State of North Carolina v. Terrence Pierre Lawson (COA25-909) is an unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals from October of 2026 out of Wake County. Mr. Lawson was convicted of first-degree murder. On appeal he argues that the trial court erred by finding that he had opened the door to the State asking him questions on cross examination about a prior act of violence. This succinct appellate opinion presents pitfalls that both trial and appellate attorneys should be cognizant of.
Mr. Lawson was on trial for the August 2021 shooting death of a gentlemen he had previously met while the two were incarcerated at Warren Correctional Institute. The wife of the victim and cell phone data helped to identify Mr. Lawson as the perpetrator. Facebook messages between Mr. Lawson and the victim also indicated that Mr. Lawson was most likely at the scene during the time of the murder.
Mr. Lawson’s trial took place in May of 2024. Prior to trial, the trial court agreed to exclude evidence of a prior shooting in Greensboro under Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b). The trial court determined that the facts of the two incidents were insufficiently similar and the prejudicial effect of admitting evidence regarding the Greensboro shooting outweighed its probative value. During trial and on direct examination, Mr. Lawson was asked questions that detailed his criminal history. Specifically, Mr. Lawson was asked if he had “ever made money as an enforcer?” In his response, Mr. Lawson stated, “I haven’t put hands on nobody.” Following this statement, the State asked to be heard outside of the presence of the jury. The State argued that this statement by Mr. Lawson was an assertion that he was not a violent person. Consequently, the State argued that Mr. Lawson had opened the door to the admission of evidence of the Greensboro shooting. Mr. Lawson argued that the evidence would be propensity evidence and that he had not opened the door. The trial court decided to allow the State to question Mr. Lawson about the Greensboro shooting however the trial court instructed the State not to go into detail about the shooting. On cross examination, the State asked Mr. Lawson if he had committed the Greensboro shooting. Mr. Lawson testified that he did and that the shooting occurred “[p]robably about a month” after the shooting that he was on trial for. Mr. Lawson did not object to this testimony. Mr. Lawson was convicted of first-degree murder and gave oral notice of appeal.
On appeal, Mr. Lawson argued that the trial court erred by determining that he had opened the door to being questioned on cross examination about the Greensboro shooting. The Court of Appeals determined that because Mr. Lawson did not object to the questioning at the time the question was posed during cross examination, the issue was not properly preserved for appellate review. Under Rule 10(a)(1) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, to preserve an issue for appellate review, “…a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling the party desired the court to make if the specific grounds were not apparent from the context.” From State v. Snead, 368 N.C. 811, 816, 783 S.E.2d 733, 737 (2016), “An objection made only during a hearing out of the jury’s presence prior to the actual introduction of the testimony is insufficient.” Because Mr. Lawson did not make an objection contemporaneous with the admission of the evidence of the specific act of violence of the Greensboro shooting, this issue was not properly preserved for appellate review.
The appellate Court went on to point out that when an issue has not been properly preserved for appellate review, it may still be reviewed on appeal for plain error. However, in Mr. Lawson’s argument to the appellate Court, he did not allege plain error and for this reason, appellate review on this basis was deemed waived. Ultimately, Mr. Lawson’s appeal was dismissed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
This case offers valuable lessons for both the trial and appellate criminal practitioner. When a defendant takes the stand, properly preparing the defendant to give testimony could be a significant difference maker. In this case the evidentiary pretrial ruling by the trial court should have worked to Mr. Lawson’s favor. However, the effort to obtain that favorable ruling was all for naught simply because of the answer that Mr. Lawson provided on direct examination. The defense attorney appears to have been trying to rehabilitate Mr. Lawson in some fashion but unfortunately a grossly unintended result materialized. Additionally, making timely objections at trial and in the presence of the jury is critical in order to properly preserve issues for appellate review. It can be challenging to remember to make such objections during the course of a trial but as advocates for our clients, we must make objections on the record and in a timely manner in order to assure that issues are preserved. Likewise for appellate counsel, when the record indicates that an issues has not been properly preserved, when raising that issue on appeal, we must allege plain error. We cannot assume that the appellate Court will conduct a review for plain error in the absence of this ground being specifically raised and briefed.
Recent Comments