THE DURHAM JURIS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA,
In 2021, Robert Taylor robbed Raymond Arrington, leaving him with a head wound.[1] Several months later, Arrington went to Boyer Street, Raleigh, searching for Taylor.[2] Instead, Arrington encountered Zachary Sanders.[3] Upon Sanders informing Arrington that Taylor was not home, Arrington procured a rifle from his car and threatened Sanders, claiming that he was hiding Taylor. Arrington left, but not before giving the following order to Sanders regarding Taylor: “when you see him again, tell him he’s a dead man”.[4]
Sanders warned Taylor the following morning of the threat upon his life.[5] Taylor expressed skepticism, arguing that Arrington was afraid of him. However, Sanders doubled down, stating that Arrington had no fear and urging Taylor to stay away from Boyer Street. Later that same day, Taylor parked on Boyer Street and, with his girlfriend sleeping in the backseat, stepped outside. From across the street Sanders heard gunshots and witnessed Taylor grunt and flee behind a house. Sanders then saw a man wearing a mask and brandishing a rifle that appeared similar to that brandished by Arrington the day prior.[6]
Police found Taylor unresponsive with five gunshot wounds, later succumbing to his wounds at the hospital.[7] Analysis of Arrington’s cell phone later would place him arriving at Boyer Street immediately before the shooting and leaving soon after.[8] Arrington’s girlfriend took the stand during trial, alleging that Arrington had planned the killing as revenge for the prior robbery and head injury.[9] Sanders also testified, providing his perspective of the events described above.
Sanders’ testimony appeared to align with many elements of the physical evidence, including Arrington’s location and identification of the murder weapon. In their closing arguments, the prosecution sought to establish the validity of Sander’s account, saying “[Sanders] . . . was the most credible witness that testified in this trial…I never asked him about the physical evidence. But did you notice how everything that he said matched up with all of the physical evidence?”[10] The prosecution then went on to claim that
[Sanders] told you the truth. And [he] never lied. Let’s make that clear. He told you, “I didn’t want to be involved.” He never gave a statement. He didn’t want to talk to Detective Morgan. While we wish he would have, he didn’t. He never lied. He told you all the truth.[11]
At no point during the prosecution’s closing arguments, including the prior two statements, did the defence make an objection. The jury went on to give Arrington life in prison without parole, including an additional concurrent sentence for possession of a firearm and having attained habitual felon status.[12] The defence appealed, claiming that the court erred by not intervening during the prosecution’s closing statements. According to the defense, the claims that Sanders “never lied”[13] and was “the most credible witness”[14] were improper, prejudicially infecting the trial with unfairness.
There is a clear conflict within this case between the duty of the jury and the purpose of a closing argument. Philosophically, criminal justice is rendered via the deliberation of a jury, with the events of a courtroom providing the jury with the necessary factual evidence, witness interrogation, and legal interpretation to inform their decision. Thus, it is the duty of the jury to determine the veracity of Sanders’ testimony, not the prosecution. However, the prosecution, by definition, is making an argument as to Arrington’s guilt, which hinges upon Sanders’ testimony.
The jury is implicitly aware of the prosecution’s wider argument: that Arrington is guilty. Is there a measurable difference between arguing that Arrington committed murder and claiming that Sanders’ told the truth about said course of events? If it is ultimately up to the jury to analyze Sanders’ story and render a verdict, then so too must they be capable of discerning argument from fact. It is not a vast stretch of the imagination to assume that, unless explicitly stated otherwise, the State would argue that their own witnesses’ testimony is accurate.
In order to reverse the decision, it must be shown that the prosecution’s statements rendered the jury’s verdict “fundamentally unfair”.[15] According to the North Carolina General Statute regarding closing arguments, an attorney can not
express his personal belief as to the truth or falsity of the evidence or as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, or make arguments on the basis of matters outside the record except for matters concerning which the court may take judicial notice. An attorney may, however, on the basis of his analysis of the evidence, argue any position or conclusion with respect to a matter in issue[16]
Because the prosecution based their belief on Sanders upon his testimony lining up with physical evidence, their closing argument initially appears to be admissible under the last clause of the statute. However, there is a vast difference between stating that Sanders’ account is confirmed by evidence presented to the jury and claiming that Sanders “never lied”[17] on the stand. This is impossible for the prosecution to prove, and is outside the scope of their argument.
As to the precedence of these statements’ permissibility, the defence relies upon State v. Locklear and State v. Phillips. In State v. Locklear, a district attorney told a defense witness that “you are lying through their teeth and know you are playing with a perjury count”.[18] In the same line of questioning the DA told the witness to “think up a good story while you are up there”.[19] The latter statement was struck down upon objection, but the defense did not object to the prior accusation. The Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled that the district attorney’s claim that the witness was lying was improper and prejudicial.[20] However, the court also clarified that a lawyer “can argue to the jury that they should not believe a witness, but he should not call him a liar”.[21]
In State v. Phillips, the prosecution stated in their closing argument that a witness was “wholly unbelievable”.[22] The court ruled that this flat statement was an improper sharing of a personal opinion regarding the credibility of evidence. However, the court did not find this statement to have infected the trial with unfairness given prior “overwhelming evidence against the defendant”.[23]
The Court of Appeals argues that Arrington is distinct from these two cases because, unlike in Phillips and Locklear, the prosecution’s statements were made in the context of validating the witnesses’ testimony in light of physical evidence rather than being a flat statement of personal belief. Additionally, the court found that, even assuming the statements were impartial and improper, there is not enough evidence to support the conclusion they imbued the entire judicial process with unfairness.
It is clear that, as in Phillips, the evidence presented against the defendant is much likely too great in Arrington to have been completely disregarded by the jury upon admission of the prosecution’s closing argument. Additionally, it is true that the prosecution’s statements were made within the context of supporting a claim using irrefutable physical evidence rather than a baseless accusation. However, the prosecution did not stop at a comparison of physical evidence. They went as far as to claim that Sanders did not lie for the duration of his testimony.
If Phillips claims that a lawyer can not call a witness a liar, but can argue that the jury should not believe him, why should it be permissible to call a witness a straight shooter rather than arguing that the jury should believe him? While in this specific case the prosecution’s statements are not enough to warrant reversing an error, there is contradiction between the North Carolina General Statutes and case precedent. Locklear asserts that a prosecutor “may not determine matters of credibility and announce the result in open court”[24] as that is the prerogative of the jury. However, a flat statement that Sanders somehow gave infallible testimony, regardless of how well it lined up with evidence, is admissible according to Arrington.
The Supreme Court of North Carolina must step in to draw clear boundaries as to what distinguishes “personal belief as to the truth or falsity of the evidence”[25] from arguing “any position or conclusion with respect to a matter in issue”.[26] Until then, a closing argument becomes not a synthesis of one side’s particular legal interpretation, but rather an abuse of fact to make that interpretation a reality for the jury.
-
State v. Arrington, __ N.C App. __, COA24-688 2 (June 4, 2025) ↑
-
Id. ↑
-
Id. ↑
-
Id. at 3 ↑
-
Id. ↑
-
Id. ↑
-
Id. ↑
-
Id. at 4 ↑
-
Id. ↑
-
Id. at 7 ↑
-
Id. ↑
-
Id. at 5 ↑
-
Id. at 7 ↑
-
Id. ↑
-
Id. at 6 ↑
-
N.C.G.S § 15A-1230 ↑
-
Arrington, __ N.C App. __, COA24-688 7 (June 4, 2025) ↑
-
State v. Locklear, 241 S.E.2d 65 (1978) ↑
-
Id. ↑
-
Id. ↑
-
Id. ↑
-
State v. Phillips, 365 N.C 103 (2011) ↑
-
Id. ↑
-
Locklear, 241 S.E.2d 65 (1978) ↑
-
N.C.G.S § 15A-1230 ↑
-
Id. ↑