{ "id": 5313844, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES B. PARKER", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Parker", "decision_date": "1992-06-16", "docket_number": "No. 9120SC380", "first_page": "484", "last_page": "488", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "106 N.C. App. 484" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "403 S.E.2d 516", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 N.C. 574", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2539656, 2543372, 2541266, 2545174, 2539422 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/328/0574-05", "/nc/328/0574-03", "/nc/328/0574-01", "/nc/328/0574-04", "/nc/328/0574-02" ] }, { "cite": "398 S.E.2d 645", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "652" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "101 N.C. App. 12", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527206 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "23" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/101/0012-01" ] }, { "cite": "216 S.E.2d 909", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "287 N.C. 666", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564786, 8564756, 8564886, 8564829, 8564863 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/287/0666-02", "/nc/287/0666-01", "/nc/287/0666-05", "/nc/287/0666-03", "/nc/287/0666-04" ] }, { "cite": "214 S.E.2d 254", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "257" }, { "page": "257" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "25 N.C. App. 500", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8555003 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/25/0500-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 420, "char_count": 7396, "ocr_confidence": 0.724, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.15774684161122907 }, "sha256": "d9eaa3efb7e4292a7fff03718498f5fe32c8b75ae2337d18c675f21ffbdc7cbd", "simhash": "1:173e897a763fe5b2", "word_count": 1254 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:35:11.401464+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges COZORT and ORR concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES B. PARKER" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nI\nThough at trial defendant objected to the reading of a part of the transcript, defendant now argues that the trial court erred by initially refusing to read the transcript of the victim\u2019s testimony to the jury after the jury began its deliberations. Specifically, the defendant now contends that the jury\u2019s verdict was not rendered by each of its twelve members. We disagree.\nThis case is controlled by State v. Jacobs, 25 N.C. App. 500, 214 S.E.2d 254, cert. denied, 287 N.C. 666, 216 S.E.2d 909 (1975). In Jacobs, the jury returned from the jury room and the foreman asked the judge whether the jury could return a verdict when one of the jurors said that he had had \u201ctrouble hearing the testimony in th[e] case.\u201d Id. at 504, 214 S.E.2d at 257. The judge sent the jury back to the jury room with instructions to reach a unanimous verdict. Id. The jury later returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of the crime charged. This Court held:\nDefendant contends that the foregoing portions of the record demonstrate that in effect only eleven jurors decided this case and that he was thereby denied his constitutional right to have his case determined by a jury of twelve. We do not so read the record. On the contrary, whatever may have occurred in the jury room, the record makes clear that verdict as finally rendered was the unanimous verdict of all twelve jurors and that each assented thereto. Defendant\u2019s motion for mistrial was properly denied.\nId. at 505, 214 S.E.2d at 257.\nHere, it is also clear that the jury\u2019s verdicts were unanimous. After the jury returned from the jury room and rendered its verdicts finding the defendant guilty of first degree kidnapping and first degree sexual offense, the clerk asked the jury whether the verdicts were unanimous. The transcript indicates the jurors responded affirmatively. The defendant did not have the jury individually polled and nothing in the record indicates that the verdicts reached were not agreed to by each of the jurors. This assignment is overruled.\nII\nDefendant next argues that his sentence to life imprisonment for committing first degree sexual offense violates his constitutional rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. \u201cOur Supreme Court has rejected such an argument on many occasions.\u201d State v. Davis, 101 N.C. App. 12, 23, 398 S.E.2d 645, 652 (1990), disc, review denied and appeal dismissed, 328 N.C. 574, 403 S.E.2d 516 (1991). This assignment is also overruled.\nNo error.\nJudges COZORT and ORR concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "EAGLES, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Special Deputy Attorney General Norma S. Harrell, for the State.", "Appellate Defender Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., by Assistant Appellate Defender Mark D. Montgomery, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES B. PARKER\nNo. 9120SC380\n(Filed 16 June 1992)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 903 (NCI4th)\u2014 refusal to read victim\u2019s testimony to jury \u2014no denial of unanimous verdict\nDefendant was not denied his right to a unanimous verdict by the trial court\u2019s initial refusal to read the transcript of the victim\u2019s testimony to the jury after the foreman reported during deliberations that some jurors stated that they had difficulty understanding the victim\u2019s testimony where the trial court subsequently offered to have the victim\u2019s testimony read to the jury, this offer was rejected by the jury, and the jurors all responded affirmatively when the clerk asked the jury whether its verdict was unanimous.\nAm Jur 2d, Trial \u00a7 1688.\n2. Constitutional Law \u00a7 374 (NCI4th)\u2014 first degree sexual offense \u2014life imprisonment \u2014not cruel and unusual punishment\nA sentence of life imprisonment imposed on defendant for first degree sexual offense does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7 629.\nAPPEAL by defendant from judgment entered 25 January 1991 by Judge William H. Helms in UNION County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 January 1991.\nDefendant was indicted and convicted of first degree kidnapping and first degree sexual offense. Defendant was sentenced to a term of forty years with the North Carolina Department of Correction for the kidnapping conviction and a consecutive life imprisonment term for the first degree sexual offense conviction. On the kidnapping charge, judgment was later arrested and the guilty verdict was set aside.\nRecitation of the facts underlying the convictions is not necessary to disposition of this appeal. However, a brief discussion of the jury\u2019s deliberations is required. After deliberating for fifty-five (55) minutes, the jury returned to the courtroom and the following colloquy occurred:\nThe COURT: I understand you have a question.\nThe FOREMAN: Yes, sir. . . .\n* * *\nTHE FOREMAN: Could \u2014 could we have the transcript of [the victim]? Many of them said they could not understand him when he testified.\nTHE COURT: Approach the bench.\n(Conference at the bench.)\nThe COURT: A transcript is not available at this time. It would be necessary for the court reporter to do that, so I\u2019m going to ask you to go back and resume your deliberations. If you have any further question along those same lines though, after deliberating further, if you will let me know, we will consider it further at that time. Go back to your jury room.\n(The jury retires to the jury room.)\nTHE COURT: Any corrections or additions to those \u2014\nMR. HUFFMAN: No, Your Honor.\nTHE COURT: \u2014comments to the jury?\nMr. Huffman: No, sir.\nMr. Williams: Not from the State.\nThe jury returned to the jury room and a few moments later the jurors were excused for the evening. The next morning the following transpired.\n(The verdict sheets are handed to the jury in the jury room at approximately 9:35 a.m.)\nTHE COURT: Let me see ya\u2019ll a minute.\n(Conference at the bench.)\nMR. HUFFMAN: Let me just observe for the record, I don\u2019t know if that\u2019s proper or not. Let them go ahead and have it. I don\u2019t think it could be much of an error, you know. If any\u2014\nTHE COURT: Go bring Strong\u2019s Criminal Law, both volumes \u25a0 and see if anything is in there.\nMR. HUFFMAN: For the record, Your Honor, the defendant would object to the reading.\nTHE COURT: Bring the jury back in.\n(The jury returns to the courtroom at 10:05 a.m.)\nTHE COURT: Are you the foreman, ma\u2019am?\nTHE FOREMAN: Yes.\nTHE COURT: All right. You informed me yesterday that some of you may have had some difficult [sic] hearing portions of the testimony of [the victim].\nThe FOREMAN: Yes, sir.\nThe COURT: And overnight the court reporter has made a transcription of that testimony and if anyone is having trouble at this point recalling what his testimony was, we have that available.\nThe FOREMAN: All right.\nThe COURT: So the question is do you want to hear it again or not, or do all of you recall his testimony sufficiently to rule on the case.\nThe FOREMAN: They say no.\nThe COURT: All right. I didn\u2019t want any \u2014any confusion about whether or not that would be made available because if you couldn\u2019t hear it we want to make absolutely certain that it was made available to you, and we have that. If you feel you do not need it, you\u2019re free to return to your jury room to deliberate. If any question arises or you have any problem with anything else, please let us know.\nThe Foreman: Okay.\nTHE COURT: Thank you.\n(The jury retires to the jury room at approximately 10:09 a.m.)\nThe jury later returned guilty verdicts against the defendant. Defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Special Deputy Attorney General Norma S. Harrell, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., by Assistant Appellate Defender Mark D. Montgomery, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0484-01", "first_page_order": 514, "last_page_order": 518 }