# State v. Lytch > Court of Appeals of North Carolina · April 3, 2001 · 142 N.C. App. 576 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9846825 ## Case - **Full name:** State of North Carolina v. Ricky C. Lytch - **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina - **Decided:** April 3, 2001 - **Citations:** 142 N.C. App. 576; 544 S.E.2d 570; 2001 N.C. App. LEXIS 188 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Hudson - **Judges:** McCullough, Greene, Hudson - **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9846825 ## Opinion text Judge HUDSON, dissenting. I believe the admission into evidence of three loose cartridges, one of which had been in the same gun used to shoot the victims, was error, in that the only evidence regarding the source of the cartridges is that they were found somewhere in Berwick Trailer Park. The maintenance man who discovered a magazine in the trailer where defendant had been staying reported seeing only a magazine, not the loose cartridges. The officers who received the cartridges from the trailer park manager did not testify as to where in the trailer park the cartridges had been found. Given the circumstances of this case and the use of the evidence by the prosecution, admission of the cartridges was unduly prejudicial to defendant. This case is distinguishable from State v. Felton, 330 N.C. 619 , 412 S.E.2d 344 (1992), State v. White, 349 N.C. 535 , 508 S.E.2d 253 (1998), and State v. Thompson, 332 N.C. 204 , 420 S.E.2d 395 (1992), cited by the majority in holding that the cartridges were properly admitted. In Felton , four bullets having similar characteristics to the one used to kill the victim were discovered inside a water heater behind *588 defendant’s trailer. 330 N.C. at 625 , 412 S.E.2d at 348 . Thus, the specific location in which the bullets were found was known and clearly linked to the defendant. By contrast, in the present case, we know only that the cartridges came from some place within an entire trailer park. There was evidence that the trailer park was a high-crime area and that it was not unusual to hear gunshots fired there. Furthermore, the trailer park was a “hang-out” for many people who were potential suspects in these murders. In White , shell casings fired from the same gun used to kill the victims in North Carolina were found in Arizona at a site not far from the motel where defendant was staying. 349 N.C. at 544 , 508 S.E.2d at 260 . Clearly, if defendant had no involvement in the murders, it was exceedingly unlikely that the actual murderer would travel to Arizona and fire the murder weapon in close proximity to the motel where defendant was staying. Given the remote possibility of a coincidence, the shell casings found in Arizona linked the defendant to the murders. By contrast, in the present case, many potential suspects in the murders spent time in the trailer park where the bullets were found. Furthermore, while in White it was quite an unusual circumstance to find shell casings in Arizona from a gun used to kill people in North Carolina, it is not particularly surprising that the cartridges in this case were found in the same trailer park where the murders themselves took place. In Thompson , a gun with the same characteristics as the murder weapon was found in a ditch approximately a mile and a half from the murder scene. 332 N.C. at 221 , 420 S.E.2d at 404-05 . There was no contention that the location where the gun was found helped identify defendant as the murderer; thus, Thompson is inapposite to the present case. Most importantly, the prosecution in this case acted as if it were known that the cartridges had been found in the trailer where defendant was staying. The prosecutor told the jury: “And in the trailer where the defendant lived, by his own admission, [was found] a live round extracted from the same gun that fired the other five [bullets fired during the Adams Street robbery and the Land murders]. . . .” The prosecutor went on to argue that this evidence proved that defendant, as opposed to other robbers at Adams Street, fired the gun that killed the Land cousins. In other words, the prosecution claimed that the cartridges were found in defendant’s trailer, when in fact there was no evidence that they were. This connection was presented *589 to the jury as a crucial piece of evidence to identify defendant as the murderer. Because the cartridges, known only to be found somewhere in Berwick Trailer Park, potentially implicated several people besides defendant, and because there was a high potential for the jury to be misled to believe that the cartridges had been found in defendant’s trailer (as the prosecutor did ultimately argue), I believe it was reversible error not to exclude the cartridges under N.C.R. Evid. 401 and 403. There was little evidence in this case identifying defendant as the murderer. The cartridges were used as a key piece of evidence to convict the defendant, and there is a reasonable possibility that there would have been a different result if they had been excluded. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1443(a)(1999)(setting forth standard for prejudicial error). In addition, I believe the trial court erred in excluding on hearsay grounds testimony from Mitchell Quarterman regarding what information he had given Lucas Ismond. Quarterman’s testimony clearly did not involve hearsay. The defense did not seek to introduce the substance of what Quarterman told Ismond (details about the murders and defendant’s alleged involvement) in order to prove its truth; to the contrary, the defense would contend the details were in fact not true. See N.C.R. Evid. 801(c). The defense sought to introduce what details Quarterman told Ismond in order to show Ismond heard the details about which he testified from Quarterman and not from the defendant, as Ismond claimed. This is not a hearsay purpose. I believe that exclusion of the testimony was unfairly prejudicial, in that the prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of Ismond to prove its case. If the evidence of the cartridges had been excluded from the trial, as I believe it should have been, Ismond’s testimony becomes even more important. There was no direct evidence that defendant was the murderer other than Ismond’s testimony that defendant had confessed to him. Defendant had a right to impeach Ismond’s testimony to the extent that he legitimately could under the Rules of Evidence. For the reasons cited above, I respectfully dissent and vote for a new trial. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9846825. Public record. Not legal advice.