{
  "id": 11711099,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT WILLIAM MARTIN, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Martin",
  "decision_date": "1997-06-03",
  "docket_number": "No. COA96-1136",
  "first_page": "426",
  "last_page": "429",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "126 N.C. App. 426"
    }
  ],
  "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": "33 ALR4th 1062",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "386 S.E.2d 748",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "751"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 N.C. App. 589",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523715
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "593"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/96/0589-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-27.3",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 S.E.2d 587",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "592"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 N.C. 567",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571452
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "575"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/292/0567-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 399,
    "char_count": 6727,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.743,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.400479698708787e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2761220827932439
    },
    "sha256": "1fcf44bf8f7c311fdc5848aa8224a3c7333ab85ceff76f4038711db790d90f05",
    "simhash": "1:3d1b4be477f8ef10",
    "word_count": 1083
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:11:14.463583+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges GREENE and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT WILLIAM MARTIN, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nDefendant Robert William Martin, Jr. was indicted for first degree rape on 5 December 1994. A competency hearing was held on 14 February 1996 at which time the court found defendant fit to stand trial. On the date of the trial, 26 February 1996, defendant moved to be re-evaluated for his capacity to proceed. Defendant, a diagnosed schizophrenic, had stopped taking his psychotropic medications after the 14 February 1996 hearing; at the time of the trial on 26 February 1996, the only medication which defendant was willing to take was Trazedone, an antidepressant medication to help him sleep.\nAt this second competency hearing, defendant was once again found competent to stand trial. A jury subsequently found defendant guilty of second degree rape and the trial court sentenced him to an active sentence of 122-144 months. Defendant now appeals to this Court.\nI.\nDefendant first contends the trial court erred in finding that he was competent to proceed since he was no longer taking his psychotropic medication as of 27 February 1996. We disagree.\nWhen the court conducts an inquiry into a defendant\u2019s mental capacity to stand trial, the court\u2019s findings of fact, if supported by evidence, are conclusive on appeal. State v. Willard, 292 N.C. 567, 575, 234 S.E.2d 587, 592 (1977).\nDefendant notes that at his second competency hearing, Dr. Billy Royal testified that taking a schizophrenic off his psychotropic medication would lead to a return of his symptoms (e.g., thought disorders, delusions or thought-blocking). Indeed, defendant presented evidence that he appeared disorganized in the days before his trial. Nonetheless, Dr. Royal also testified that the amount of time it takes for schizophrenic symptoms to return varies with each individual. Moreover, the trial court\u2019s determination that defendant was competent to stand trial was supported by the testimony of Dr. Nathan Stahl, a psychiatrist at Central Prison, who testified that he spoke to defendant one or two days before this most recent competency hearing and found \u201cMs thought pattern and directiveness of thought were clear and cogent.\u201d The record shows that the court also based its decision on defendant\u2019s demeanor during the proceedings:\nThe defendant still appears at this time to be rational in Ms conduct and he is aware that he has a choice not to take the medication. Defendant has indicated to the doctor . . . that the reason he doesn\u2019t want to take medication at this time is because of nauseous side effects, that this is a rational comprehension of his situation. The court has also had the opportunity to observe the defendant\u2019s interrelationship with his attorney in the courtroom during the course of the presentation of this motion. Based upon these observations of the defendant, the defendant does seem to understand the nature and proceedings against him. (emphasis added).\nUnder these circumstances we find that the trial court\u2019s determination is sufficiently supported by evidence in the record and therefore, is conclusive on appeal.\nII.\nDefendant next contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that the prosecuting witness was 13 years old at the time the crime occurred (she was 15 at the time of the trial). Defendant asserts that age is not a factor in proving that he was guilty of second-degree rape and therefore the victim\u2019s age should have been suppressed as irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. We disagree.\nThe crime of second degree rape consists of engaging in vaginal intercourse, by force and against the will of the other person. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-27.3 (1993). The element of force can be shown to be constructive force in the form of fear, fright, or coercion. State v. Parks, 96 N.C. App. 589, 593, 386 S.E.2d 748, 751 (1989).\nIn the instant case, defendant asserted that because the victim did not scream or struggle, she consented to him having sex with her. Clearly, evidence of the victim\u2019s age was relevant for the jury to consider in determining whether the element of coercion or fear was present. Moreover, even without the evidence of the victim\u2019s age, the jury could have found from all the evidence that the act was committed by force against the victim\u2019s will, based solely upon her testimony. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1443 (1988) (defendant has the burden of proving that \u201cthere is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at trial.\u201d)- Furthermore, the jury could have inferred the victim\u2019s age from her physical appearance, as well as her demeanor on the stand.\nWe have carefully reviewed defendant\u2019s remaining assignment of error and find that it is without merit.\nIn sum, we find that defendant received a trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges GREENE and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WYNN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Lisa Granberry Corbett, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Scott N. Dunn for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT WILLIAM MARTIN, JR.\nNo. COA96-1136\n(Filed 3 June 1997)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 183 (NCI4th Rev.)\u2014 diagnosed schizophrenic \u2014 stopping of medications \u2014 competency to stand trial\nDespite expert testimony that schizophrenics who stopped medication could experience a return of symptoms which vary with each individual, the trial court\u2019s determination that defendant, a diagnosed schizophrenic who had stopped taking his psychotropic medications, was competent to proceed with his trial for rape was supported by a psychiatrist\u2019s testimony that defendant\u2019s thought pattern was clear and cogent several days before his competency hearing and the court\u2019s observation that defendant understood the nature and proceedings against him.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 95-97.\nCompetency to stand trial of criminal defendant diagnosed as \u201cschizophrenic\u201d \u2014 modern state cases. 33 ALR4th 1062.\n2. Evidence and Witnesses \u00a7 516 (NCI4th)\u2014 second-degree rape \u2014 evidence of victim\u2019s age \u2014 coercion or force\nIn a prosecution for second-degree rape, it was not error for the trial court to deny defendant\u2019s motion to suppress evidence that the victim was thirteen years old at the time she was raped because the victim\u2019s age was relevant to the element of coercion or fear. Further, the jury could have inferred the victim\u2019s age from her physical appearance and demeanor, and even without evidence of the victim\u2019s age, the jury could have found from the victim\u2019s testimony that defendant acted forcefully and against the victim\u2019s will.\nAm Jur 2d, Rape \u00a7\u00a7 55, 57, 58.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 29 February 1996 by Judge W. Steve Allen in Randolph County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 May 1997.\nMichael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Lisa Granberry Corbett, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nScott N. Dunn for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0426-01",
  "first_page_order": 464,
  "last_page_order": 467
}