Summary
The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the State failed to demonstrate that an out-of-state witness was constitutionally unavailable before introducing her prior trial testimony during a capital sentencing proceeding. The admission of the testimony violated the defendant's confrontation rights because the State did not make or establish good-faith efforts to locate and produce the witness for live testimony. The court vacated the death sentence and remanded for a new capital sentencing proceeding.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred by admitting the prior trial testimony of K.S. during the capital sentencing proceeding without a showing that she was constitutionally unavailable, in violation of the Confrontation Clause.
Holdings
- The trial court committed reversible error because the State failed to demonstrate good-faith efforts to locate and produce the witness; therefore, the former testimony was inadmissible.
Key quotations
“a personal examination and cross-examination of the witness in which the accused has an opportunity, not only of testing the recollection and sifting the conscience of the witness, but of compelling him to stand face to face with the jury in order that they may look at him, and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives his testimony whether he is worthy of belief.” (769)
“The Confrontation Clause requires a showing by the state that it attempted in good faith to contact the potential witness, that it attempted in good faith to inquire into her willingness and availability to testify, and that it presented the results of this inquiry to the trial court.” (772)
Factual background
Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and discharging a firearm into occupied property. At the capital sentencing proceeding, the State introduced the transcribed testimony of K.S., the victim of defendant's 1988 rape conviction, to establish the (e)(3) aggravating circumstance. K.S. was not a resident of North Carolina at the time of the sentencing. The prosecutor role-played her testimony from the prior trial. Defendant objected, arguing that he had a right to confront K.S. and that the State had not shown she was unavailable.
Procedural history
Defendant was tried capitally in 1997 and convicted of first-degree murder and related charges. The jury recommended a death sentence, but on appeal this Court vacated the death sentence due to instructional error and remanded for a new capital sentencing proceeding. State v. Nobles, 350 N.C. 483, 517, 515 S.E.2d 885, 905-06 (1999). At the resentencing proceeding in 2000, the jury again recommended death, and defendant appealed.
Remand instructions
The death sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for a new capital sentencing proceeding.