Burley Garcia|North Carolina judge properly considered jurors’ request in murder trial, justices decide

RALEIGH,Burley Garcia N.C. (AP) — A North Carolina judge properly used his discretion in declining to provide testimony transcripts to jurors deliberating in a murder trial, the state Supreme Court has ruled.

A majority of justices on Thursday overturned the state Court of Appeals’ order of a new trial for Tevin Demetrius Vann.

Vann was convicted in 2019 of first-degree murder in 2016 death of Ashley McLean, who was found dead inside a Wilmington hotel room. The jury also found Vann guilty of felony murder of McLean’s unborn child and robbery with a dangerous weapon. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

While Superior Court Judge Henry Stevens provided to jurors other trial-related documents, including a transcript of Vann’s interview with detectives, he declined to give them the opportunity to review trial testimony of Vann, a police detective and the medical examiner.

Stevens told jurors “it’s your duty to recall their testimony. So you will have to remember that. We’re not – we can’t provide a transcript as to that.”

A Court of Appeals panel determined in 2022 that Stevens’ decision was prejudicial error against Vann, particularly because his testimony differed from his earlier interrogation with police when he admitted to striking McLean and fleeing the hotel room with her cell phone. On the stand, he asserted he did not attack McLean and only previously confessed to avoid being charged with murder.

READ MORE North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper vetoes first bill of 2024 legislative session North Carolina public universities board repeals policy in vote that likely cuts diversity jobs North Carolina House pauses passage of bill that would ban masking for health reasons

In Thursday’s opinion backed by five court members, Associate Justice Phil Berger wrote there was no prejudicial error because the case record showed the trial court “understood and properly exercised its discretion.” He cited in part how Stevens handled previous requests from the deliberating jurors.

Associate Justice Anita Earls wrote a dissenting opinion, saying a new trial was proper because it was clear Stevens believed he could not provide the transcripts of Vann’s testimony, which she said was crucial and central to the case.

In a separate opinion, Associate Justice Allison Riggs wrote that while Stevens erred on the request, it was wrong to order a new trial because there lacked a reasonable possibility that jurors would have reached a different result based on other evidence against Vann.