State v. Blanks ( 2014 )

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute
controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
NO. COA14-282
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 19 August 2014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Bladen County
No. 12CRS50891
BILLY GENE BLANKS,
Defendant.
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered on or about 26
September 2013 by Judge Thomas H. Lock in Bladen County Superior
Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 August 2014.
Attorney General Roy A. Cooper III, by Assistant Attorney
General Thomas D. Henry, for the State.
Winifred H. Dillon for defendant-appellant.
STROUD, Judge.
Defendant Billy Gene Blanks appeals from the judgment
entered after a jury found him guilty of misdemeanor fleeing to
elude arrest, speeding in excess of 55 miles per hour, reckless
driving so as to endanger any person or property, and failure to
heed a law enforcement officer’s light or siren. We find no
prejudicial error.
-2-
While performing other duties on 14 April 2012, Bladen
County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Chris Brisson saw defendant
drive by in a black BMW. Deputy Brisson recognized defendant
and knew he had outstanding warrants, so he began to pursue
defendant. Deputy Brisson activated his blue lights and
defendant accelerated and drove into the lane for oncoming
traffic. When the cars reached 120 miles per hour, defendant
crossed the county line and Deputy Brisson lost sight of
defendant’s car and ceased pursuit. The speed limit on the
highway was 55 miles per hour.
Deputy Brisson returned to the area where the chase began
and encountered defendant’s son, who informed him that defendant
had been cutting the grass at his home in the area earlier that
day. Deputy Brisson drove past defendant’s son’s home, and saw
a black BMW parked on the property. The car’s hood and tires
were warm, indicating it had recently been driven.
At trial, defendant testified that he owned a black BMW at
the time of the incident, but stated that he was out of the
state on 12 April 2012. Defendant’s son testified that
defendant left the BMW at his home when he traveled, and denied
telling Deputy Brisson that defendant had cut his grass on the
day of the chase. The jury found defendant guilty of
-3-
misdemeanor fleeing to elude arrest, speeding in excess of 55
miles per hour, reckless driving so as to endanger, and failure
to heed an officer’s light and siren. The trial court
consolidated the convictions into one judgment and sentenced
defendant to 90 days in jail. Defendant gave notice of appeal.
In his sole argument on appeal, defendant contends the
trial court erred when it overruled his objection to a question
posed by the prosecutor during her redirect examination of
Deputy Brisson. We do not agree.
On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned Deputy
Brisson, who at the time of trial worked for the Brunswick
County Sheriff’s Department, about the circumstances of his
departure from Bladen County:
Q. Okay, [the prosecutor] previously
brought this up and then I will hush. You
were previously employed here, weren’t you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And you are with Brunswick right
now?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did -- you were in fact terminated from
Bladen County?
A. No, sir.
-4-
The trial court sustained the State’s objection to the final
question. On redirect, the prosecutor asked Deputy Brisson to
clarify the circumstances of his employment change:
Q. Did you choose to go work in Brunswick
County?
A. Yes, ma’am. I had an application on
file for [a] previous amount of time and
they had some new positions and they called
and said I had a job if I wanted it.
Q. So you were not terminated?
A. No, ma’am.
Q. So [defense counsel’s] rude accusation
that you were terminated is incorrect?
A. Yes, ma’am.
Defense counsel objected to the prosecutor’s final question, and
the trial court overruled the objection. Defendant contends
that the disparaging nature of the prosecutor’s question so
prejudiced his defense that it affected the outcome of the
trial.
“Ordinarily, the asking of the question alone will not
result in prejudice to the defendant.” State v. Campbell, 296
N.C. 394, 399, 250 S.E.2d 228, 231 (1979) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, to prevail on appeal based on his objection to the
content of a prosecutor’s question, a defendant must demonstrate
a “reasonable possibility” that the question affected the
-5-
outcome of his case. State v. Whisenant, 308 N.C. 791, 794, 303
S.E.2d 784, 786 (1983).
Here, even were we to assume that the prosecutor’s
characterization of defense counsel as “rude” was improper,
defendant cannot demonstrate that the question caused him
prejudice. Deputy Brisson testified at trial and had first-hand
knowledge of the alleged criminal acts. Although he denied
committing the acts, defendant confirmed that he owned a car
that matched the description of the car Deputy Brisson observed
and pursued, and Deputy Brisson found the car parked at
defendant’s son’s house, still warm. In light of this evidence,
defendant simply cannot demonstrate that an isolated accusation
that his attorney asked a “rude” question possibly affected the
outcome of this trial.
NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR.
Judges BRYANT and HUNTER, JR., Robert N. concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).