State of North Carolina v. Charles Lee Boyd (COA26-40)is an unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals from a case out of Forsyth County. Here, the Court addresses whether the trial court committed error by not granting Mr. Boyd’s motion to strike the jury venire after potential jurors saw Mr. Boyd’s attorney arrive in the courtroom without Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd was released from prison in October of 2023 and placed on post-release supervision. In January of 2024 and with Mr. Boyd’s agreement, the terms of his post-release were modified to include electronic monitoring. Mr. Boyd was responsible for making sure that the monitoring unit remained charged. In February of 2024 the unit stopped communicating with the system and Mr. Boyd was charged with interfering with the electronic device. He went to trial on this charge and was convicted by a jury. He also entered an Alford plea to attaining the status of an habitual felon. Mr. Boyd gave timely notice of appeal.
On appeal, Mr. Boyd argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to strike the jury venire after potential jurors saw Mr. Boyd’s attorney arrive in the courtroom without Mr. Boyd. Mr. Boyd argued that by the potential jurors seeing this, they could infer that he was in custody.
The issues giving rise to this appeal took place during jury selection. During jury voir dire, the trial court took a lunch break. After the break was over, the jury pool gathered in the hall outside of the courtroom. However, some members of the jury pool went back inside the courtroom by entering through an adjacent hallway. At this point, neither Mr. Boyd nor his attorney were present in the courtroom. A few moments later, Mr. Boyd’s attorney entered the courtroom without Mr. Boyd. The trial court became concerned that some members of the jury pool could infer that Mr. Boyd was in custody since he was not in the courtroom with his attorney. At this point the trial court ordered the entire jury pool to the jury room and informed them that they would be directed when to return back to the courtroom. The jury was called back to the courtroom when Mr. Boyd and his attorney were both present. Before the jury was selected, Mr. Boyd moved to strike the jury venire. The trial court denied the motion and the trial proceeded.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court’s denial of Mr. Boyd’s motion to strike the jury venire for an abuse of discretion. Although the Court of Appeals noted in its opinion that it was appreciative of the concern raised by Mr. Boyd in his appeal, the Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mr. Boyd’s request to strike the jury venire.
Although the precise circumstances presented in this case probably do not arise often, it is not surprising that this occurred given the active nature of most courthouses in general. In this case, the trial court obviously addressed the matter to the satisfaction of the appellate Court.
Recent Comments