History made in Courtroom No. 5
By John Joyce
Published in News on December 11, 2014 1:46 PM
The first case in the state of North Carolina under a newly enacted law allowing a trial by judge rather than by jury began in Wayne County Superior Court on Wednesday -- the State versus Tyquan Sutton.
The law was approved by voters in November and gives defendants the choice of having a judge decide upon a verdict rather than a jury.
"It's the new law. Both attorneys are interested in the new law and, since it is not a capital case, it is eligible," Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Arnold O. Jones said.
The decision whether to forgo a trial by jury and instead request a trial by judge is up to the defendant and his or her attorney. If the prosecuting attorney does not object and the judge finds the case is eligible under the law, the case can go forward.
The inaugural case under the new law is a "he said, she said" case of assault between two teens who were formerly involved in a romantic relationship. The case was amended in district court from assault on a female to simple assault and Sutton was found guilty, but he appealed.
Now the teens' fractured relationship that landed them in court has placed them in the history books.
Sutton, 17, is charged with assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Malieyah Sykes, 16, in February.
Ms. Sykes has already testified she struck the defendant first. The defense seized upon this fact during a motion to dismiss after the state rested, but the motion was denied.
Assistant District Attorney Curtis Stackhouse argued the "Ray Rice precedent," citing the now infamous incident in which the football star struck his wife in an Atlantic City, N.J., elevator after she continuously provoked him. Stackhouse argued that provocation was not justification for the alleged assault.
Jones said by law he had to consider the motion in a light most favorable to the state.
The facts of the case -- and the outcome to be decided later today -- might only matter to the parties involved, both of whom have said in court they wish it hadn't ever gotten to this point.
The case, however, will be recorded as the first of its kind in the state.
Sutton's attorney, Charles Gurley, discussed the new law as a defense option with his client prior to deciding to proceed without a jury.
Gurley said that if it had been a matter of expert witnesses or DNA evidence, or if a law enforcement officer might have taken the stand against his client, he would not have risked not having a jury hear the case. But, because it was a matter of her word against his, and there is no physical evidence being introduced, there was no reason not to go ahead, Gurley said.
"(Sutton) just decided it would be fine for him for the judge to hear the case," he said. "His mother and his grandmother agreed."