A jury hearing statements given by a defendant during plea bargain negotiations could potentially lead to devastating consequences for that defendant. In State of North Carolina v. Johnathan Lynn Jenkins (COA25-935), an unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, we have some guidelines as to how to possibly avoid this catastrophic pitfall.
Mr. Jenkins and his nephew were charged with human trafficking and possession of a firearm by a felon in Johnston County. Jenkins did not want his nephew to be prosecuted vigorously if at all for these charges so he sought out an interview with the Johnston County D Sheriff’s Office to see if a deal could be reached. Mr. Jenkins met with an Assistant District Attorney and a detective. Mr. Jenkins chose to meet with these individuals without having an attorney representing him present and he signed a waiver of right to counsel. During the meeting, Mr. Jenkins stated that he had some information regarding a homicide that he would be willing to provide if some concessions for his nephew could be made. He repeatedly emphasized that he did not want his nephew to serve any time in prison. Meanwhile, the Assistant District Attorney repeatedly emphasized her willingness to hear the information that Mr. Jenkins could provide. She was interested in any information that Mr. Jenkins could provide regarding the human trafficking cases and she informed Mr. Jenkins several times that she was not in a position to offer any promises. The Assistant District Attorney and the detective repeatedly informed Mr. Jenkins that any plea negotiations concerning the trafficking charges would be independent of any discussions pertaining to the homicide. The Assistant District Attorney did agree to offer probation to Mr. Jenkins’ nephew, but she made no promises regarding the homicide.
After the discussions regarding the pending charges of Mr. Jenkins and his nephew were completed, Mr. Jenkins agreed to speak with a second detective about the homicide. Once the second detective arrived, the Assistant District Attorney left the room leaving Mr. Jenkins and the two detectives to discuss the homicide. During this meeting, Mr. Jenkins confessed to the murder in the homicide case and provided information on where he disposed of the body.
Mr. Jenkins was subsequently indicted for first-degree murder in the homicide. In February of 2019, Mr. Jenkins filed a Motion in Limine seeking to exclude statements he made to the second detective regarding the homicide. Mr. Jenkins’ motion sought the protections provided in Rule 410 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence and N.C.G.S. §15A-1025. Portions of the interview were excluded by the trial court however, much of the interview regarding the homicide were not. The first-degree murder case proceeded to trial and over the objection of Mr. Jenkins’ counsel, the jury heard evidence of what Mr. Jenkins said during the interview about the murder. Mr. Jenkins was convicted of first-degree murder and gave notice of appeal.
On appeal, Mr. Jenkins argued that the trial court erred by admitting the statements he made during the interview about the murder. The appellate Court reviewed this ruling by the trial court for abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion exists when a court’s ruling is unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that it could not have been the product reasoned decision making. Under Rule 410, any statement made during the course of plea negotiations with the prosecuting authority which do not result in a guilty plea or in which a guilty plea is later withdrawn, are inadmissible. Moreover, under N.C.G.S. §15A-1025, “…the fact that the defendant or his counsel and the prosecutor engaged in plea discussions or made a plea arrangement may not be received in evidence against or in favor of the defendant in any criminal or civil action or administrative proceedings.” Of importance here is that in order for the statements to be inadmissible, the plea negotiations must have been made with the prosecuting attorney or with the express authority of the prosecuting attorney. Statements made to government agents are inadmissible only if a defendant subjectively believes that they are negotiating a plea and that belief must be reasonable given the circumstances.
Here, Mr. Jenkins discussed the details of the murder with the detectives when the Assistant District Attorney had left the room. The Assistant District Attorney had informed Mr. Jenkins that her decision regarding the homicide was independent of her decisions regarding the human trafficking and firearm cases. In affirming the ruling of the trial court, the North Carolina Court of Appeals concluded that even If Mr. Jenkins believed the statements he made were in the course of plea negotiations, the statements were not made to the prosecutor nor were they made at a time when it was reasonable for him to believe that they were still a part of the plea negotiations.
Criminal defense practitioners often find themselves in the most unenviable positions. This case perhaps illustrates one of the most extremes of such a position. The stakes do not get much higher than in a first-degree murder case. There may not be much at your disposal to counteract a statement that was made through a waiver of counsel that affords limited legal protection. However, when engaging in such negotiations as those in this case, it is wise to be assured that conversations take place in the presence of the prosecutor. It is also wise that there is a clear understanding of what each party is seeking and what concessions are being offered by each party. Most importantly, make sure to know who you are negotiating with and what specific offers they have the authority to make. This case perhaps represents a clear imbalance in the knowledge and sophistication levels of the negotiating parties. Unfortunately, this imbalance worked significantly to Mr. Jenkiins’ detriment.
Recent Comments