State v. Hunt

Summary

The North Carolina Court of Appeals considers Grant Lee Hunt’s appeal after a Supreme Court remand in light of State v. Reber. The court rejects challenges concerning lay-opinion testimony, closing argument, jury instructions, and ineffective assistance of counsel, but holds that the habitual-felon indictment was defective and that the restitution award lacked sufficient evidentiary support. The court vacates the habitual-felon judgment and the restitution award and remands for resentencing and a new restitution hearing.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not plainly err by admitting the trooper's opinion that the collision was intentional because the opinion was based on his personal, rational observations of the scene and did not satisfy the plain-error standard in any event.
2. Hunt did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to object to Trooper Covington's testimony.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to intervene ex mero motu during the State's closing argument.
4. The trial court's deviation from the agreed pattern instruction did not constitute reversible plain error because, viewed in context, it did not probably affect the verdict or mislead the jury.
5. The habitual-felon indictment was fatally defective because it alleged predicate felonies that overlapped rather than occurred sequentially and after conviction of the preceding felony. The habitual-felon judgment and enhancement therefore had to be vacated, and the case remanded for resentencing without the habitual-felon enhancement.
6. The $592,000 restitution award was unsupported by competent, specific, and reliable evidence and had to be vacated for a new restitution hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court plainly erred by admitting a state trooper's lay opinion that the collision was intentional.
2. Whether defense counsel's failure to object to the trooper's testimony constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
3. Whether the trial court was required to intervene ex mero motu during the State's closing argument concerning Hunt allegedly backing over the victim's legs.
4. Whether the trial court's deviation from the agreed jury instruction on weighing evidence constituted reversible or plain error.
5. Whether the habitual-felon indictment was fatally defective because the alleged predicate felonies were overlapping rather than sequential and non-overlapping.
6. Whether Hunt's ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's failure to challenge the habitual-felon status required decision.
7. Whether the sentencing judgment could incorporate the defective habitual-felon indictment and enhancement.
8. Whether the $592,000 restitution award was supported by competent, specific, and reliable evidence.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded