## Facts

- George Bullard, who was romantically involved with the defendant’s estranged wife, was stabbed to death at the estranged wife’s mobile home on May 24, 1990.
- The State’s case relied on a single eyewitness who identified the defendant and testified the incident occurred during daylight.
- The defense contended the killing occurred after sunset, when it was dark, disputing the eyewitness’s ability to perceive and reliably identify the defendant.
- The defense asked the trial court to take judicial notice of (1) the sunset time on May 24, 1990 (8:19 p.m.) and (2) that there was a new moon that night, using published astronomical information.
- The trial court refused to take judicial notice of the requested astronomical facts.
- A jury convicted the defendant of voluntary manslaughter, and the trial court entered judgment sentencing him to fourteen years’ imprisonment.
- The defendant appealed, arguing the refusal to take judicial notice was error that affected the verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether the time of sunset and the phase of the moon on a specific date are adjudicative facts subject to judicial notice because they are capable of accurate and ready determination from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
2. Whether the trial court’s refusal to take judicial notice of those astronomical facts, offered to impeach the State’s only eyewitness on the daylight-versus-darkness dispute, was prejudicial error requiring a new trial.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held the sunset time and moon phase were proper subjects of judicial notice.
- The trial court erred by refusing to take judicial notice of those facts when requested.
- The error was prejudicial because the State’s proof depended on a single eyewitness and the noticed facts bore directly on her ability to observe and on the reliability of her testimony about lighting conditions.
- The conviction was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A court may judicially notice adjudicative facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute because they are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
- Astronomical facts such as times of sunset and lunar phases fall within the category of facts of nature suitable for judicial notice when properly presented.
- Refusal to take judicial notice is reversible error when it materially affects a defendant’s ability to challenge key evidence, particularly where the State’s case turns on the credibility and perception of a single eyewitness.

## Conclusion

The appellate court ordered a new trial because the trial court improperly refused to judicially notice readily verifiable astronomical facts central to impeaching the State’s only eyewitness on whether the crime occurred in daylight or darkness, making the error prejudicial.


State v. Canady, 431 S.E.2d 500 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993)