A prosecutor incorrectly argued to the jury that witnesses had described “P,” an armed man at the scene of a homicide, as having a tattoo on his chest. However, defense counsel did not object, and defendant has failed to show the remarks were so grossly or extremely improper that the trial court should have intervened ex mero motu.
We find no error in defendant’s conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
Where (1) defendant admitted that he was present at 90 Sugar Hill Lane on the morning of a day when a homicide took place at that location and that several prosecution witnesses might have seen him on the porch with Jafa McKoy; (2) defendant’s cell phone was located in the area of the scene; (3) one witness identified defendant from a photo array as “P,” one of two armed men on the porch at 90 Sugar Hill Lane, with 85 to 90 percent confidence; and (4) two witnesses described “P” in the same way that defendant’s former girlfriend described the way he appeared at the time of the shooting, the evidence was sufficient to support a reasonable inference that defendant – a felon – was the same person as “P,” who possessed a firearm.
State v. Parker (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-035-20, 16 pp.) (John Tyson, J.) Appealed from Sampson County Superior Court (Ebern Watson, J.) Michael Wood for the state; Michael Casterline for defendant. N.C. App.