Mr. Stimpson was aware he was not obligated to make an identification. Mr. Stimpson identified the Defendant with certainty, scoring a "10 out of 10" on his confidence level. The identification and lineup materials were admitted into evidence without objection, leading to an arrest warrant for armed robbery issued on January 27, 2013. 

Defendant was later arrested for unrelated charges after a traffic stop on February 9, 2013, during which police discovered a chrome .38 caliber revolver in his car. While in custody, Defendant made a statement to Officer Trotter expressing concern that the gun found might be linked to the robbery charge due to its similarity to the weapon used. The revolver was admitted into evidence, and the State rested its case after the defense motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence was denied. The Defendant did not testify, but several witnesses were called by the defense, including family members and acquaintances.

Defendant renewed his motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence after resting his case, which the trial court denied. During the charge conference, he requested a jury instruction regarding the identification of him as the perpetrator, which the court granted, emphasizing the State's burden to prove his identity beyond a reasonable doubt. Although an alternative instruction could have been requested, Defendant did not object to the absence of any EIRA instructions. After closing arguments, the jury was allowed to review eight photos from the lineup, to which Defendant raised no objection. The jury deliberated for about three hours before reaching a unanimous guilty verdict. At the sentencing hearing on August 28, 2014, the parties agreed on Defendant's prior record level III due to two earlier robbery convictions. Defendant maintained his innocence during allocution, and the court sentenced him to 80 to 108 months in prison. He immediately filed a notice of appeal and requested appointed appellate counsel, which was granted.

On appeal, Defendant claimed the trial court erred in allowing certain testimonies and evidence, as well as in the jury instructions related to the EIRA, none of which were preserved by objection during the trial. He sought a plain error review, which allows unpreserved issues to be considered if they are distinctly contended to be plain error. The plain error standard requires the defendant to demonstrate that a fundamental error occurred and that it likely impacted the jury's guilty finding. Eyewitness identification evidence is highlighted as particularly influential on juries, often leading them to accept such testimony without skepticism.

North Carolina courts recognize the importance of neutral lineup and confrontation procedures to safeguard suspects' Due Process rights under the U.S. and North Carolina constitutions. The legal framework established by the North Carolina Supreme Court involves a two-step analysis: first, determining if a lineup or confrontation procedure was impermissibly suggestive; if so, the second step assesses whether this suggestiveness created a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Factors considered include the witness's opportunity to view the perpetrator, attention level, prior description accuracy, certainty during confrontation, and the time elapsed between the crime and the identification.

In response to these concerns, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the Eyewitness Identification Reform Act (EIRA) in 2007 to enhance the procedures for eyewitness identification. Initially applicable only to photographic lineups, the EIRA was later expanded in 2015 to include in-person show-ups. The EIRA mandates specific requirements for law enforcement when conducting photographic lineups, with detailed protocols differing for independent versus non-independent administrators. Independent administrators must inform eyewitnesses that the perpetrator may not be present, that they do not know the suspect’s identity, and emphasize that identifying the innocent is as crucial as identifying the guilty. Additionally, the suspect's photo must accurately reflect their appearance at the time of the offense.

The independent administrator must utilize 'filler photos' that resemble the eyewitness’s description of the perpetrator and ensure the suspect does not stand out. A photographic lineup must consist of at least five filler photos alongside the suspect's photo. No prior arrest or conviction information about the suspect can be visible to the eyewitness. The administrator is required to obtain and document the eyewitness's confidence level regarding their identification before revealing any information about the perpetrator.

If an independent administrator is not available, alternative identification methods can be employed, as outlined in section 15A-284.52(c). These methods must ensure neutral administration, preventing the administrator from knowing which photo the eyewitness views. Acceptable alternatives include automated computer programs for lineups or procedures using shuffled, numbered folders.

The EIRA also outlines remedies for noncompliance, stating that courts must consider compliance when hearing motions to suppress or claims of misidentification. During jury trials, evidence of compliance or noncompliance should be considered in assessing the reliability of eyewitness identification. 

In this case, Detective Russell, acting as a non-independent administrator, utilized an approved folder method that ensured neutral administration. He followed EIRA requirements by instructing the eyewitness with a signed form, presenting one photo of the defendant and five similar filler photos, and documenting the eyewitness's confidence without disclosing suspect information. After reviewing the filler photos, the court agreed they were similar to the defendant's photo. Consequently, Detective Russell's administration of the lineup complied with statutory requirements, resulting in no error in admitting the testimony.

Defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting Detective Russell’s testimony because he could not recall which specific filler photographs were used in the lineup. Detective Russell presented eight photos (seven fillers and one of the Defendant) but only utilized six, leaving uncertainty about which were actually shown. The court finds that while the reliability of Russell’s testimony is a concern for the trial judge, any issues regarding his recollection are matters for the jury to weigh, rather than grounds for exclusion. The court concludes that no inherent conflict exists in Russell's testimony when compared to the State's evidence, and therefore, the trial court acted properly in admitting his testimony. 

Defendant also challenges the reliability of Mr. Stimpson’s in-court identification, arguing it was tainted by Detective Russell's procedures. However, the court holds that the credibility of identification testimony is primarily for the jury, and no violations of the EIRA were found in the lineup process. Mr. Stimpson identified Defendant as his assailant multiple times, and defense counsel did not present evidence of improper suggestions during the lineup, leading to the conclusion that no plain error occurred.

Additionally, the court reviewed all eight photographs from the lineup and found that none contained prejudicial information or depicted inappropriate settings. All filler photos resembled the description of the perpetrator, ensuring that Defendant's photo did not unduly stand out. 

Regarding claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court dismisses this argument without prejudice, emphasizing that such claims should typically be raised through motions for appropriate relief rather than direct appeals. The court notes that the record does not clarify whether the alleged ineffective actions were part of a broader trial strategy, and thus cannot resolve this claim without further evidence. 

In conclusion, the court finds no error in the trial proceedings.