STATE v. MOORER (2023)

John Patrick Moorer (“Defendant”) was charged with driving under the influence (“DWI”). The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. The trial court entered judgment imposing an active sentence of 30 days imprisonment which was suspended for 12 months supervised probation. Defendant appealed.

Defendant argues the trial court plainly erred by allowing the jury to view, without objection, a part of the arresting officer's body-worn camera footage, which he asserts was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial to him. This argument has no merit.

“For error to constitute plain error, a defendant must demonstrate that a fundamental error occurred at trial.” State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 516, 723 S.E.2d 326, 333 (2012). A defendant must show “the error had a probable impact on the jury's finding that the defendant was guilty.” Id. at 518, 723 S.E.2d at 334. Defendant has not met this burden.

The video, admitted into evidence without objection, directly relates to Deputy Gillstrap's testimony regarding his observations of Defendant during transport to the detention center and is neither unfairly prejudicial nor irrelevant. We find no plain or prejudicial error in the jury's verdict or in the judgment entered thereon. It is so ordered.

NO PLAIN ERROR.

Report per Rule 30(e).

PER CURIAM.

Panel consisting of Judges Tyson, Carpenter, and Gore.