By Leah Justice

leah.justice@tryondailybulletin.com

The N.C. Court of Appeals filed its decision this week denying Travis Lee McGraw, who was convicted of the murder of his wife, Vanessa Mintz a new trial.

“Travis Lee McGraw (“Defendant”) appeals from his conviction for first-degree murder,” states the decision filed in the N.C. Court of Appeals on Oct. 20. “On appeal, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing an expert witness to offer an opinion on firearm identification to a degree of absolute certainty. After careful review, we conclude that Defendant received a fair trial free from error.”

Mintz was murdered on Feb. 19, 2011 at the Saluda Mountain Lodge and McGraw was arrested and charged with her murder four days later. McGraw was convicted of first-degree murder by a Polk County jury following a trial on June 4, 2014. McGraw was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

According to the filed documents, McGraw filed a motion to prohibit the state’s expert, special agent Shane Greene with the N.C. State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) prior to last year’s trial, in January 2014. In the motion, McGraw attempted to limit the testimony of Greene by prohibiting him from testifying that a specific gun fired a specific shell to the exclusion of all other guns in the world. During a pretrial hearing, the motion was denied.

During the trial, McGraw again moved to limit Greene’s testimony and a voir dire hearing was held. The trial court ruled that Greene would be permitted to testify that McGraw’s Mossberg gun matched a shotgun shell recovered at the murder scene. Greene testified that is was opinion that the shotgun shell in question, found on the floor of the crime scene, and a test shell fired from McGraw’s Mossberg shotgun matched. Greene also testified that the pellets and shotgun shell wadding recovered from Mintz’ wounds during her autopsy were most consistent with the type of wadding and pellets contained in 12-gauge Winchester shotgun shells.

Mintz was shot once in the arm and once in the head.

The filed ruling from the N.C. Court of Appeals details the case and testimony during the trial, including testimony from Mary Beth Fisher, who testified she was in a relationship with McGraw and that she gave McGraw an ultimatum by text message two days prior to the murder to choose between her and Mintz. Testimony also came from Major William Beauchene, McGraw’s commanding officer in the United States Air Force Reserves, who stated on the same day Mintz’ body was discovered, he received an email from McGraw inquiring about a $100,0000 Serviceman’s Group Life Insurance policy insuring Mintz’ life.

“Major Beauchene stated that he ‘was shocked that within 10 to 12 hours (of Mintz’ death)…I was receiving an email inquiring about insurance.’ Major Beauchene contacted the SBI and informed SBI agents of defendant’s email, later providing the SBI with a copy of the email,” stated the opinion of the court.

The court of appeals decision states that McGraw’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Agent Greene to offer an opinion to a degree of absolute certainty that the spent shotgun shell found at the crime scene was fired from the Mossberg, owned by McGraw.

“In making this argument, he (McGraw) contends that Agent Greene exceeded the permissible scope of expert testimony under North Carolina Rule of Evidence 702 by testifying that the spent shell was fired from the Mossberg to the exclusion of all other firearms,” states the N.C. Court of Appeal’s analysis. “We disagree.”

Following analyzing McGraw’s arguments, the court of appeals said his arguments were not supported by their case law.

The court of appeals analysis also said the proper method for McGraw to attack the credibility of Greene’s expert testimony was by subjecting his opinion to “thorough and rigorous cross-examination.”

“At trial, defendant’s counsel did just that,” states the court of appeal’s analysis. “On cross-examination, he explored in detail Agent Greene’s methodology and the basis for his opinion that the Mossberg was the gun that fired the recovered shotgun shell to the exclusion of all other firearms. Indeed, in his response to questions from defendant’s counsel, Agent Greene admitted the existence of some degree of subjectivity to his opinion.”

The N.C. Court of Appeal’s decision stated that as a result of cross-examination, the jury heard Greene’s admissions that the conclusions to be drawn from his ballistics testing were subjective in nature, that it was possible that another firearms examiner might reach a different conclusion and that there’s always a possibility that anybody reach a different conclusion.

“It was then for the jury to determine the weight to be accorded to his opinion,” states the N.C. Court of Appeals. “Finally, it is important to note that the jury was informed it was not required to accept Agent Greene’s conclusions.”

The vote by the court of appeals was unanimous by three appeals judges, determining that McGraw’s trial was free from error and McGraw was given a fair trial. If McGraw chooses he can appeal his conviction with the North Carolina Supreme Court.