In today’s society, cell phone data combined with video camera footage can essentially allow a piecing together of a person’s entire day. In State of North Carolina v. Isaiah Murchison-Clark (COA25-1025), is a fascinating case from an investigative standpoint, out of Wake County. Here we see how technology can be used to develop circumstantial evidence sufficient enough to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss.
In February of 2025, Mr. Murchison-Clark was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon. Mr. Murchison-Clark appealed his case and on appeal, he raised only one issue. His only issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred by failing to grant his timely made motion to dismiss the robbery with a dangerous weapon charge.
Just after 10:30pm on August of 2022, Mr. Murchison-Clark accompanied another man to engage in a drug transaction. At the time, Mr. Murchison was wearing all dark clothing and had on a ski mask. The two arrived at the designated location, exited their vehicle, and approached a man about the drug deal. Mr. Murchison-Clark walked around the area for a while, returned, and then shot the man who they had come to meet. That man later died. Immediately after shooting the man, Mr. Murchison-Clark lingered near him before speeding away in the car from the area with the other man.
During the processing of the crime scene, a detective from the Raleigh Police Department recovered fourteen .22 caliber shell casings with an “A” on them and a “green leafy material” from the deceased man’s pocket. The Raleigh Police Department identified a “SafeLight” traffic camera recording of a vehicle, which matched a previous description of the vehicle Mr. Murchison-Clark was in, traveling in the direction of the crime scene at 10:40pm. Information was obtained from the decedent’s cell phone indicated that the last number called on that phone, three minutes prior to the shooting, was Mr. Murchison-Clark’s. Doorbell footage, eye-witness testimony, “SafeLight” footage, and data from the deceased man’s cell phone were used to support obtaining a search warrant for call details of Mr. Murchison-Clark’s phone number.
Detectives were able to map out Mr. Murchison-Clark’s path of travel by using data obtained from cell phone towers. Cell phone records placed Mr. Murchison-Clark near the decedent’s home at the time of the shooting. Mr. Murchison-Clark’s cell phone data also revealed multiple messages between him and other murder suspects discussing a drug deal, a firearm, and a robbery. His cell phone data also revealed that he searched for a pawn shop near Burlington, NC earlier in the day, on the day of the shooting. He was physically near a pawn shop later that day and after that, his cell phone data revealed a search for instructions on how to operate a “Mossenburg .22”
Additionally, cell phone data showed that Mr. Murchison-Clark was near a Cookout restaurant about an hour before the shooting. At around 11:29pm after the shooting, cell phone data showed that Mr. Murchison-Clark was back at that same Cookout. Video footage from that Cookout at that time showed a female employee removing cash from Mr. Murchison-Clark’s pocket and counting it. Extracted data from Mr. Murchison-Clark’s cell phone also revealed Safari searches for “Raleigh shootings” on the day after the shooting, and the next day a news article about the shooting was sent to someone.
In late August of 2022, Mr. Murchison-Clark was stopped by a Durham County Sheriff’s Deputy for a seatbelt violation. During the course of the stop, the deputy smelled an odor of marijuana coming from inside the vehicle. A search was conducted where marijuana, a firearm, Adderall pills, and .22 caliber ammunition with the letter “A” similar to what was found at the scene of the shooting were discovered. Mr. Murchison-Clark was arrested for the decedent’s murder and subsequently indicted on the charges of murder, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon. The trial took place in February of 2025. Mr. Murchison-Clark did not put on any evidence during the trial. He did, however, make motions to dismiss at the close of the State’s evidence and at the close of all evidence. The jury convicted him on all charges and Mr. Murchison-Clark gave notice of appeal.
On appeal, Mr. Murchison-Clark raised the sole issue of whether the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion to dismiss the robbery with a dangerous weapon charge. The appellate Court will review a motion to dismiss de novo. The standard of review is whether there was substantial evidence of each essential element of the crime and that the defendant is the perpetrator. In determining if substantial evidence exists, the evidence is to be considered in the light most favorable to the State giving the State every reasonable intendment and every reasonable inference that is to be drawn from the evidence. All evidence that is actually admitted, regardless of the competency of the evidence, which is favorable to the State is to be considered.
What is of note in this case is that circumstantial evidence may be used to survive a motion to dismiss. Mr. Murchison-Clark challenged the sufficiency of the State’s evidence as to the first element of the robbery with a dangerous weapon charge. His focus was on the “unlawful taking or an attempt to take personal property from the person or in the presence of another…” However, the appellate Court determined that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support a reasonable inference that the money Mr. Murchison-Clark had in his possession at Cook at around 11:29pm was money that the decedent had in his possession at the time of the drug deal.
The Court also pointed out that the law makes no distinction between the weight that is to be given between direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Here, there was more than a scintilla of evidence to support a finding that Mr. Murchison-Clark had committed the offense of robbery with a dangerous weapon. Because of this, the Court found that this issue was best decided by the jury and therefore the trial court did not err by denying Mr. Murchison-Clark’s motion to dismiss this charge.
This case is a clear illustration of the power of technology. The saying that we are “being filmed at all times” carries a significant amount of truth. The advancement in the investigative capabilities of law enforcement agencies also cannot be discounted. The prevalence of constantly recording cameras coupled with the widespread use of cell phones, desktops, laptops, tablets, etc., means that our lives are literally a virtual footprint.
Recent Comments