State v. Morgan

In State v. Morgan, 183 N.C. App. 160, 166, 645 S.E.2d 93, 99 (2007), the defendant was convicted of two counts of both first-degree kidnapping and robbery with a dangerous weapon. Morgan, 183 N.C. App. at 163, 645 S.E.2d at 97. The Court, in upholding the defendant's kidnapping convictions, determined that the restraint was not a necessary part of the robbery because the defendant placed the victims in greater danger than that inherent in the armed robbery by binding the victims' wrists with duct tape. Id. at 167, 645 S.E.2d at 99. In State v. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626, 637, 340 S.E.2d 84, 91 (1986), our Supreme Court found the trial court erred by admitting testimony tending to show defendant had pointed a shotgun at two persons approximately three months prior to killing the victim, for which defendant was charged and found guilty of first-degree murder. Id. at 639, 340 S.E.2d at 93. The Court rejected the State's argument that this evidence "was relevant to show that defendant's pointing of the shotgun at the decedent and shooting him was not in self-defense." Id. at 638, 340 S.E.2d at 92. Our Supreme Court stated: The State's rationale here is precisely what is prohibited by Rule 404(b). In order to reach its conclusion, the State is arguing that, because defendant pointed a shotgun at someone three months earlier, he has a propensity for violence and therefore he must have been the aggressor in the alleged altercation with the victim and, thus, could not have been acting in self-defense. Indeed, the Commentary to N.C.G.S. 8C-1, Rule 404(b) infers that "evidence of a violent disposition to prove that the person was the aggressor in an affray" is an impermissible use of "evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts." The theory of relevancy articulated by the State on this appeal is plainly prohibited by the express terms of Rule 404(b) disallowing" evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts . . . to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith." Id.