subject: North Carolina Murder Burglary Robbery Dangerous DNA Test Confrontation Testimony Weapon Lawyers Attorneys [print this page] STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA vSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LAKENDRA SHERRELL GRADY, Defendant.
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
January 14, 2010, Heard in the Court of Appeals
August 17, 2010, Filed
The jury found defendant guilty of first degree burglary, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and first degree murder under the felony murder rule, with robbery with a dangerous weapon and first degree burglary as the underlying felonies.
The court arrested judgment on the conviction of robbery with a dangerous weapon, combined for sentencing the convictions for first degree murder and first degree burglary, and sentenced defendant to a term of life imprisonment without parole.
Issues:
Whether the trial court erred in admitting testimony by an SBI special agent about the results of DNA testing that had been conducted by another agent who did not testify?
Observation and Holding:
Even assuming, arguendo that the testimony was admitted in error, we hold that the State has established that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Although defendant notes various inconsistencies in the testimony, the evidence was essentially undisputed that defendant was present during the shooting. The DNA evidence, however, was not pertinent to any of these conflicts in the evidence. The testing merely suggested that Owens was not connected with the gun and precluded an argument by the defense that the State had not followed every possible lead. The DNA evidence regarding the blood on the 9mm handgun's trigger did nothing to address the discrepancy about the time of the shooting and did not identify the shooter. Moreover, on the question of who provided Miller with the 9mm handgun, the fact that the testing did not match the blood to defendant supported defendant's suggestion at trial that she had not been the source of the 9mm handgun. In sum, even if we accept arguendo defendant's view that the evidence was in serious conflict, our review of the record indicates that there is no plausible basis for concluding that the DNA testing played any material role in the jury's decision to convict defendant.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
North Carolina Murder Burglary Robbery Dangerous DNA Test Confrontation Testimony Weapon Lawyers Attorneys
By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
