State of North Carolina v. Mario Blanding (COA25-584) is an unpublished North Carolina Court of Appeals decision from March of 2026. Mr. Blanding was convicted of two first-degree murders and his appeal was based on the trial court’s admission of Rule 404(b) evidence and the jury instructions. For the purposes of this discussion, we will primarily focus our attention on the Court’s Rule 404(b) analysis because that offers valuable insights for both trial and appellate practitioners.
This case involves a long and complicated set of facts. An methodical examination of the facts is necessary in order to see how the appellate Court applies Rule 404(b) in its analysis. In January of 2021, Mr. Blanding approached a gentleman named Mr. Parker at Service Foods, a convenience store. Mr. Blanding approached him from behind, knocked him to the ground, and broke his hand. Mr. Blanding also stole Mr. Parker’s .45 caliber pistol. A detective with the Durham County Sheriff’s Office responded to the scene. Mr. Parker reported the theft and provided the detective with the serial number to the . Although Mr. Parker knew Mr. Blanding, he did not report this to the detective at that time. Surveillance video captured the incident.
During Mr. Blanding’s trial, he testified to events that occurred in February of 2021. Mr. Blanding was in the driveway of his family’s home in Durham, North Carolina. Parked in a vehicle across the street were Mr. Gooch also known as “Murder” and Mr. Baines also known as “Bam.” These two gentlemen were parked in front of Mr. Baines’ home and sitting inside of Mr. Gooch’s Chevy Tahoe. Mr. Blanding approached Mr. Gooch to negotiate the sale of a gun while Mr. Baines went inside his home to get a phone charger. When Mr. Baines returned, Mr. Blanding asked him about the mother of his children who Mr. Blanding had once been involved with. This resulted in an argument and Mr. Blanding claimed that Mr. Baines had threatened him. Mr. Blanding reported being in fear for his life as a result of Mr. Baines’ threats. Mr. Blanding and Mr. Baines tussled with the gun and fearing that his life was in danger, Mr. Blanding shot Mr. Baines. Mr. Blanding claimed that Mr. Gooch also threaten him and they too tussled with the gun before Mr. Blanding shot him as well. According to Mr. Blanding, at this time a vehicle came speeding down the street. Fearing they he may become a victim of a drive-by, Mr. Blanding pushed Mr. Gooch into the passenger seat of Mr. Gooch’s vehicle and then drove away. Mr. Blanding claim to not have taken anything from either Mr. Gooch or Mr. Baines. It was later revealed that Mr. Gooch had been shot twice and Mr. Baines had been shot four times.
A few minutes later, Officer Ramos, of the Durham Police Department, arrived on the scene. Upon arrival, Officer Ramos noticed a projectile falling from one of the wounds in Mr. Baines’ body. He also notice Mr. Baines’s pockets turned inside out. A woman on the scene described an “old school” car leaving the area and said, “Mario Blanding got something to do with it. That’s all I know.” Officer Hamilton, also of the Durham Police Department, was also on the scene. Officer Hamilton spoke with Mr. Gooch’s mother who stated, “Whoever shot Bam jumped in the car with my son and pulled out of here.” Neighbors on the scene informed the officers of the make and model of Mr. Gooch’s vehicle. A “be on the lookout” (BOLO) was issued for Mr. Gooch’s vehicle and the vehicle was later located approximately one mile away from the scene.
Mr. Blanding drove the vehicle to his ex-girlfriend’s apartment. While there, he asked to see his son and told his ex-girlfriend , “I messed up.” Security footage from the apartment complex showed a man dressed in clothing that matched the description later provided by the ex-girlfriend, drive into the complex and leave a few moments later. However, when he left the complex, Mr. Blanding left in a Kia SUV. The keys to the ex-girlfriend’s Kia SUV were missing and her son reported seeing blood on Mr. Blanding’s shirt.
Officers later arrived on the scene where Mr. Gooch’s vehicle had been spotted. There they found Mr. Gooch’s unresponsive body inside the vehicle with gunshots wounds to his head. A Durham Police Department Crime Scene Investigator recovered a 9-mm caliber shell casing, two .45mm caliber cartridge casings, Mr. Baines’ debit card, and Mr. Gooch’s wallet and debit card. Over $1,000 in cash was recovered from Mr. Gooch’s person. Although cell phones belonging to Mr. Gooch and Mr. Baine were never recovered, cell phone records show that their phones traveled from the scene of the shooting to the location where Mr. Gooch’s body was discovered. Mr. Blanding’s cell phone records show that his phone remained near the scene of the shooting.
A few days later, an officer responded to an Extended Stay where the stolen Kia had been seen. The suspect fled on foot but the officers were able to collect evidence from the Kia. There they found a blood stain on the driver’s seat cushion, a box of .45 caliber ammunition, an open box of contact lens with Mr. Blandings’ name on the shipping receipt, and an envelope addressed to Mr. Blanding containing his family’s home address.
Two days later, video footage from the Habibi Mart convenience store in Durham showed a man leaving the store and entering a Chevy Malibu. Mr. Blanding is seen on video approaching the man. Mr. Blanding reaches into the car and a physical struggle between the two occurs. Mr. Blanding fires a gun at the man twice and the man then goes into the Habibi Mart. Mr. Blanding spends approximately 20 seconds in the front seat of the Chevy Malibu but he does not drive away. Mr. Blanding wipes down the steering wheel and then leaves on foot. The man returns from the store to the vehicle where he is seen pointing at someone in the distance. The police responded to the scene where they were able to observe a trail of blood leading into the store. They also recovered a cartridge case and spent cartridges.
A little over a week later, the Durham Fire Department along with paramedics responded to a report of a man lying on a lawn in the cold. There they found Mr. Blanding lying face down and refusing to roll over. While trying to roll Mr. Blanding over, one of the paramedics noticed a firearm in Mr. Blanding’s hand. The paramedic pinned the firearm to Mr. Blanding’s chest until the police arrived. Upon arriving on the scene, the police were able to secure the firearm which was loaded and chambered. Mr. Parker’s stolen .45 caliber pistol was recovered along with a magazine with several types of .45 caliber bullets. It was later determined that the shell casings recovered from the scene of Mr. Baines’ shooting and the casings recovered outside of the Habibi Mart were all fired from this .45 caliber pistol.
In February of 2021, a Durham County grand jury indicted Mr. Blanding on two counts of first-degree murder on the basis of premeditation and deliberation and felony murder. Mr. Blanding was tried in May of 2024. After opening statements but before the State began presenting its case, the State informed the trial court that it would be presenting testimony from Mr. Parker regarding the Service Foods incident under Rule 404(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence for the purpose of identification. Mr. Blanding objected under Rule 403 and the trial court denied the objection. The State later informed the trial court that it would be presenting Rule 404(b) evidence relating to the attempted carjacking that occurred at the Habibi Mart. This incident took place six days after the murders and two days after the stolen Kia was recovered. Regarding this evidence, the State informed the trial court that “This is relevant because it is evidence of a plan, preparation, modus operandi, and also intent.” The State argued that this evidence was more probative than prejudicial and that it would also establish identity as well. Mr. Blanding objected under Rule 403 and asked the trial court for a limiting instruction. The trial court granted the following limiting instruction: “The purpose for the State is to show identification as well as a scheme and a plan and a modus operandi.”
Mr. Blanding was ultimately convicted on two counts of first-degree murder under premeditation and deliberation and felony murder. He gave oral notice of appeal. On appeal, Mr. Blanding argued that the trial court committed plain error by admitting 404(b) evidence about the incidents at Service Foods and the Habibi Mart. He also raised an issue concerning the trial court’s charge to the jury and ineffective assistance of counsel which the appellate Court found were both without merit.
Rule 404(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence provides: ”Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that [the person] acted in conformity therewith. However, it may be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake…” Under State v. Beckelheimer, 366 N.C. 127, 130 (2012), the appellate Court viewed the trial court’s legal conclusion regarding the 404(b) evidence de novo.
Although Rule 404(b) is a rule of inclusion, it is constrained by similarity and temporal proximity. The facts of the charged offense and the 404(b) event must be unusual to the extent that there is an indication that they were committed by the same person. Under State v. Wilson-Angeles, 251 N.C. App 886, 893 (2017), to determine if the 404(b) evidence was properly admitted, the appellate Court will examine the similarities between the charged crime and the 404(b) evidence that were considered by the trial court. Also, Under North Carolina Rule of Evidence 403, “Evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Thus, Rule 403 provides an additional limitation on the admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence. Once the trial court has decided that the probative value of the evidence is not outweighed by its prejudicial effect, the appellate Court will then consider whether the decision of the trial court is potentially reasoned or necessarily arbitrary. The trial court can impose a safeguard against a possible prejudicial effect of the Rule 404(b) evidence by admitting it along with a limiting instruction to the jury.
The appellate Court began its analysis of the Rule 404(b) issues raised by Mr. Blanding by first looking at the incident at Service Foods. Here the State’s purpose for using the Rule 404(b) evidence was to prove identity. In order to use Rule 404(b) evidence to prove identity, two requirements must be met. First, the identity of the defendant must be an issue in the case. Second, the circumstances of the two incidents must be such that the charged crime and the other crime were committed by the same person. In this case, the identity of the person who shot Mr. Gooch and Mr. Baines was never in issue. Mr. Blanding informed the court early on that he would be asserting self-defense. Because identity was not an issue in this case, the appellate Court determined that the admission of the evidence pertaining to the incident at Service Foods as probative of identity was erroneous.
Before continuing its analysis of the admission of the evidence concerning the incident at Service Foods, the Court discussed how the admission of this evidence would have been proper on other grounds. The Court’s discussion here is especially of great use to both trial and appellate practitioners, which makes it worthwhile to review here. From State v. Al-Bayyinah, 356 N.C. 150, 154 (2002), we learn that Rule 404(b) allows the admission of any evidence “relevant to any fact or issue other than the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime.” Evidence of other crimes is admissible if it serves to enhance the development of the facts or complete the story of the charged crime. In this case, admissible evidence from the murder crime scene linked that event to the pistol stolen from Mr. Parker. Mr. Blanding was apprehended with that same pistol. Evidence that Mr. Blanding stole the pistol constitutes evidence of how the murder weapon was obtained. This serves to enhance the development of the facts or complete the story of the charged murders. Evidence that Mr. Blanding stole the weapon is not probative of his propensity to commit first-degree murder. However, the stealing of the weapon from Mr. Parker was connected to the events that lead to the deaths of Mr. Gooch and Mr. Baines. Therefore, the Court concluded that evidence of the incident involving Mr. Parker would have been admissible for this purpose.
After determining that it was erroneous for the trial court to admit evidence of the incident at Service Foods for the purpose of establishing identity, the appellate Court turned its attention on the admission of Rule 404(b) evidence pertaining to the shooting and attempted carjacking at Habibi Mart. Recall that this evidence was admitted for the purpose of identity as well as to show a scheme and a plan and a modus operandi. Because as stated previously, the appellate Court determined that identity was not at issue here, this evidence could not be admitted to establish identity. However, showing that this Rule 404(b) evidence was admitted to show a common scheme or plan leads to a different conclusion. From State v. Curry, 153 N.C. App. 260, 264 (2002), we learn that two questions must be considered in determining the admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence for the purpose of showing a common scheme or plan. First, the similarity of the crimes must be considered; second, the remoteness in time of the crimes must be examined.
If the evidence is sufficiently similar, then a common plan or scheme to commit the charged offense can be shown without merely showing a defendant’s propensity to commit a similar crime. Because the trial court in this matter made no findings regarding the similarities between the charged crime and the Habibi Mart incident, the appellate Court examined the record in order to make a comparison. The Court found that there were unusual facts present in both crimes indicative of them be perpetrated by the same person. The shell casings found at the Habibi Mart and recovered from Mr. Gooch’s vehicle were both .45 caliber. A forensic examination of the casings determined that they were both fired from the same gun that was recovered from Mr. Blanding when he was apprehended. The Court determined that this forensic evidence established sufficient similarity.
In State v. Christian, 180 N.C. App. 621, 627 (2006) where there was a two month time period between two crimes, the North Carolina Court of Appeals has found that amount of time was not too remote. The events in this case occurred within a week of each other, therefore remoteness was not an issue. Consequently, Rule 404(b) evidence pertaining to the Habibi Mart shooting and attempted carjacking was sufficient for admission to show a common plan or scheme.
The appellate Court concluded its analysis on the admission of the Rule 404(b) evidence pertaining to the Service Foods incident by examining the record to determine if the issue had been properly preserved for review. In order for an issue to be properly preserved for review, a proper request, objection, or motion must have been presented to the trial court. Furthermore, an objection to the admission of evidence must be made at the time that the evidence is sought to be introduced. Objections made pre-trial or outside of the presence of the jury are not sufficient to preserve an issue for appellate review. Mr. Blanding objected to the Rule 404(b) evidence regarding the incident at Service Foods and the Habibi Mart incident only on basis of Rule 403, not Rule 404(b) and these objections were not made at the time the evidence was being introduced. Therefore, the Court reviewed the ruling of the trial court regarding the Service Foods incident for plain error.
Demonstrating plain error is a high bar for a defendant to meet. The defendant must first show that the error was fundamental and grave. Next, the defendant must show that the error had a probable impact on the outcome of the trial. Finally, the defendant must show that the error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Reber, 386 N.C. 153, 158 (2024).
The appellate Court determined that Mr. Blanding did not meet the bar to demonstrate plain error. He did not show that it was probable that the outcome would have been different had the jury not heard evidence about the pistol being stolen. Even though this evidence was erroneously admitted to show identity, it could have been admitted on other grounds thus the fairness and integrity of this proceeding was not impacted. The Court went on to point out that the cumulative evidence against Mr. Blanding was substantial and that evidence of the Service Foods incident was de minimus. The jury heard evidence that Mr. Blanding possessed the murder weapon throughout a series of incidents. The jury heard evidence that the murder weapon was fired in an attempted carjacking. Finally, the jury heard evidence that the murder weapon was found on Mr. Blanding’s person when he was apprehended. Hence, Mr. Blanding could not show that the erroneous admission of evidence pertaining to the Service Foods incident to establish evidence probative of identity resulted in his conviction being an “exceptional case” as it pertains to plain error.
Mr. Blanding also argued on appeal that the trial court’s jury instruction on felony murder was “not legally correct” and an ineffective assistance of counsel claim was asserted as well. The North Carolina Court of Appeals was not persuaded by either of these arguments and ultimately determined that there was no error in Mr. Blanding’s trial.
Recent Comments