Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Juene

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

January 15, 2019

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
DARIEUS ANDREW JUENE, Defendant.

          Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 November 2018.

          Appeal by Defendant from judgments entered 15 February 2017 by Judge David L. Hall in Guilford County Nos. 16CRS085458-61, 16CRS085469 Superior Court.

          Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Christine Wright, for the State.

          William D. Spence for the Defendant.

          DILLON, JUDGE.

         Defendant Darieus Andrew Jeune[1] appeals judgments against him for robbery with a dangerous weapon and other crimes based on a robbery which occurred at a shopping mall. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because the pre-trial identification was impermissibly suggestive. We disagree and conclude that Defendant had a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.

          I. Background

         In September 2016, three victims were robbed in the Four Seasons Mall parking lot in Greensboro by three assailants. Defendant was apprehended and identified by the victims as one of the assailants of the robbery. Defendant was indicted on robbery with a dangerous weapon and other charges.

         In February 2017, Defendant filed a motion to suppress the show-up identification made by the three victims. In open court, the trial court denied Defendant's motion to suppress and made findings of fact and conclusions of law from the bench.

         Defendant was found guilty of all charges by a jury and was sentenced in the presumptive range for each charge, to be served consecutively. Defendant gave oral notice of appeal in open court.

         II. Analysis

         On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his Motion to Suppress Evidence. More specifically, Defendant argues that the show-up identification should have been suppressed.

         A. Standard of Review

         We review the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress for whether "competent evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact and whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law." State v. Biber, 365 N.C. 162, 167- 68, 712 S.E.2d 874, 878 (2011). Findings of fact are "conclusive and binding . . . when supported by competent evidence," while conclusions of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.