Criminal Practice – Expert Testimony – Confrontation Clause

The trial court did not err in jury argument procedures; admitting expert toxicology testimony; and imposing separate sentences for death by distribution and sale of a controlled substance.

The trial court did not prejudicially err.

We considered Defendant’s appeal from convictions arising out of a fatal fentanyl distribution that resulted in the death of Robert Starner. Defendant was found guilty by a jury of possession with intent to sell or deliver fentanyl, maintaining a dwelling for controlled substances, possession of drug paraphernalia, and death by distribution. On appeal, she raised four principal arguments: that the trial court improperly denied her the right to open and close jury arguments, that expert toxicology testimony violated the Confrontation Clause, that her sentencing violated double jeopardy principles, and that she received ineffective assistance of counsel.

The evidence at trial showed that in September 2021, Starner sought to purchase heroin, contacted Defendant, and traveled with friends to her residence. Shortly after ingesting the drugs obtained there, Starner became erratic and unresponsive. He was later found dead in a car parked at his parents’ home. Police investigation linked the drugs to Defendant through witness testimony, her admissions to law enforcement, physical evidence recovered from her home, and text message communications. Toxicology testing revealed fentanyl and other substances in Starner’s system at levels deemed fatal.

Defendant first argued that because she presented no evidence at trial, Rule 10 entitled her to both open and close jury arguments. Although Rule 10 generally grants that right, Defendant was not prejudiced because her counsel delivered the final closing argument. Even assuming error, Defendant failed to show a reasonable possibility that the outcome would have differed absent the alleged violation.

Defendant next challenged the admission of expert testimony interpreting toxicology results generated by laboratory machines. We held that she waived this argument by failing to object at trial. In any event, machine-generated data are not testimonial statements under the Confrontation Clause. Because the expert independently reviewed and interpreted the chromatograph results, admission of his testimony did not violate Defendant’s constitutional rights.

Defendant also argued that sentencing her for both death by distribution and sale of a controlled substance constituted multiple punishments for the same offense. Applying the Blockburger test and North Carolina’s definitional approach, we concluded that the offenses contain distinct elements and reflect legislative intent to impose separate punishments, particularly in light of the General Assembly’s stated purpose to deter fatal opioid distribution.

No prejudicial error.

State of North Carolina v. Robinson (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-013-26, 17 pp.) (Jefferson Griffin, J.) Appealed from Alamance County Superior Court (Edwin Wilson, J.) Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Special Deputy Attorney General Zachary K. Dunn, for the State. Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Amanda S. Zimmer, for Defendant. North Carolina Court of Appeals