Mangum appeal briefs are filed.

Readers may recall that on the night of April 2-3 2011, Crystal Gail Mangum stabbed the man she was living with. A few days later, Reginald Daye passed from this life as a result of Crystal's stab wound. She was indicted in April 2011 and after many machinations, went to trial in Superior Court on November 12, 2013. Trial lasted several days and a guilty verdict was finally returned on November 22, 2013. Judge Ridgeway sentenced Crystal to a term of not less than 170 months to not more than 216 months in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Corrections. Readers may also recall that it was Crystal Gail Mangum who falsely accused three men of a rape that never took place. Readers may also recall that Crystal Gail Mangum assaulted her previous live in boyfriend and set fire to his clothes and shoes.

After her conviction, Crystal filed the Record and her Brief with the N. C. Court of Appeals. In her brief, Crystal raises only one issue: WHETHER ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT CRYSTAL MANGUM ALLEGEDLY ATTEMPTED TO ASSAULT MILTON WALKER IN FEBRUARY 2010 WAS ERROR WHEN IT HAD NO PROBATIVE VALUE TO PROVE ANY
MATERIAL FACT OTHER THAN THE DEFENDANT'S BAD CHARACTER?

Much has been made by Sid Harr at the Justice4Nifong blog about defense counsel's date errors. In fact, Sid missed more errors of counsel when it comes to dates. For example, defense counsel alleges Crystal was indicted on March 18, 2011. Three weeks before the stabbing took place on the night of April 2-3 2011. After reading the defense brief, I must conclude that the drafter was none too careful with dates. None of these issues are fatal to the brief, they just go to a lack of careful drafting. All in all, the state's recitation of the facts in its Brief is more accurate.

The defense raised one issue and one only, that is the prior bad acts admitted under rule 404(b). Hereafter, I will refer to this as the 404(b) evidence. Specifically the defense complained about Milton Walker's testimony about Crystal's threat to harm him with a knife on the night she burned some of his clothes and shoes. Walker's testimony is particularly damaging as it shows a violent temper and a eerie similarity to what she did to Daye. There is no doubt this is why the state offered Walker's testimony. Walker, despite Crystal's attitude toward him, considers himself a friend and did not want to testify. None the less, Walker was compelled to do so and he gave some damning testimony. Testimony that was, for the most part, backed up by a couple of Durham police officers.

In her argument, Crystal's lawyer is really at her best. She does a good job of highlighting why 404(b) evidence is so difficult for a defendant. More importantly, Crystal's lawyer does a good job of hitting all the limits to 404(b) admissibility. What she does not do is argue to overturn the precedents that allow so much 404(b) evidence into the record in North Carolina.  Frankly, this is not the best set of facts to make that argument. The state, as expected, did a good job of countering the argument. After all, the state has the weight of precedent on its side. The one thing going for Crystal is the Court of Appeals review de novo 404(b) rulings by a trial court. De novo is a latin phrase that literally means from the beginning. In law, we understand it to mean the Court reviews this ruling as if the court below had never ruled at all. However, that does not end the 404(b) analysis.

Once the trail court, and the Court of Appeals determine if 404(b) evidence is admissible, then the court must turn to a Rule 403 analysis. Rule 403, in short, says that a court may not admit evidence even if otherwise admissible, if its probative value is outweighed by the prejudice it is likely to cause. However, Rule 403 review is not de novo, but for abuse of discretion. State v. Beckelheimer, 366 N.C. 127, 130, 726 S.E.2d 156, 159 (2012). As you can see, this rule is from the N.C. Supreme Court. Thus it cannot be overturned by the Court of Appeals, or even disregarded. The COA has to follow the Supreme Court's precedent. In an abuse of discretion analysis, the trial court will be affirmed if it has a reasonable basis for the ruling, any reasonable basis. I doubt the COA is going to overturn Judge Ridgeway on this issue.

Don't pay attention to Sid's effort to misdirect your attention. He claims that somehow Duke University had something to do with Daye's death. Crystal does not make that argument. the only argument she makes regards the 404(b) evidence. Sid is just attempting to keep his tiny band of followers distracted from what is really going on. A band that is both easily distracted and wants the distraction.

Of final note, Crystal does not raise any error regarding self-defense or her demonstrative evidence of the door which goes a long way toward the self-defense angle. It appears that she is pinning her whole hopes on 404(b). That's her strongest argument. Unfortunately, by not challenging the self-defense conviction as being unsupported by sufficient evidence, Crystal openly invites the court to engage in a harmless error analysis. That is exactly the opening the state jumped at in the later stages if their brief. Even if the COA is inclined to give her some relief on the 404(b) issue, they will most likely rule it harmless error.

Walt