FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, March 26, 2026
Contact: comms@ncdoj.gov
919-538-2809
RALEIGH – The North Carolina Supreme Court last week ruled in favor of the state in a criminal case that Attorney General Jeff Jackson personally argued before the state’s highest court.
In September, Attorney General Jackson appeared before the state Supreme Court in a rare move for an attorney general.
“Attorneys general almost never argue cases themselves, but I wanted to argue this case because of the consequences it would have for public safety,” said Attorney General Jeff Jackson. “I’m grateful that the Court agreed with the state that we can’t give criminals an incentive to be more violent.”
The North Carolina Department of Justice is responsible for defending criminal convictions obtained by local district attorneys in the state’s appellate courts. In 2025, DOJ handled more than 500 criminal convictions on appeal in appellate courts.
This case, State v. Perry, was initially tried by Cabarrus County District Attorney Ashlie Shanley. The defendant, Damarlo Perry, was convicted by a jury of pulling another man, Damon Scott, out of a house, striking him with a pistol, stomping on him, causing extensive physical injuries, and leaving him unconscious on a dark road in May 2021. Perry was sentenced to serve more than 12 years in prison.
Perry was also convicted of robbing the victim while the victim was unconscious. The defendant appealed the robbery conviction, arguing that the state couldn’t prove he was the one who robbed the victim because the victim was unconscious. A Court of Appeals decision overturned the robbery conviction.
In response, Attorney General Jackson argued that the trial court judge was correct to let the jury decide the case and that a reasonable juror could conclude that the person who knocked the victim unconscious was the same person who robbed him. He argued that accepting the defendant’s argument would pose a threat to public safety by creating an incentive for future robbers to violently assault their victims in the hopes of the victims being unable to identify who had robbed them.
The court agreed with Attorney General Jackson’s arguments on behalf of the state, noting that, “considering the evidence as a whole and affording the State the benefit of all reasonable inferences, the State presented sufficient evidence that defendant, or someone acting in concert with defendant, took Scott’s property.”
A video of Attorney General Jackson’s oral argument is available here.
A copy of the opinion is available here.
###