STATE v. WILSON (2026)

This case returns to our Court following our Supreme Court's decision, see State v. Wilson, 388 N.C. 488 (2025), reversing and remanding State v. Wilson, 291 N.C. App. 279 (2023), with instructions for this Court to address the remaining issues. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant received a fair trial, free from reversible error.

The background of this case, relevant to the issue at hand, was concisely set out in the Supreme Court's opinion. See Wilson, 388 N.C. at 489–493. During Defendant's initial appeal, this Court, in a divided opinion, held the trial court (1) did not err in failing to dismiss Defendant's charges on sufficiency of the evidence grounds, but (2) erred in its “failure to conduct an analysis satisfactory under the procedural requirements established in State v. Hobbs[, 374 N.C. 345 (2020)][,]” when analyzing Defendant's Batson challenge. Wilson, 291 N.C. App. at 296.

Specifically, we concluded the first step of the Batson inquiry was mooted after the State provided its reasoning for the peremptory challenges, thereby necessitating the trial court “to engage in a full analysis of Defendant's argument that the State employed its peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner.” Id. at 293–94. On appeal, our Supreme Court held the trial court “clearly ruled [D]efendant failed to establish a prima facie case[,]” and “the trial court never proceeded to step two” obviating any need to reach step three. Wilson, 388 N.C. at 503. The Court instructed us, on remand, to determine “whether the trial court clearly erred in determining [D]efendant failed to establish a prima facie case” under Batson. Id. Accordingly, our review is limited to this issue.

While on appeal at our Court, the concurring opinion would have concluded the trial court did not err in determining Defendant failed to make out a prima facie showing under Batson, but for its conclusion that the trial court proceeded past step one. Wilson, 291 N.C. App. at 297 (Dillon, J., concurring) (“The trial court stated that it had determined there had not been a prima facie showing of discrimination during jury selection, thereby implying that it had not moved beyond step one of the Batson analysis. And, based on the Record before us, I would hold that the trial court would not be in error for so determining.” (emphasis deleted)).

Likewise, the dissenting opinion “[d]iscern[ed] no error” based on the record and concluded “that the trial court's Batson ruling falls within the parameters of the great deference afforded to trial judges.” Id. at 297–300 (Stading, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (citations omitted).

Therefore, we hold Defendant received a fair trial, free from reversible error.

NO ERROR.

Report per Rule 30(e).

DILLON, Chief Judge.

Judges STADING and FREEMAN concur.