State v. Blanks

• Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina
• Decided: August 19, 2014
• Docket: 14-282
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA14-282 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 19 August 2014

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v. Bladen County No. 12CRS50891 BILLY GENE BLANKS, Defendant.

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered on or about 26

September 2013 by Judge Thomas H. Lock in Bladen County Superior

Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 August 2014.

Attorney General Roy A. Cooper III, by Assistant Attorney General Thomas D. Henry, for the State.

Winifred H. Dillon for defendant-appellant.

STROUD, Judge.

Defendant Billy Gene Blanks appeals from the judgment

entered after a jury found him guilty of misdemeanor fleeing to

elude arrest, speeding in excess of 55 miles per hour, reckless

driving so as to endanger any person or property, and failure to

heed a law enforcement officer’s light or siren. We find no

prejudicial error. -2- While performing other duties on 14 April 2012, Bladen

County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Chris Brisson saw defendant

drive by in a black BMW. Deputy Brisson recognized defendant

and knew he had outstanding warrants, so he began to pursue

defendant. Deputy Brisson activated his blue lights and

defendant accelerated and drove into the lane for oncoming

traffic. When the cars reached 120 miles per hour, defendant

crossed the county line and Deputy Brisson lost sight of

defendant’s car and ceased pursuit. The speed limit on the

highway was 55 miles per hour.

Deputy Brisson returned to the area where the chase began

and encountered defendant’s son, who informed him that defendant

had been cutting the grass at his home in the area earlier that

day. Deputy Brisson drove past defendant’s son’s home, and saw

a black BMW parked on the property. The car’s hood and tires

were warm, indicating it had recently been driven.

At trial, defendant testified that he owned a black BMW at

the time of the incident, but stated that he was out of the

state on 12 April 2012. Defendant’s son testified that

defendant left the BMW at his home when he traveled, and denied

telling Deputy Brisson that defendant had cut his grass on the

day of the chase. The jury found defendant guilty of -3- misdemeanor fleeing to elude arrest, speeding in excess of 55

miles per hour, reckless driving so as to endanger, and failure

to heed an officer’s light and siren. The trial court

consolidated the convictions into one judgment and sentenced

defendant to 90 days in jail. Defendant gave notice of appeal.

In his sole argument on appeal, defendant contends the

trial court erred when it overruled his objection to a question

posed by the prosecutor during her redirect examination of

Deputy Brisson. We do not agree.

On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned Deputy

Brisson, who at the time of trial worked for the Brunswick

County Sheriff’s Department, about the circumstances of his

departure from Bladen County:

Q. Okay, [the prosecutor] previously brought this up and then I will hush. You were previously employed here, weren’t you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And you are with Brunswick right now?

Q. Did -- you were in fact terminated from Bladen County?

A. No, sir. -4- The trial court sustained the State’s objection to the final

question. On redirect, the prosecutor asked Deputy Brisson to

clarify the circumstances of his employment change:

Q. Did you choose to go work in Brunswick County?

A. Yes, ma’am. I had an application on file for [a] previous amount of time and they had some new positions and they called and said I had a job if I wanted it.

Q. So you were not terminated?

A. No, ma’am.

Q. So [defense counsel’s] rude accusation that you were terminated is incorrect?

A. Yes, ma’am.

Defense counsel objected to the prosecutor’s final question, and

the trial court overruled the objection. Defendant contends

that the disparaging nature of the prosecutor’s question so

prejudiced his defense that it affected the outcome of the

trial.

“Ordinarily, the asking of the question alone will not

result in prejudice to the defendant.” State v. Campbell, 296

N.C. 394, 399, 250 S.E.2d 228, 231 (1979) (citations omitted).

Accordingly, to prevail on appeal based on his objection to the

content of a prosecutor’s question, a defendant must demonstrate

a “reasonable possibility” that the question affected the -5- outcome of his case. State v. Whisenant, 308 N.C. 791, 794, 303

S.E.2d 784, 786 (1983).

Here, even were we to assume that the prosecutor’s

characterization of defense counsel as “rude” was improper,

defendant cannot demonstrate that the question caused him

prejudice. Deputy Brisson testified at trial and had first-hand

knowledge of the alleged criminal acts. Although he denied

committing the acts, defendant confirmed that he owned a car

that matched the description of the car Deputy Brisson observed

and pursued, and Deputy Brisson found the car parked at

defendant’s son’s house, still warm. In light of this evidence,

defendant simply cannot demonstrate that an isolated accusation

that his attorney asked a “rude” question possibly affected the

outcome of this trial.

NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR.

Judges BRYANT and HUNTER, JR., Robert N. concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).