Opinion
No. COA12–294.
2013-01-15
STATE of North Carolina v. Gary Lynn HUDSON.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General John A. Payne, for the State. Duncan B. McCormick, for defendant-appellant.
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 26 May 2011 by Judge Wayland J. Sermons, Jr. in Pasquotank County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 31 December 2012. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General John A. Payne, for the State. Duncan B. McCormick, for defendant-appellant.
ERVIN, Judge.
Defendant Gary Lynn Hudson appeals from a judgment sentencing him to 128 to 163 months imprisonment based upon his conviction for first degree arson. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by allowing the admission of testimony to the effect that two individuals did not put the shirt that started a fire underneath a burned residence. After careful consideration of Defendant's challenge to the trial court's judgment in light of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that Defendant is not entitled to any relief from the trial court's judgment.
I. Factual Background
A. Substantive Facts
1. State's Evidence
On 15 December 2009, Defendant lived with his parents, while his brother, Christopher Hudson, Sr., resided in an adjoining mobile home. On that evening, Defendant had been locked out of his house and went to stay with his brother. Although Chris Sr. and his wife, Peggy, were in the process of separating and although Peggy lived in a separate mobile home, Peggy continued to stay with Chris Sr. on occasion and was doing so on the night in question. Chris Sr. and Peggy have a son, Chris Jr., who was staying at his mother's home on the night of 15 December 2009.
During the early morning hours of 15 December 2009, Defendant and Chris Sr. became involved in an altercation, which began after Defendant made some comments about their parents. The fight was sufficiently serious that both Defendant and Chris Sr. were bleeding, leading Peggy to believe that the two brothers were going to kill each other. After Chris Sr. told defendant to leave, Defendant threatened to burn Chris Sr.'s house and told Peggy that he would “get” her. Defendant ran off into the woods and left after Peggy called 911. According to Chris Sr., Defendant removed a jacket or shirt during the fight and was wearing jeans and a blue t-shirt at the time of his departure.
After arriving at approximately 12:45 to 1:00 a.m., law enforcement officers began searching for Defendant. One of the deputies claimed to have checked next door and told Defendant's mother that he was looking for Defendant. After the deputies left around 1:25 a.m., Chris Sr. went to bed. However, Peggy stayed up for another ninety minutes.
Chris Jr. was sleeping on the couch in his mother's home on the night of the incident. Upon awakening in the middle of the night, Chris Jr. saw fire coming up the wall, causing him to exit the residence and call 911. The fire department came to Peggy's residence around 3:30 to 3:45 a.m. and extinguished the fire.
According to Fire Marshal Barry Overton, the fire started outside the mobile home and came up through a hole in the floor. Mr. Overton concluded that the fire had been caused by a wadded up blue t-shirt which had been soaked in gasoline and placed on top of some duct work which was located underneath the mobile home approximately one to two feet from the side of the structure. DNA testing performed on certain blood stains found on the t-shirt indicated that some of the blood belonged to Defendant and that some of the blood belonged to Chris Sr. Peggy and Chris Sr. both denied having set the fire or having placed the t-shirt under the mobile home.
2. Defendant's Evidence
Defendant's parents testified that Defendant was at their house on the night of the fire. Defendant's mother, who was awake late that night, noticed that law enforcement officers were at Chris Sr.'s house and woke her husband. Shortly thereafter, Defendant knocked on the door. When Defendant's father answered the door, he observed that Defendant was drunk and bleeding. According to Defendant's father, Defendant did not leave the house before his father went to bed at 3:00 a.m. Similarly, Defendant's mother testified that she remained awake until 4:00 a.m. and that Defendant went to bed, did not leave the house, and did not smell like gasoline. Defendant's mother asserted that neither she nor her husband spoke to any law enforcement officer in the aftermath of the incident at issue in this case.
B. Procedural History
On 20 July 2010, a warrant for arrest charging Defendant with first degree arson was issued. On 9 August 2010, the Pasquotank County grand jury returned a bill of indictment charging Defendant with first degree arson. The charge against Defendant came on for hearing before the trial court and a jury at the 23 May 2011 criminal session of the Pasquotank County Superior Court. On 26 May 2011, the jury returned a verdict finding Defendant guilty as charged. Based upon the jury's verdict, the trial court sentenced defendant to 128 to 163 months imprisonment. Defendant noted an appeal to this Court from the trial court's judgment.
II. Legal Analysis
In his sole challenge to the trial court's judgment, Defendant contends that the trial court erred by allowing the State to elicit certain testimony from Peggy Hudson. We do not find Defendant's argument persuasive.
On direct examination, the prosecutor questioned Peggy about the blue t-shirt. In response, Peggy denied having placed it under the mobile home. Next, the prosecutor asked Peggy whether her husband or son had done so. At that point, the following proceedings occurred:
Q. Did your husband put that t-shirt under the trailer?
[DEFENSE]: Objection. Speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase your question.
Q. Do you [k]now whether or not your son or husband of your own knowledge put that t-shirt under your trailer?
[DEFENSE]: Objection. Speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No, they did not.
According to Defendant, Peggy lacked personal knowledge concerning the extent to which her husband or son placed the blue t-shirt under the mobile home. In Defendant's view, the admission of the challenged testimony prejudiced him because it “buttressed” the State's claim that defendant started the fire. As a result, Defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial.
“A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that [she] has personal knowledge in the matter.” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C–1, Rule 602 (2011). “The purpose of [N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C–1,]Rule 602 is to prevent a witness from testifying to a fact of which he has no direct personal knowledge.” State v. Cole, 147 N.C.App. 637, 645, 556 S.E.2d 666, 671 (2001), cert. denied,356 N.C. 169, 568 S.E.2d 619 (2002). “ ‘[P]ersonal knowledge is not an absolute but may consist of what the witness thinks he knows from personal perception.’ “ State v. Poag, 159 N.C.App. 312, 323, 583 S.E.2d 661, 669 (alteration in original) (quoting Cole, 147 N.C.App. at 645, 556 S.E.2d at 671),disc. review denied,357 N.C. 661, 590 S.E.2d 857 (2003). “Evidentiary errors are harmless unless a defendant proves that absent the error a different result would have been reached at trial.” State v. Ferguson, 145 N.C.App. 302, 307, 549 S.E.2d 889, 893,disc. review denied, 354 N.C. 223, 554 S.E.2d 650 (2001).
The undisputed record evidence demonstrates that Defendant fought with Chris Sr. and threatened to both burn Chris Sr.'s house down and to “get” Peggy; that Defendant left the scene of the fight wearing a blue t-shirt; and that the t-shirt used to start the fire at Peggy's mobile home was blue in color. Moreover, the blue t-shirt used to start the fire contained DNA from both Defendant and Chris Sr., a fact which militates strongly in favor of an inference that the shirt was in Defendant's possession at the time of the fight. In addition, the record reflects that Chris Sr. did not leave his home that night and that Chris Jr. was asleep when the fire started. Nothing in the record suggests that Peggy, Chris Sr., or Chris Jr. had any reason to set the residence in which Chris Jr. was sleeping on fire. On the other hand, the alibi evidence that Defendant offered at trial was of questionable credibility given that Defendant went away from, rather than toward, his parents' residence after his fight with Chris Sr. and that Defendant's mother denied having spoken with investigating officers, who had no reason for manufacturing a claim to the contrary. The jury had ample opportunity to consider Defendant's contention that Peggy had no basis for claiming that neither Chris Sr. nor Chris Jr. set the fire, a fact that suggests that the relevant portion of Peggy's testimony had minimal probative value. In addition, both Chris Sr. and Chris Jr. testified at Defendant's trial, a development that provided Defendant with an ample opportunity to attempt to establish that one or the other of them set Peggy's mobile home on fire. As a result, given the compelling evidence of Defendant's guilt and the limited significance of the challenged testimony, we conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that the outcome at Defendant's trial would have been different in the event that the jury had not heard the challenged evidence, so that the trial court's judgment should remain undisturbed.
NO ERROR. Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge STEPHENS concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).