IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA17-1365
Filed: 4 December 2018
Macon County, No. 15CRS051254
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
BRODIE LEE HAMILTON, Defendant.
Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 27 January 2017 by Judge
William H. Coward in Macon County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals
17 May 2018.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Daniel
P. Mosteller, for the State.
Meghan Adelle Jones for defendant-appellant.
BERGER, Judge.
A Macon County jury convicted Brodie Lee Hamilton (“Defendant”) of multiple
charges of trafficking methamphetamine and one charge of conspiracy to traffic
methamphetamine. For these convictions, the trial court sentenced Defendant to
three consecutive terms of 225 to 282 months in prison, and fined him $750,000.00.
Defendant appeals, alleging the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion to dismiss,
(2) denying his motion for sanctions, and (3) not providing a special instruction to the
jury that had been requested. All three of Defendant’s allegations of error are based
STATE V. HAMILTON
Opinion of the Court
on a discovery dispute in which the State had failed to disclose a blank audio
recording. After review, we disagree with Defendant’s contentions and find no error.
Factual and Procedural Background
The Macon County Sheriff’s Department received a tip involving drug
transportation along a known methamphetamine trafficking route between Atlanta,
Georgia and Macon County, North Carolina. The information included specific
details about the individuals involved and the vehicle that would be used. Under the
direction of Lieutenant Charles Moody (“Lt. Moody”), the department sought to
intercept the vehicle by monitoring the back roads of Macon County between the pick-
up and drop-off locations.
On June 19, 2015, Jeremy Stanley (“Stanley”) and Elizabeth Tice (“Tice”) were
stopped in Macon County after failing to stop at a stop sign. Stanley told deputies
that there was a gun in the vehicle, and a trace of its serial number showed the
firearm had been stolen. Both Stanley and Tice were arrested for possession of a
stolen firearm. Stanley told deputies he wanted to talk and had additional
information about the stolen firearm.
Deputies brought in a K9 unit to conduct a “free air” sniff around the vehicle.
The K9 unit alerted on the vehicle, and deputies located more than two pounds of
methamphetamine in a plastic container behind the driver’s seat.
-2-
STATE V. HAMILTON
Opinion of the Court
Stanley and Tice were then transported to the Macon County Sheriff’s
Department. Stanley told Lt. Moody that Defendant paid them $17,000.00 to pick up
the methamphetamine in Atlanta. Lt. Moody asked Stanley and Tice if they could
help prove Defendant was involved by setting up a controlled delivery of artificial
methamphetamine. Stanley used Tice’s cell phone to call Defendant, told him that
they had problems with their vehicle, and arranged for someone to pick up the drugs
at the Smokey Mountain Welcome Center. Lt. Moody testified that he “could hear
that there was a person on the other end of the line, but [he] couldn’t hear what was
being said” by that person.
Defendant was not present at the site of the drug exchange, but instead, the
exchange was carried out by two of Defendant’s associates. Both associates were
arrested on site.
On December 14, 2015, the Macon County Grand Jury indicted Defendant for
trafficking in methamphetamine by possession, trafficking in methamphetamine by
transportation, and conspiracy to traffic methamphetamine. During Defendant’s
January 2017 trial, defense counsel asked Lt. Moody on cross-examination if he had
attempted to record the telephone conversations between Stanley and Defendant. Lt.
Moody responded:
I tried to record the telephone call. I don’t normally do that.
I had a brand-new tape recorder that had just been
purchased. I just used that and a microphone and a suction
cup to try to record that call . . . and made that attempt. It
-3-
STATE V. HAMILTON
Opinion of the Court
wasn’t until sometime later that I realized that there’s no
– there’s no real conversation that was captured during
that recording.
Defense counsel then informed the trial court that he was unaware of Lt. Moody’s
attempt to preserve the conversation by audio recording as no such information had
been provided in discovery. Defense counsel was permitted to question Lt. Moody
outside the presence of the jury:
[Defense Counsel:] So what was actually recorded in that?
[Lt. Moody:] Nothing.
[Defense Counsel:] Absolutely nothing?
[Lt. Moody:] Nothing. An occasional noise, but you
couldn’t even make out the words. I didn’t
do a very good job of the installation. I was
not familiar with the equipment or with
that particular phone.
...
[Defense Counsel:] So you recorded how many phone calls
with this device?
[Lt. Moody:] One.
[Defense Counsel:] Which one was that?
[Lt. Moody:] It would have been the first call. And quite
honestly, I don’t recall if I attempted to
record the second one or not. I didn’t make
any attempt to listen to the recording until
a couple of days after that, and there was
just nothing there.
[Defense Counsel:] Do we still have the audiotape?
-4-
STATE V. HAMILTON
Opinion of the Court
[Lt. Moody:] I don’t think so.
THE COURT: What happened to it? I mean, is it a
physical tape? Is it digital information?
[Lt. Moody:] It would be a digital tape. . . . A digital – a
digital device.
THE COURT: Do you still have that device?
[Lt. Moody:] I don’t know, Your Honor. I listened to it –
or attempted to listen to the recording
several times. There was no recording
there. I had other – at least one other
officer confirm that there wasn’t anything
there as well. I don’t know if I didn’t turn
it on, if – if I used – if I placed the
microphone on it inappropriately. There
was no recording there. . . . There was no –
there was no audible information on the
recording.
On January 25, 2017, Defendant filed a motion for sanctions seeking dismissal
of the charges for what he contended was a willful violation of North Carolina’s
discovery statutes and his constitutional rights. The trial court denied his motion for
sanctions.
On January 27, 2017, Defendant was convicted on all counts, sentenced to
three consecutive terms of 225 to 282 months in prison, and fined $750,000.00.
Defendant appeals, arguing the State’s failure to provide the blank audio recording
in discovery warranted dismissal of the charges against him for violation of his
constitutional rights and North Carolina’s discovery statutes. Defendant also argues
-5-
STATE V. HAMILTON
Opinion of the Court
the trial court erred in denying his motion for sanctions and not providing the jury a
special instruction on spoliation of evidence. We disagree.
I. Motion to Dismiss
Defendant contends the trial court was required to dismiss all charges for the
State’s failure to preserve and disclose the blank audio recording of the conversation
between Defendant and Stanley. Specifically, Defendant asserts that the State
violated his constitutional rights as set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 479
(1963), by failing to turn over information that was favorable and material to guilt or
punishment. We disagree.
Standard of Review
The standard of review for alleged violations of constitutional rights is de novo.
State v. Graham, 200 N.C. App. 204, 214, 683 S.E.2d 437, 444 (2009).
Analysis
A trial court must dismiss criminal charges where a “defendant’s constitutional
rights have been flagrantly violated and there is such irreparable prejudice to the
defendant’s preparation of his case that there is no remedy but to dismiss the
prosecution.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-954(a)(4) (2017). Defendant has “the burden of
showing the flagrant constitutional violation and of showing irreparable prejudice to
the preparation of his case. This statutory provision contemplates drastic relief, such
that a motion to dismiss under its terms should be granted sparingly.” State v.
-6-
STATE V. HAMILTON
Opinion of the Court
Williams, 362 N.C. 628, 634, 669 S.E.2d 290, 295 (2008) (citation and quotation marks
omitted).
Pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, “[e]vidence favorable to an accused can be
either impeachment evidence or exculpatory evidence.” Williams, 362 N.C. at 636,
669 S.E.2d at 296. Evidence is material if, had the evidence been disclosed, there is
a reasonable probability of a different result. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).
Defendant “has the burden of showing that the undisclosed evidence was material
and affected the outcome of the trial.” State v. Tirado, 358 N.C. 551, 589-90, 599
S.E.2d 515, 541 (2004) (citation omitted). However, Defendant is not required to
demonstrate that disclosure of the evidence would have resulted in acquittal, but
instead, the failure to provide the evidence undermined confidence in the outcome of
the trial. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434.
Moreover, when the unpreserved evidence is “potentially useful,” a defendant
must demonstrate “bad faith on the part of the police” in order to show a “denial of
due process of law.” Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58 (1988); see also State v.
Mlo, 335 N.C. 353, 373, 440 S.E.2d 98, 108 (1994); State v. Dorman, 225 N.C. App.
599, 620, 737 S.E.2d 452, 466 (2013). “[R]equiring a defendant to show bad faith on
the part of police both limits the extent of the police’s obligation to preserve evidence
to reasonable bounds and confines it to that class of cases where the interests of
justice most clearly require it.” Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 58. However, “[e]vidence of
-7-
STATE V. HAMILTON
Opinion of the Court
bad faith standing alone, even if supported by competent evidence, is not sufficient to
support a dismissal under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-954(a)(4).” Dorman, 225 N.C. App.
at 622, 737 S.E.2d at 467.
Here, Defendant had the opportunity to question Stanley about his phone call
with Defendant, cross-examine Lt. Moody about destruction of the blank audio
recording, and argue the significance of the blank audio recording to the jury.
Defendant did just that at trial. Defendant merely demonstrated that the blank
audio recording could have been potentially useful. However, Defendant has failed
to show bad faith on the part of Lt. Moody. It is undisputed that the blank audio
recording had not been disclosed to Defendant and had been subsequently destroyed
by Lt. Moody. Defendant’s highly speculative assertions about Lt. Moody, standing
alone, are insufficient to demonstrate bad faith.
Moreover, while the evidence may have had the potential to be favorable,
Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the blank audio recording was material. At
trial, it was established that Defendant had orchestrated the procurement of a
significant quantity of methamphetamine with a series of runners and underlings.
Stanley, Tice, and Christopher Prince each provided similar accounts of the role
Defendant had played in financing the operation, obtaining the methamphetamine
in Atlanta, and transporting that contraband to North Carolina. In light of the
-8-
STATE V. HAMILTON
Opinion of the Court
evidence at trial, the Defendant’s speculation about the contents and significance of
a blank audio recording does not undermine confidence in the outcome of his trial.
Defendant argues that “[s]ilence with occasional noises, would have been
relevant and highly probative evidence in this case,” because it undermined Stanley’s
credibility and “indicates that Stanley fabricated [Defendant’s] involvement.”
Defendant submits that, because the evidence went to Stanley’s credibility, bad faith
need not be shown under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Giglio v. United
States, however, concerned the failure by the prosecution to disclose the existence of
a promise not to prosecute “the only witness linking petitioner with the crime.” 405
U.S. 150, 151 (1972). That witness had denied the existence of the promise on cross
examination, and the attorney for the government, unaware of the promise, informed
the jury that the witness had received no such concession. Id. The United States
Supreme Court stated that “[w]hen the reliability of a given witness may well be
determinative of guilt or innocence, nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility
falls within this general rule.” Id. at 154 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Such is not the case here. Stanley was not the only link to Defendant’s
involvement in trafficking methamphetamine. Further, to the extent the blank audio
recording implicated any witness’ credibility, it was Lt. Moody’s, not Stanley’s
credibility. Stanley played no part in the installation of the recording equipment on
the phone, or the preservation, destruction, or failure to disclose the existence of the
-9-
STATE V. HAMILTON
Opinion of the Court
blank audio recording. Even if the blank audio recording had been available to
Defendant, the fact that, in substance, it contained no audible information does not
implicate Stanley’s credibility. The jury heard, and was able to weigh, Stanley’s
testimony in light of the fact that the recording was not preserved. Defendant’s
argument is unpersuasive, and we see no error in the trial court’s denial of
Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
II. Trial Court’s Denial of Statutory Sanctions
Defendant next argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for sanctions
for failure to preserve and disclose the blank audio recording. We disagree.
Standard of Review
Our Courts have consistently held that a trial court’s determination on
whether to impose sanctions, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-910, for failure to
comply with discovery requirements is reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Lane,
365 N.C. 7, 31, 707 S.E.2d 210, 225 (2011); see also State v. Herring, 322 N.C. 733,
747-48, 370 S.E.2d 363, 372 (1988) (“The sanction for failure to make discovery when
required is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed
absent a showing of abuse of discretion.”). A trial court abuses its discretion when its
ruling on discovery related sanctions “was so arbitrary that it could not have been
the result of a reasoned decision.” State v. Allen, 222 N.C. App. 707, 733, 731 S.E.2d
510, 528 (2012) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
- 10 -
STATE V. HAMILTON
Opinion of the Court
Analysis
North Carolina’s criminal discovery statutes provide that, for the purposes of
investigation and prosecution, “law enforcement and investigatory agencies shall
make available to the prosecutor’s office a complete copy of the complete files.” N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 15A-903(c) (2017). A file, pursuant to the statute, includes
defendant’s statements, the codefendants’ statements,
witness statements, investigating officers’ notes, results of
tests and examinations, or any other matter or evidence
obtained during the investigation of the offenses alleged to
have been committed by the defendant. When any matter
or evidence is submitted for testing or examination, in
addition to any test or examination results, all other data,
calculations, or writings of any kind shall be made
available to the defendant, including, but not limited to,
preliminary test or screening results and bench notes.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-903(a)(1)(a) (emphasis added).
In addition to contempt, a trial court may impose the following sanctions for
failure to comply with discovery:
(1) Order the party to permit the discovery or inspection,
or
(2) Grant a continuance or recess, or
(3) Prohibit the party from introducing evidence not
disclosed, or
(3a) Declare a mistrial, or
(3b) Dismiss the charge, with or without prejudice, or
(4) Enter other appropriate orders.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-910(a) (2017). Before imposing sanctions, however, the trial
court “shall consider both the materiality of the subject matter and the totality of the
- 11 -
STATE V. HAMILTON
Opinion of the Court
circumstances surrounding an alleged failure to comply.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-
910(b).
Pursuant to Section 15A-903(a), Lt. Moody should have not only documented
his efforts to preserve the conversation by audio recording between Stanley and
Defendant, but should have also provided the blank audio file to the District
Attorney’s Office to be turned over to Defendant in discovery because the blank audio
recording constituted “any other matter or evidence obtained during the
investigation.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-903(a)(1)(a). The statute obviates any
requirement that law enforcement evaluate the evidence to determine if it should be
turned over to the District Attorney’s Office, because anything obtained during the
investigation, regardless of perceived evidentiary value, is required to be preserved,
documented, and disclosed.
We are not unmindful of the fact that there may be practical barriers for
officers and detectives in the field pursuing leads, interviewing witnesses, and
securing evidence. Mistakes happen, and operating recording equipment can
certainly present problems. Even the most well-intentioned officer can be accused of
running afoul of discovery obligations when human fallibility meets technology. The
solution in these cases is to document the attempt and turn over the item with that
documentation, even if it appears to the officer to lack any evidentiary value.
- 12 -
STATE V. HAMILTON
Opinion of the Court
However, the failure to do so does not necessitate the dismissal of charges, or even
other lesser sanctions.
At the hearing for Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions, the trial court considered
the materiality of a blank audio file and the circumstances surrounding Lt. Moody’s
failure to comply with his obligation to provide his complete file to the District
Attorney’s Office as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-910(b). In denying sanctions,
the trial court considered the evidence presented and arguments of counsel
concerning the recording. It is uncontroverted that Lt. Moody attempted to record
the audio of at least one telephone conversation between Defendant and Stanley.
Lt. Moody was unfamiliar with the recording device he used and was not successful
in preserving the conversation.
The trial court evaluated Lt. Moody’s testimony in light of his considerable law
enforcement experience and determined that Lt. Moody’s explanation about the
events surrounding the recording was credible. The trial court even asked questions
of Lt. Moody concerning his failure to preserve the audio file, and stated, “I think he
said there was nothing useful on it.” The trial court went on to state:
I think you’re – you’re speculating as to what happened and
whether there was any information there. And the second
line as to whether that information might have been
exculpatory is further speculation. I can’t sit here and
presume that because the information is not there that it’s
exculpatory without more, and certainly not with
Lieutenant Moody’s experience and reputation. I would
want more to indulge in any such presumption. It sounds
- 13 -
STATE V. HAMILTON
Opinion of the Court
like to me, just to be candid with you, that he bought a piece
of electronics and he didn’t quite figure out how to use it,
because of the gray hair on his head, that the electronics
and the details of how to use a new toy like that just didn’t
– didn’t make it into his skill set before he tried to use it.
That’s what it sounds like to me.
...
Nothing came through. Not – not the defendant’s voice,
nobody’s voice. That was what I understood from what he
said. There was nothing there.
There is nothing in the record that suggests the trial court’s decision not to impose
sanctions was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned
decision, and we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
III. Requested Instruction
Defendant alleges the trial court erred when it failed to provide the following
requested instruction to the jury:
When evidence has been received which tends to show that
an audio recording of alleged phone calls between Jeremy
Stanley and the Defendant was in the exclusive possession
of the Macon County Sheriff’s Office, has been destroyed
and that the Sheriff’s Office had notice and understanding
of its obligations to preserve and provide its complete
investigative file to the Defendant, you may infer, though
you are not compelled to do so, that audio recordings would
be damaging to the State’s case. You may give this
inference such force and effect as you determine it should
have under all of the facts and circumstances.
We disagree.
Standard of Review
- 14 -
STATE V. HAMILTON
Opinion of the Court
“[Arguments] challenging the trial court’s decisions regarding jury instructions
are reviewed de novo by this Court.” State v. Osorio, 196 N.C. App. 458, 466, 675
S.E.2d 144, 149 (2009). “[A]n error in jury instructions is prejudicial and requires a
new trial only if ‘there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not
been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial out of which
the appeal arises.’ ” State v. Castaneda, 196 N.C. App. 109, 116, 674 S.E.2d 707, 712
(2009) (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1443(a) (2007)).
Analysis
“It is the duty of the trial court to instruct the jury on all substantial features
of a case raised by the evidence.” State v. Shaw, 322 N.C. 797, 803, 370 S.E.2d 546,
549 (1988) (citation omitted). “Failure to instruct upon all substantive or material
features of the crime charged is error.” State v. Bogle, 324 N.C. 190, 195, 376 S.E.2d
745, 748 (1989) (citation omitted). “The trial court must give a requested instruction
that is supported by both the law and the facts.” State v. Nicholson, 355 N.C. 1, 67,
558 S.E.2d 109, 152 (2002) (citation omitted).
This Court has previously determined that “destruction of evidence does not
amount to the denial of a fair trial unless the defendant can establish (1) the police
destroyed the evidence in bad faith; and (2) ‘the missing evidence possessed an
exculpatory value that was apparent before it was lost.’ ” State v. Nance, 157 N.C.
App. 434, 444, 579 S.E.2d 456, 463 (2003) (quoting State v. Hunt, 345 N.C. 720, 725,
- 15 -
STATE V. HAMILTON
Opinion of the Court
483 S.E.2d 417, 421 (1997)). In State v. Nance, this Court found the trial court did
not err when it declined to give a special instruction requested by the defendant
concerning lost evidence because defendant failed to meet both prongs of the test set
forth in Hunt. Id. at 445, 579 S.E.2d at 463.
Such is the case here. Again, Defendant has failed to establish bad faith on
the part of Lt. Moody, and, beyond mere speculation, Defendant has failed to show
that the blank audio recording contained any exculpatory evidence. As in Nance, the
trial court did not err when it declined to instruct the jury as requested by Defendant.
Conclusion
“Although defendant may not have received a perfect trial, we are confident,
after a thorough review of his case, that he received a fair trial.” State v. Ligon, 332
N.C. 224, 243, 420 S.E.2d 136, 147 (1992) (quotation marks omitted). As such, we
find no error.
NO ERROR.
Judges DIETZ and TYSON concur.
- 16 -