Harvell was prejudiced by the trial failure to adhere to the mandates court’s of Section 15A-1234. The State has the burden of proving every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. 170 N.C. App. 461, 470, 613 State v. Smith, S.E.2d 304, 312 (2005). By physically demonstrating elements of the larceny charge for the jury, and by repeating the elements without admonition that the State had the burden of proving all of the elements a reasonable “beyond doubt,” the trial court improperly aided the State in proving its case. The jury was clearly conflicted over whether the State had met its burden of proof regarding the larceny charge, as it sent in two separate inquires about how many and which elements it was required to find. There is a reasonable possibility that but for the trial court’s improper instructions, the jury would have found Harvell not guilty of felonious larceny. Accordingly, he is entitled to a new trial. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Defendant Montice Harvell requests the Court to order a new trial. Respectfully submitted, this the 7th day of April, 2014. /s/ Sharon L. Smith Sharon L. Smith Attorney at Law
Harvell was prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to adhere to the mandates of Section 15A-1234. The State has the burden of proving every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Smith, 170 N.C. App. 461, 470, 613 S.E.2d 304, 312 (2005). By physically demonstrating elements of the larceny charge for the jury, and by repeating the elements without admonition that the State had the burden of proving all of the elements “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the trial court improperly aided the State in proving its case. The jury was clearly conflicted over whether the State had met its burden of proof regarding the larceny charge, as it sent in two separate inquires about how many and which elements it was required to find. There is a reasonable possibility that but for the trial court’s improper instructions, the jury would have found Harvell not guilty of felonious larceny. Accordingly, he is entitled to a new trial. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Defendant Montice Harvell requests the Court to order a new trial. Respectfully submitted, this the 7th day of April, 2014. /s/ Sharon L. Smith Sharon L. Smith Attorney at Law