State of North Carolina v. Rocky Marciana Ashford (COA25-1116) is an unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals from a case out of Wayne County. Here, the court considers whether the conduct of a prosecutor during a trial warrants a mistrial and Mr. Ashford’s ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim.
In October of 2018, the body of a deceased woman was found inside of a rolling canvas laundry cart in Goldsboro. The discovery was made close to a dumpster near a wooded area where a campsite was set up. Security cameras from a nearby business captured Mr. Ashford walking hand in hand with a woman the night before the body was found. The video cameras also showed on that same night Mr. Ashford removing a laundry cart from the dumpster, wheeling it into the wooden area, and then returning. The cameras also showed Mr. Ashford walking the cart toward the direction of where the cart containing the woman’s body was later found. At some point, investigators questioned Mr. Ashford regarding the video. During the questioning, Mr. Ashford stated, “You got me man, you got me, just go ahead and put me in handcuffs. I got to have a lawyer.” The questioning ceased once Mr. Ashford requested an attorney.
An autopsy on the woman’s body showed that she had suffered a fractured bone in her neck. It was the opinion of a medical expert that the woman had been strangled to death. Mr. Ashford’s DNA was found on the woman’s body which gave the indication that the two had sexual relations. Underwear found at the campsite contained the woman’s DNA and Mr. Ashford’s DNA was also on the underwear. The woman’s blood was also found on the jeans that Mr. Ashford was wearing during the interview.
Mr. Ashford was tried by a jury and found guilty of first-degree murder by premeditation and deliberation. He gave timely notice of appeal.
On appeal, Mr. Ashford raised what he saw as several errors committed by the trial court. He argued that the trial court should have declared a mistrial based on nonverbal and verbal conduct of the prosecutor. He argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, Mr. Ashford argued that the cumulative effect of all of the trial court’s errors warranted the granting of a new trial.
During the trial, Mr. Ashford’s attorney moved for a mistrial when during the playing of the video of Mr. Ashford’s interview with investigators, the prosector did the following: “kicked back in his chair, placed his foot on top of counsel table right in front view of the jury,” he left the courtroom on two occasions for a little under twelve minutes, and he placed his head in his hands when he returned to the courtroom. Under N.C.G.S. §15A-1061, a mistrial is appropriate where an error “results in substantial and irreparable prejudice to the defendant's case.” However, it is within the discretion of the trial court to grant a mistrial. The appellate Court determined that after reviewing the case law cited by Mr. Ashford and the State, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not granting a mistrial.
Mr. Ashford also argued that a mistrial should have been granted based on statements that the prosecutor made during closing. According to Mr. Ashford, during closing, the prosecutor asked the jury to infer guilt upon him based on his failure to fully explain himself during the questioning by the investigators. The prosecutor made two statements pertaining to this issue during closing and the trial court struck both and instructed the jury. Mr. Ashford’s attorney never moved for a mistrial based on these statements however on appeal, Mr. Ashford argued that the trial court should have granted a mistrial ex mero motu. However, the appellate Court determined that by striking the statements and instructing the jury, any harm caused had been appropriately addressed.
The Court also addressed an IAC issue on appeal. IAC issues are normally left to be resolved at the trial court level, however the Court felt that there was sufficient information in the record that it could be addressed on appeal. Mr. Ashford argued that his counsel’s failure to not request an instruction on a lesser included offense constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Mr. Ashford argued that based on the evidence presented by the State, there were two inferences the jury could have made regarding his intent and there was no direct evidence of what occurred at the moment of the woman’s death. In addition to the evidence supporting premeditation and deliberation, Mr. Ashford argued that a theory that the woman died as result of a rough sexual encounter could have also been reasonably supported by the evidence. This alternative theory would have supported an instruction on second-degree murder or involuntary manslaughter. Mr. Ashford’s trial counsel did not raise this issue nor did he request an instruction on a lesser included offense. Because the issue comes before the appellate Court on an IAC claim, the Court is bound to apply the standard for such claims. In an IAC claim, the burden is on the defendant to prove that his attorney’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable probability that but for the error by counsel the result of the proceeding would have been different. The burden of reasonable probability on an IAC claim is lower than the burden to show plain error but it is higher than the burden of showing reasonable possibility. The appellate Court ruled that Mr. Ashford did not meet the reasonable probability burden required to establish an IAC claim. In support of this, the Court found that the State’s evidence strongly inferred that Mr. Ashford acted with premeditation and deliberation. A medical expert testified at trial that the woman experienced bruising in her vaginal area, that she had suffered from a bone fracture in her neck, and that she was strangled. The Court further recognized that as is typical of a strangulation, death comes slowly.
Finally, because none of the issues raised by Mr. Ashford constituted an error by the trial court, their accumulation was deemed adequate grounds for a new trial. The appellate Court determined that Mr. Ashford received a fair trial.
Although Mr. Ashford raised a number of interesting issues on appeal, this case further illustrates the importance of making a strong appellate record during the trial. It can be a challenge during the course of a trial especially as in this case where the conduct of the prosecutor is making it difficult to focus on both the issues within the trial and properly preserving the record. However, perhaps in this case a few additional objections in addition to a request for a lesser included offense instruction could have been of some significance to the appeal.
Recent Comments