in the Court of Appeals 5 October 2017.
by defendant from judgment entered 26 October 2016 by Judge
Robert H. Hobgood in Wake County No. 16CRS207891 Superior
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney
General Andrew L. Hayes, for the State.
Bleyman for defendant-appellant.
October 26, 2016, a Wake County jury found Tony Luis Quinones
("Defendant") guilty of possession of a stolen
motor vehicle. Defendant was sentenced to nine to twenty
months in prison, and appeals arguing that the jury
instruction provided by the trial court contained an
incorrect statement of law. We disagree.
and Procedural Background
April 20, 2016, Raleigh Police Officer Shane Pekich observed
a white Lexus SUV near the intersection of South State Street
and Bragg Street. Officer Pekich determined that the vehicle
matched the description of a white Lexus SUV that had been
reported stolen earlier that day. The vehicle approached the
intersection with the right turn signal activated; however,
the vehicle turned left onto South State Street and
accelerated at a high rate of speed past Officer Pekich.
Officer Pekich saw the vanity license plate on the white
Lexus, which matched the personalized license plate of the
white Lexus that had been reported stolen.
Pekich pursued the white Lexus and radioed for assistance.
The white Lexus was traveling approximately sixty miles per
hour in a thirty-five mile-per-hour zone. The vehicle came to
a stop after running a red light and nearly being struck by
another vehicle. Officer Pekich observed an individual
dressed in white on the driver's side of the car fleeing
the scene. Defendant was wearing a white t-shirt when he was
apprehended and arrested shortly after abandoning the car and
fleeing on foot. An officer at the scene observed that only
the driver's door had been left open.
asked Officer Pekich if they caught anyone else, and gave the
description of another individual he contended was involved
in the theft of the automobile. Defendant also described the
clothing the other individual had on, which included a
"black shirt or black hoodie." Officers spoke with
the other individual who did in fact have on a black shirt,
but he denied being in the white Lexus. Although
Defendant's description matched the other individual,
neither the description nor the other individual's
appearance were consistent with the officer's observation
of a person wearing a white t-shirt fleeing the scene.
appeals his conviction for possession of a stolen motor
vehicle, asserting that the jury instructions contained an
incorrect statement of law concerning the element of
possession. Defendant failed to object to the purported
instructional error at trial.
order to preserve a question for appellate review, a party
must have presented the trial court with a timely request,
objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the
ruling sought if the specific grounds are not apparent."
State v. Eason, 328 N.C. 409, 420, 402 S.E.2d 809,
814 (1991); see also N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(1)
(2017). The North Carolina Supreme Court "has elected to
review unpreserved issues for plain error when they involve
either (1) errors in the judge's instructions to the
jury, or (2) rulings on the admissibility of evidence."
State v. Gregory, 342 N.C. 580, 584, 467 S.E.2d 28,
31 (1996). Plain error arises when the error is "
'so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements
that justice cannot have been done.' " State v.
Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660, 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983)
(quoting United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995,
1002 (4th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1018,
74 L.Ed.2d. 513 (1982)).
the plain error rule, defendant must convince this Court not
only that there was error, but that absent the error, the
jury probably would have reached a different result."
State v. Jordan, 333 N.C. 431, ...