## Facts

- A Domino’s delivery driver delivered food to a residence in Raeford, North Carolina, and waited outside for payment.
- A second man approached; during the encounter, the driver was struck from behind and repeatedly beaten with a metal baseball bat, causing him to lose consciousness.
- When the driver regained consciousness, the assailants, the delivered food, and his cell phone were gone.
- Law enforcement responded after the driver failed to return; deputies canvassed the area and located items consistent with the driver and the delivery.
- The State’s evidence connecting the defendant to the offenses included recovery of the victim’s stolen property from the defendant’s residence and discovery of an aluminum baseball bat under a neighboring residence.
- The State offered latent fingerprint examiner Trudy Wood as an expert; she testified that the defendant’s known prints matched latent prints found on the victim’s truck and on a chicken-wing box seized from the defendant’s residence.
- Wood described general fingerprint comparison procedures, but did not explain how she applied those procedures to the specific latent prints at issue to reach her identification conclusions.
- Over the defendant’s objection under Rule 702, the trial court admitted the fingerprint testimony.
- A jury convicted the defendant of attempted first-degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, robbery with a dangerous weapon, conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon, and assault inflicting serious bodily injury.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting the latent fingerprint expert testimony violated N.C. R. Evid. 702(a)(3) because the expert did not explain how she reliably applied her methodology to the case-specific fingerprint evidence.
2. Whether the trial court lacked authority to enter separate judgments for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury and assault inflicting serious bodily injury based on the same conduct against the same victim.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the fingerprint testimony because it did not satisfy Rule 702(a)(3)’s reliable-application requirement.
- The court held the evidentiary error was not prejudicial in light of other evidence linking the defendant to the crimes, so a new trial was not required.
- The court held the trial court was not authorized to enter judgments and sentences for two assault offenses based on the same underlying conduct.
- The court vacated the judgment for assault inflicting serious bodily injury and otherwise left the remaining convictions undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- Under N.C. R. Evid. 702(a) (Daubert standard), the proponent must show the expert’s opinion is based on sufficient facts or data, derives from reliable principles and methods, and that the expert reliably applied those principles and methods to the facts of the case.
- An expert’s description of generally accepted procedures, without case-specific explanation showing how the methodology was applied to the particular evidence, fails Rule 702(a)(3).
- Erroneous admission of expert testimony warrants relief only if the defendant shows prejudice; overwhelming independent evidence supporting guilt can render the error harmless.
- A trial court may not enter separate judgments and sentences for multiple assault convictions arising from the same conduct against the same victim absent legislative authorization for multiple punishments.

## Conclusion

The court found error in admitting fingerprint identification testimony that lacked case-specific reliable-application explanation under Rule 702(a)(3), but affirmed the convictions because the error was harmless; it vacated one assault judgment because separate punishments were imposed for the same assaultive conduct.


State v. McPhaul, 808 S.E.2d 294 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017)