IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA25-683
Filed 3 June 2026
Dare County, Nos. 21CR051305-270, 21CR051582-270
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
TYRIQUE LAZARA WISE
Appeal by Defendant from judgments entered 8 March 2024 by Judge R.
Andrew Womble in Dare County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20
May 2026.
Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Director of Major Litigation Brian D. Rabinovitz, for the State-Appellee.
Jarvis John Edgerton, IV, for Defendant-Appellant.
COLLINS, Judge.
Defendant appeals from judgments entered upon guilty verdicts of two counts
of sale or delivery of a schedule II controlled substance, two counts of aggravated
death by distribution, and possession of cocaine with intent to sell or distribute.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the two
counts of aggravated death by distribution, and that it plainly erred by admitting
testimony of certain experts into evidence. For the reasons stated herein, we find no
error in part, no plain error in part, and dismiss in part. STATE V. WISE
Opinion of the Court
I. Background
Defendant was indicted for two counts of sale or delivery of a schedule II
controlled substance, two counts of aggravated death by distribution, possession of
cocaine with intent to sell or distribute, and maintaining a vehicle for keeping and
selling a controlled substance. The matter came on for trial on 4 March 2024.
The evidence at trial tended to show the following: On 12 September 2021,
Emily Payne; her mother; and her boyfriend, George Bowman, went to the beach from
approximately 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. After returning to Emily and George’s house,
the group went to a birthday party next door. Rachel Cockerham, a friend of Emily
and George, was also at the party. She told them that she had contacted someone to
purchase cocaine and that it would arrive from Elizabeth City in approximately
forty-five minutes. Emily and George then sat on their back porch with Rachel to
wait for the cocaine.
A man arrived at the house with the cocaine shortly thereafter. George offered
the man a line of cocaine and he responded, “I don’t do that.” Rachel snorted a line
of cocaine, followed by George and Emily. Emily vomited immediately after ingesting
the cocaine and passed out. After regaining consciousness, she went inside and told
her mother that she could not find George. Emily’s mother went to the back porch to
look for George and found Rachel slumped over in a chair. She called 911, and officers
from the Dare County Sheriff’s Office and EMS arrived several minutes later. An
officer saw Rachel “lying on the back deck where the steps are leading up to the deck”;
-2- STATE V. WISE
she was cold, purple, stiff, and had no pulse. An officer found George slumped over
near the HVAC unit; he was cold, stiff, and had no pulse.
On the back porch were two white chairs, a small round table, multiple beer
cans, cigarette packs, credit cards, and a “small, clear plastic bag with a knot in it
with a white powder substance inside[.]” An officer found a blue plate with white
powder residue and a rolled-up dollar bill just inside the house. The white powder
substance from the plastic bag was tested and determined to be .3066 grams of a
cocaine-fentanyl mixture. The white powder residue from the blue ceramic plate was
tested and determined to be cocaine.
The following day, Rachel’s sister told an officer that she and Rachel had been
purchasing cocaine from Defendant since June 2021, and that Defendant had sold
Rachel cocaine the night she died. Rachel’s sister participated in a controlled buy on
23 September 2021, which led to Defendant’s arrest.
Emily tested positive for cocaine at Outer Banks Hospital where she was
treated.1 Post-mortem toxicology tests were performed on George and Rachel.
George had 250 mg/dl of ethanol; 18 mg/L of cocaine; .021 mg/L of cocaethylene; .12
mg/L of benzoylecgonine; and 4.2 nanograms/mL of fentanyl in his system. Rachel
had 180 mg/dl of ethanol; .31 mg/L of cocaine; .057 mg/L of cocaethylene; .32 mg/L of
1 The screening test is not capable of testing fentanyl, as fentanyl is a manmade substance.
-3- STATE V. WISE
benzoylecgonine; and 30 nanograms/mL of fentanyl in her system. The cause of death
for both victims was determined to be multi-drug toxicity.
Defendant moved to dismiss all the charges; the trial court allowed the motion
as to the maintaining a vehicle for keeping and selling a controlled substance charge.
The jury returned guilty verdicts for the remaining charges. The trial court entered
three separate judgments and sentenced Defendant to consecutive terms of 17 to 30
months’ imprisonment for sale or delivery of a schedule II controlled substance and
possession of cocaine with intent to sell or distribute; 207 to 261 months’
imprisonment for one count of aggravated death by distribution; and 207 to 261
months’ imprisonment for sale or delivery of a schedule II controlled substance and
one count of aggravated death by distribution. Defendant appealed.
II. Discussion
A. Motion to Dismiss
Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss
the two counts of aggravated death by distribution.
We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss de novo. State v. Chavis,
278 N.C. App. 482, 485 (2021). “In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the trial court need
determine only whether there is substantial evidence of each essential element of the
crime and that the defendant is the perpetrator.” State v. Clawson, 291 N.C. App.
234, 242 (2023) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Substantial evidence is such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
-4- STATE V. WISE
conclusion.” State v. Rivera, 216 N.C. App. 566, 568 (2011) (quotation marks and
citation omitted). “In making its determination, the trial court must consider all
evidence admitted, whether competent or incompetent, in the light most favorable to
the State, giving the State the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving any
contradictions in its favor.” State v. Rose, 339 N.C. 172, 192 (1994) (citation omitted).
1. Proximate Cause
Defendant argues that the State presented insufficient evidence that the
ingestion of cocaine, as opposed to fentanyl, was the proximate cause of George’s and
Rachel’s overdose deaths. Defendant specifically asserts that “the State’s undisputed
evidence at trial was that [George] and Rachel died because they stopped breathing
as a result of fentanyl ingestion.”
To survive a motion to dismiss a charge of aggravated death by distribution
through unlawful sale of certain controlled substances, the State must provide
substantial evidence that:
(1) The person unlawfully sells at least one certain controlled substance. (2) The ingestion of the certain controlled substance or substances causes the death of the user. (3) The commission of the offense . . . was the proximate cause of the victim’s death. .... (5) The person has a previous conviction under . . . G.S. 90-95(a)(1) . . . .
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-18.4(c) (2019). A “certain controlled substance” includes “any
-5- STATE V. WISE
opium, opiate, or opioid; any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or
preparation of opium, opiate, or opioid; cocaine or any other substance described in
G.S. 90‑90(1)(d); methamphetamine; a depressant described in G.S. 90‑92(a)(1); or a
mixture of one or more of these substances.” Id. § 14-18.4(d) (2019).
“Proximate cause is a cause that produced the result in continuous sequence
and without which it would not have occurred, and one from which any man of
ordinary prudence could have foreseen that such a result was probable under all the
facts as they existed.” State v. Powell, 336 N.C. 762, 771 (1994) (citation omitted).
“The question of whether a defendant’s conduct was the proximate cause of death is
a question for the jury.” State v. Noble, 226 N.C. App. 531, 535 (2013) (cleaned up).
Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, there was substantial evidence
that ingestion of the cocaine sold by Defendant was the proximate cause of George’s
and Rachel’s overdose deaths. Forensic Scientist Ashley Lancaster testified that the
white powder from the plastic bag was tested and determined to be .3066 grams of a
cocaine-fentanyl mixture, and that the residue from the blue plate was tested and
determined to be cocaine. Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Sandra Bishop-Freeman
testified that both George and Rachel had alcohol, cocaine, and fentanyl in their
systems. George had 250 mg/dl of ethanol; 18 mg/L of cocaine; .021 mg/L of
cocaethylene; .12 mg/L of benzoylecgonine; and 4.2 nanograms/mL of fentanyl in his
system. Rachel had 180 mg/dl of ethanol; .31 mg/L of cocaine; .057 mg/L of
cocaethylene; .32 mg/L of benzoylecgonine; and 30 nanograms/mL of fentanyl in her
-6- STATE V. WISE
system. Forensic pathologist Thomas Sporn testified that “multi-drug toxicity” was
the cause of death for both victims, and that the drugs “all acted in concert.” The
State need not prove that cocaine alone caused the deaths because N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 14-18.4(d) defines a “certain controlled substance” to include “any opium,
opiate, or opioid; any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation
of opium, opiate, or opioid; cocaine . . . ; or a mixture of one or more of these substances.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-18.4(d) (emphasis added). Although Defendant’s expert, Dr.
Leffler, opined that both deaths were likely caused by fentanyl and alcohol, the trial
court must give the State the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolve any
contradictions in its favor in ruling on a motion to dismiss. See Rose, 339 N.C. at 192.
Taken together, there was sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable juror to
find that ingestion of the cocaine sold by Defendant was the proximate cause of both
victims’ deaths. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-18.4(c).
2. Aggravated Death by Distribution
Defendant next argues that the State “tendered insufficient evidence that
Defendant distributed controlled substances to decedent [George] as required for the
jury to find Defendant guilty of the aggravated death by distribution charge alleging
[George] as the victim.”
Defendant concedes in his reply brief that his argument is premised on an
incorrect version of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-18.4(c). As the State correctly notes,
Defendant’s opening brief relies not on the enacted statutory language, but instead
-7- STATE V. WISE
on wording contained in House Bill 474–the initial draft of N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 14-18.4(c). That bill proposed that a person could be guilty of aggravated
death by distribution through unlawful sale of certain controlled substances if, among
other elements, “[t]he person unlawfully distributed at least one certain controlled
substance to the victim.” H.B. 474, 2019 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.C. 2019)
(emphasis added).
The General Assembly ultimately adopted materially different language than
that in House Bill 474. The enacted statute removes the requirement that the
controlled substance be distributed “to the victim” and instead provides that a person
is guilty of aggravated death by distribution if, among other elements, “[t]he person
unlawfully sells at least one certain controlled substance.” N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 14-18.4(c)(1). Accordingly, the State was not required to prove that Defendant
sold a certain controlled substance to both George and Rachel, as Defendant contends.
Here, the State presented substantial evidence that Defendant sold the
cocaine-fentanyl mixture which was the proximate cause of both victims’ deaths.
Emily testified that Rachel told her and George that she had contacted someone to
buy cocaine and that it would arrive from Elizabeth City in approximately forty-five
minutes; they sat on Emily and George’s back porch to wait for the cocaine; and a
man later arrived at the house with the cocaine. She further testified that George
offered the man a line of the cocaine, and the man responded, “I don’t do that”; and
she, Rachel, and George each snorted a line of the cocaine the man had sold. Rachel’s
-8- STATE V. WISE
sister testified that she and Rachel had been purchasing cocaine from Defendant
since June 2021; and she texted Defendant the morning after Rachel’s death to ask
whether he had sold cocaine to Rachel the night before, and Defendant responded
yes.
Accordingly, the State presented sufficient evidence that Defendant
“unlawfully [sold] at least one certain controlled substance.” See id.
B. Admission of Testimony
Defendant argues that the trial court “violated [his] right to confrontation
guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution when it
allowed into evidence testimonial hearsay about the results of toxicology testing
performed by a non-testifying analyst.” Defendant acknowledges that he did not
object to the testimony that he now argues was erroneously admitted, but he
“specifically and distinctly” argues that the admission amounted to plain error. See
N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(4).
“For error to constitute plain error, a defendant must demonstrate that a
fundamental error occurred at trial.” State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 518 (2012)
(citation omitted). “To show that an error was fundamental, a defendant must
establish prejudice—that, after examination of the entire record, the error had a
probable impact on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty.” Id. (quotation
marks and citations omitted).
-9- STATE V. WISE
1. Dr. Bishop-Freeman’s Testimony
Defendant argues that the trial court erroneously admitted Dr.
Bishop-Freeman’s testimony because she “never testified that she conducted any
toxicology analysis herself, and never offered her own independent conclusions about
the chemical content of the samples analyzed.”
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “[i]n all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the
witnesses against him[.]” U.S. Const. amend. VI. “[T]he Confrontation Clause bars
the admission of out-of-court testimonial statements unless the declarant is
unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him or her.”
State v. Morgan, 359 N.C. 131, 154 (2004) (citation omitted).
North Carolina Rule of Evidence 702(a) provides:
(a) If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion, or otherwise, if all of the following apply: (1) The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data. (2) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods. (3) The witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(a) (2023). The expert may base the opinion or
inference on facts or data “perceived by or made known to him at or before the
- 10 - STATE V. WISE
hearing.” Id. § 8C-1, Rule 703 (2023). However, “[i]f of a type reasonably relied upon
by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject,
the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.” Id.
Although the North Carolina Rules of Evidence permit an expert to present an
opinion based on inadmissible facts or data, “this evidentiary rule must comport with
constitutional requirements.” State v. Ortiz-Zape, 367 N.C. 1, 5 (2013). In
Ortiz-Zape, our Supreme Court held that “admission of an expert’s independent
opinion based on otherwise inadmissible facts or data of a type reasonably relied upon
by experts in the particular field does not violate the Confrontation Clause so long as
the defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine the expert.” Id. at 9 (cleaned up).
The Court emphasized that “the expert must present an independent opinion
obtained through his or her own analysis and not merely surrogate testimony
parroting otherwise inadmissible statements.” Id. (quotation marks and citation
omitted).
More recently, in State v. Lester, the Court clarified that “machine-generated
raw data, if truly machine-generated, [is] neither hearsay nor testimonial under the
Confrontation Clause.” 387 N.C. 90, 100 (2025) (quotation marks and citation
omitted). The Court distinguished between (1) computer-stored evidence, which
“refers to evidence that originates in substance from a human source but is simply
housed in electronic form” and (2) human interpretations of computer-produced data,
which “draws from a computer’s output but ultimately reflects a person’s conclusion
- 11 - STATE V. WISE
about past events and human actions not revealed in raw, machine-produced data.”
Id. at 101 (quotation marks and citations omitted).
Therefore, under Ortiz-Zape and Lester, the relevant inquiry is whether the
challenged testimony reflects an expert’s independent opinion based on
machine-generated data, or instead merely constitutes surrogate testimony parroting
the testimonial statements of a non-testifying analyst.
Here, Dr. Bishop-Freeman testified, in relevant part, as follows:
Q. At some point did you receive a request to do a toxicology analysis on a George Bowman, Jr.? A. Yes. Q. And have you had a chance to review the report of those findings and the toxicology report? A. Briefly, but I need to look at my notes. Q. Are you required to sign off on that report before it is sent back to the requesting doctor who performs the autopsy? A. The report is generated provisionally in our laboratory and it’s my responsibility to review those reports and the report would only get sent to the medical examiner or the pathologist if I approved and certified those results. Q. And you said, Doctor, that you do remember certifying the results with respect to George Bowman, Jr.? A. Yes. .... Q. Dr. Bishop-Freeman, I’m handing you what’s been marked State’s Exhibit 30 for identification purposes. Do you recognize that? A. I do. Q. And is that the report that you signed off on with
- 12 - STATE V. WISE
respect to the toxicology analysis for George Bowman, Jr.? A. It’s the electronically generated copy of that report and yes, this is the final report. .... Q. Dr. Bishop-Freeman, did you also receive a request to perform a toxicology analysis for a Rachel Cockerham? A. Yes. .... Q. Was there a toxicology report prepared in connection with that? A. Yes. .... Q. Dr. Bishop-Freeman, I’m handing you what’s been marked as State’s Exhibit 31 for identification purposes. Do you recognize this? A. Yes. Q. Is that the report that was prepared -- toxicology report that was prepared with respect to Rachel Cockerham? A. Yes. This is the electronic copy of the report generated from this original report that I certified at our office. Q. So you signed off and certified that particular copy? A. Yes, I approved.
Although Dr. Bishop-Freeman did not perform the toxicology testing, the values
reflected in the toxicology reports constitute machine-generated raw data. See id. at
100. Standing alone, those values are not the product of human interpretation but
rather the output of the laboratory’s analytical instruments. The toxicology reports
became human interpretations of machine-generated data when they were reviewed,
approved, and certified. Dr. Bishop-Freeman testified that she personally reviewed
- 13 - STATE V. WISE
those reports and approved and certified the results prior to releasing them to the
requesting medical examiner. Because Dr. Bishop-Freeman testified at trial and was
subject to cross-examination, the admission of her testimony did not violate the
Confrontation Clause.
Accordingly, the trial court did not err by admitting Dr. Bishop-Freeman’s
testimony.
2. Dr. Leffler’s Testimony
Defendant argues that the trial court erroneously admitted the testimony of
Dr. Leffler, his own expert witness, because she “relied on the OME toxicology reports
as basis evidence for her own expert opinions, without testing any samples herself or
generating her own independent opinions about the chemical composition of the
samples.”
“A defendant is not prejudiced by . . . error resulting from his own conduct.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1443(c) (2023). “Thus, a defendant who invites error has
waived his right to all appellate review concerning the invited error, including plain
error review.” State v. Barber, 147 N.C. App. 69, 74 (2001) (citation omitted). “Our
courts have consistently applied the invited error doctrine when a defendant’s
affirmative actions directly precipitate error.” State v. Miller, 289 N.C. App. 429, 433
(2023) (citations omitted).
Here, Defendant retained Dr. Leffler as his own expert witness and presented
her testimony in support of his defense. Defendant elicited Dr. Leffler’s opinions
- 14 - STATE V. WISE
regarding the victims’ causes of death on direct examination using the toxicology
reports. Defendant questioned Dr. Leffler about the contents of those reports and
relied upon her testimony to challenge the State’s causation evidence. Any alleged
error arising from Dr. Leffler’s testimony regarding the toxicology reports was the
direct result of Defendant’s affirmative conduct in offering the witness and eliciting
the challenged testimony. See id. Defendant may not invite the admission of
evidence for strategic purposes at trial and then contend on appeal that the same
evidence was admitted in error. See Barber, 147 N.C. App. at 74.
Accordingly, Defendant has waived appellate review of any error that may
have resulted from the admission of Dr. Leffler’s testimony.
3. Substantial Evidence of Guilt
Even assuming arguendo that the challenged testimony of Dr.
Bishop-Freeman and Dr. Leffler was erroneously admitted, Defendant cannot
establish that the error constituted plain error.
Here, Emily testified that Rachel told her and George that she had contacted
someone to purchase cocaine and that he would arrive in approximately forty-five
minutes; a man arrived with the cocaine shortly thereafter; she, George, and Rachel
each snorted a line of cocaine; and she immediately vomited and passed out. Emily’s
mother testified that she found Rachel slumped over on the porch and called 911.
Captain Barrera testified that George and Rachel were dead when he arrived at the
scene. Rachel’s sister testified that she and Rachel had been purchasing cocaine from
- 15 - STATE V. WISE
Defendant since June 2021 and that she texted Defendant after Rachel’s death, who
confirmed that he had sold Rachel cocaine that night.
Officers found a plastic bag containing a white powder substance, credit cards,
and a rolled-up dollar bill on the back porch, and a blue plate with a white powder
residue and a rolled-up dollar bill just inside the house. The white powder substance
from the plastic bag was tested and determined to be .3066 grams of a
cocaine-fentanyl mixture, and the residue on the blue plate was tested and
determined to be cocaine. The Outer Banks Hospital doctor testified that Emily
tested positive for cocaine following the incident, and Sporn testified that George and
Rachel died from multi-drug toxicity.
In light of this substantial evidence of Defendant’s guilt, Defendant cannot
show that, “absent the error, the jury probably would have returned a different
verdict.” Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 519. Accordingly, admission of the challenged
testimony did not amount to plain error.
III. Conclusion
The trial court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and it did
not plainly err by admitting Dr. Bishop-Freeman’s testimony. Accordingly, we find
no error in part and no plain error in part. As Defendant has waived appellate review
of any error that may have resulted from the admission of Dr. Leffler’s testimony, we
dismiss this portion of his appeal.
NO ERROR IN PART; NO PLAIN ERROR IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
- 16 - STATE V. WISE
Judges WOOD and FLOOD concur.
- 17 -