{ "id": 11467567, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM LEE ROOPE; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM DAVID COOKE; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES LAWRENCE OVERTON, JR.", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Roope", "decision_date": "1998-08-04", "docket_number": "No. 97-1087", "first_page": "356", "last_page": "367", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "130 N.C. App. 356" } ], "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": "232 S.E.2d 424", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "428", "parenthetical": "\"[DJouble jeopardy protection may not be raised on appeal unless the defense and the facts underlying it are brought first to the attention of the trial court.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "292 N.C. 170", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567750 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "176", "parenthetical": "\"[DJouble jeopardy protection may not be raised on appeal unless the defense and the facts underlying it are brought first to the attention of the trial court.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/292/0170-01" ] }, { "cite": "403 S.E.2d 280", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "286" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 N.C. 626", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2540682 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "637" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/328/0626-01" ] }, { "cite": "486 S.E.2d 719", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "721", "parenthetical": "applying Blankenship in order to avoid infringement of defendant's ex post facto rights" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "126 N.C. App. 788", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11713440 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "793", "parenthetical": "applying Blankenship in order to avoid infringement of defendant's ex post facto rights" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/126/0788-01" ] }, { "cite": "364 S.E.2d 341", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "346" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 392", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2568444 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "400" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0392-01" ] }, { "cite": "395 U.S. 250", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1771609 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/395/0250-01" ] }, { "cite": "314 S.E.2d 828", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "833", "parenthetical": "issue not addressed in defendant's brief deemed abandoned" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "68 N.C. App. 238", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526950 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "245", "parenthetical": "issue not addressed in defendant's brief deemed abandoned" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/68/0238-01" ] }, { "cite": "229 F.2d 319", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 67132 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1956, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "321" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/229/0319-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 L. Ed. 2d 294", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "case_ids": [ 11503401 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "301" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/523/0185-01" ] }, { "cite": "481 U.S. 200", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6212712 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "203" }, { "page": "183" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/481/0200-01" ] }, { "cite": "391 U.S. 123", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1767670 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/391/0123-01" ] }, { "cite": "281 S.E.2d 377", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "383" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "303 N.C. 680", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575150 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "688" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/303/0680-01" ] }, { "cite": "357 S.E.2d 662", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "666-67" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "320 N.C. 328", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4723747 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "335" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/320/0328-01" ] }, { "cite": "353 S.E.2d 352", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "370, n.8" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "319 N.C. 110", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4744189 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "141-42, n.8" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/319/0110-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 L. Ed. 2d 473", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "139 L. Ed. 2d 134", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "481 S.E.2d 44", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "64" }, { "page": "62", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "71" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 N.C. 184", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 53983 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "222" }, { "page": "220" }, { "page": "233" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/345/0184-01" ] }, { "cite": "447 S.E.2d 727", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "736", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "337 N.C. 543", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2552812 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "558", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/337/0543-01" ] }, { "cite": "336 S.E.2d 78", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "79-80", "parenthetical": "\"[T]he failure of a defendant to properly raise the issue of double jeopardy before the trial court precludes reliance on the defense on appeal.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "314 N.C. 618", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4696312 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "621", "parenthetical": "\"[T]he failure of a defendant to properly raise the issue of double jeopardy before the trial court precludes reliance on the defense on appeal.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/314/0618-01" ] }, { "cite": "400 S.E.2d 31", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "36", "parenthetical": "refusing to address double jeopardy issue where defendant failed to raise it at trial" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 N.C. 223", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2540300 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "231", "parenthetical": "refusing to address double jeopardy issue where defendant failed to raise it at trial" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/328/0223-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1063, "char_count": 27304, "ocr_confidence": 0.77, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.7242874911656301e-07, "percentile": 0.7044177092950207 }, "sha256": "0c4685ed4389f862b177757ea30a0abdba94fcf0672f9dabf1ba480ee2b2f2f8", "simhash": "1:71af07b6ce6ec9c0", "word_count": 4484 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:24:27.441929+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges MARTIN, Mark D. and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM LEE ROOPE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM DAVID COOKE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES LAWRENCE OVERTON, JR." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nDefendant William Lee Roope (Roope) appeals his convictions for first-degree burglary, robbery with a dangerous weapon, assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, larceny of a firearm, and felonious larceny. Defendants William David Cooke (Cooke) and James Lawrence Overton, Jr. (Overton) appeal their convictions for first-degree burglary, robbery with a dangerous weapon, assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, larceny of a firearm, and felonious larceny.\nThe evidence revealed that N.L. Braswell, Jr. (Mr. Braswell), his wife Dorothy Elaine Braswell (Mrs. Braswell), and their adult son Robert L. Braswell (Robert Braswell) sustained life-threatening stab wounds during a break-in of their home on 12 November 1995.\nStephanie Raye Childers (Childers) testified that she and Cooke decided \u201cto steal [Cooke\u2019s parents\u2019] car [on 12 November 1995] and we were going to leave town, just trying to buy time to spend together before the police caught up with me [for a probation violation].\u201d That afternoon, Childers, Roope, Overton, James Smith [Smith], and two other boys went to an abandoned house. While there, Childers told Roope that she and Cooke were planning to steal his parents\u2019 car and money and leave town that night. Roope told her that \u201cthe police were looking for him... and [for] ... Overton and... Smith, and they wanted to get out of town, too, so when I told him that [Cooke] and I had planned to leave town, he said that they were going to go as well.\u201d After Cooke arrived at the abandoned house, Childers, Cooke, and Roope discussed \u201cvarious places that we could get money, get a car.\u201d They considered stealing Cooke\u2019s parents\u2019 car, Childers\u2019 next-door neighbors\u2019 car, or Childers\u2019 parents\u2019 car. Childers testified that Roope told them that they \u201cshould just go in [Childers\u2019 parents\u2019] house and just take the money and car keys, whatever we wanted, and he would kill my parents.\u201d Childers further testified that after leaving the abandoned house, she, Cooke, Roope, Overton, and Smith were walking and she \u201ctold them that I thought it would be better if we went to my grandparents\u2019 [(Mr. and Mrs. Braswell)] house instead of mine.\u201d Childers, Roope, Cooke, Overton, and Smith then walked to Childers\u2019 grandparents\u2019 house. Once they arrived at her grandparents\u2019 house, Childers, Roope, Cooke, Overton, and Smith \u201chuddled together in a circle ... a few inches apart at the most\u201d and discussed what they were going to do. Childers told the others the layout of her grandparents\u2019 house, and that her uncle, Robert Braswell, also lived there. All five then went quietly into the unlocked house. Once inside the house, the group decided that \u201c[Roope] and . . . Smith would go into the room with my grandparents. [Roope] said [Cooke] was going to, too. . . . Overton was suppose to go into the back bedroom with my uncle and that I was suppose to go back there with him. And then I was to get the money.\u201d Childers testified that it was her understanding that the five of them would rob and kill her grandparents and her uncle. Roope then stated that \u201che, . . . Smith, and . . . Cooke were going to kill my grandparents.\u201d Childers and Overton went down the hallway to her uncle Robert Braswell\u2019s bedroom. \u201cThe door opened and [Robert Braswell] came out and he didn\u2019t make it all the way out the door and [Overton] attacked him . . . [with a] knife.\u201d During Overton\u2019s struggle with Childers\u2019 uncle, Childers stabbed her uncle in the leg.\nI backed out of the room and . . . went [back] down the hall. . . and at that time . . . Roope and . . . Overton had gone into the family room where my grandparents were, and I went to the doorway and I looked in and [Roope] was standing beside my grandfather and James was standing behind my grandmother and she was beside her chair bent over and there was blood all over her chair. . . . She was bleeding, I couldn\u2019t tell exactly from where ....\nChilders then went to her grandparents\u2019 bedroom, and then \u201cOverton came in there and he grabbed me by my shoulders and he said . . . , T can\u2019t kill him.\u2019 And he said something about he saw his brother die and he said he couldn\u2019t kill [Robert Braswell], and I told him it was okay, he didn\u2019t have to.\u201d Childers then went through the drawers in her grandparents\u2019 bedroom and took a wallet containing a few hundred dollars and some rings out of her grandmother\u2019s jewelry box. Childers, Roope, Overton, Cooke, and Smith then left her grandparents\u2019 house in her uncle\u2019s truck.\nRobert Braswell testified that he woke up after going to bed on the night of 12 November 1995 and saw Overton, who he was able to identify in court, holding a knife. Overton proceeded to stab Robert Braswell several times. Robert Braswell stated that he next remembers lying on his bed and \u201cgasping for breath.\u201d He \u201cheard a voice behind me say, \u2018Finish him\u2019 and another voice said, 1 can\u2019t do him again with him lying there already hurting like that.\u2019 \u201d Then Robert Braswell testified:\n[T]he first voice said it again after that, says, \u201cYou remember when we were out front, we decided no witnesses\u201d and that\u2019s when I looked back and . . . Overton and . . . Roope were standing there. And then ... Overton said again, \u201cI can\u2019t do him again.\u201d And that\u2019s when Roope said, \u201cCover him\u201d and Roope walked around to the other side of the bed and Overton tried to cover my head with a blanket, but like I said, I couldn\u2019t \u2014 I mean with a pillow, and I couldn\u2019t breathe anyway, so, I was struggling, and the next thing I know I\u2019m standing up in the middle of the floor between the two of \u2019em.\nRobert Braswell testified that the voice that said \u201cremember ... we decided no witnesses\u201d belonged to Roope, and he identified Roope in court. Robert Braswell stated that Roope then asked him if he had any guns in the house, and he told Roope and Overton that he had a gun in the closet. Overton got the gun. Roope then \u201casked me like, \u2018If you have anymore money,\u2019 he said, \u2018don\u2019t lie to me, if you have, cause if I find it, I\u2019m gone kill you.\u2019 And I told him there was some money in a envelope on the top shelf of the shelving unit in a birthday card.\u201d Roope then \u201cturned around and stuck me \u2014 stabbed me in my navel.\u201d Robert Braswell heard Roope getting the money as he fell back on the bed, and then Roope walked over and asked where the keys to the truck were. Robert Braswell testified that \u201cthis is when I saw . . . Cooke, like over my shoulder, all I saw was his head and face, and Roope picked the keys up and walked [out of the room].\u201d Robert Braswell identified Cooke in court.\nMrs. Braswell testified that she and her husband (Mr. Braswell) were watching television when someone behind her started \u201ccutting on my throat.\u201d Mrs. Braswell could not see her attacker, but heard him state: \u201cI\u2019m sorry, ma\u2019am, but I have to do this.\u201d Mrs. Braswell looked over at her husband, and saw Roope \u201cstabbing him over and over and over.\u201d Mrs. Braswell identified Roope in court. Mrs. Braswell also \u201cgot a glimpse\u201d of a girl in her kitchen, who she later learned was her granddaughter, Childers. After Roope left the room where Mrs. Braswell and her husband lay, she attempted to move; Roope came back into the room and \u201cstabbed me in my leg and crippled me for life probably and a place on my back right back there . . ..\u201d\nMr. Braswell testified that while he and his wife were watching television on 12 November 1995, \u201cRoope . . . got me right in the stomach with a knife, said, T got you old man.\u2019 \u201d Mr. Braswell testified that Roope continued to stab him repeatedly. After stabbing Mr. Braswell, Roope said \u201cI\u2019m Scarecrow,\u201d and then left the room. Mr. Braswell saw Smith stabbing his wife, and then saw Roope return to the room and stab his wife as well. Mr. Braswell identified Roope in court.\nSergeant Bruce Temple (Sergeant Temple) of the Roanoke Rapids Police Department testified that when he arrived at the Braswell residence following the stabbings, he asked Mrs. Braswell \u201cif she knew who did this to her and her response was \u2018no.\u2019 \u201d Sergeant Temple then asked Mrs. Braswell \u201cif she saw the person who did this to her, she said that there were more than one and she didn\u2019t know exactly who cut her.\u201d Mrs. Braswell also told Sergeant Temple that \u201cshe did see a boy and she gave me the description of black hair, wearing a long trench coat. She said that she thought that the kids called him \u2018Scarecrow.\u2019 \u201d Sergeant Temple further testified that he knew an individual nicknamed \u201cScarecrow\u201d whose name was \u201cWillie Roope,\u201d that he had spoken with Roope earlier on the day of the stabbings about an unrelated matter, and that Roope was wearing a long black trench coat and jeans at that time. It was later discovered by the police that Roope has the word \u201cScarecrow\u201d tattooed on his left shoulder.\nOn 13 November 1995, Detective William Davis (Detective Davis) of the Louisiana State Police noticed a Toyota truck with North Carolina license plates driving erratically. Detective Davis stopped the truck and apprehended the occupants. Detective Davis identified Roope in court as the driver, and identified the other occupants of the truck as Childers, Smith, Overton, and Cooke.\nOn 13 November 1995, Overton made a statement to the police which was read into evidence at trial. The names of both Roope and Cooke were deleted from Overton\u2019s confession prior to its admission into evidence. The trial court instructed the jury that Overton\u2019s confession was \u201cbeing offered by the State as against . . . Overton only. It is not evidence to be considered with respect to the State\u2019s case as to . . . Roope or . . . Cooke and you may not consider it as against them.\u201d Overton\u2019s confession, as redacted and read to the jury, stated in pertinent part:\n[Question]: Now, you mentioned you and your friends went, who was with you when y\u2019all went to this house yesterday evening?\n[Answer]: A friend of mine, \u201cblank.\u201d\n[Question]: . . . Who else?\n[Answer]: Another friend of mine \u201cblank.\u201d\n... I think James and \u201cblank\u201d went in there and stabbed them and cut them up. It looked like somebody just went in there with a knife and just started hacking at a piece of meat.... \u201cBlank\u201d cut the phone [cords] ... so they wouldn\u2019t work .... And I think \u201cblank\u201d came up with a total of six hundred dollars and the young lady, she, came up with I think close to a thousand dollars cash....\nOverton stated that \u201cthe crime was suppose to be committed by killing all three beings in the house,\u201d and his statement substantially corroborated Childers\u2019 trial testimony. The trial court instructed the jury that they could not consider Overton\u2019s out-of-court statement against Roope or Cooke. Neither Overton, Roope, nor Cooke testified at trial.\nAll three defendants moved the trial court to dismiss the charges against them for insufficiency of the evidence, and all three motions were denied. Overton and Cooke unsuccessfully contended before the trial court that there was insufficient evidence that they had the requisite mens rea for the charges against them on acting in concert and/or aiding and abetting theories of guilt. The trial court granted the State\u2019s motion for joinder over the objections of Roope and Overton.\nThe issues are whether: (I) the failure to raise a double jeopardy argument in the trial court waives any alleged error; (II) substantial evidence was presented that Cooke and Overton had the requisite mens rea for the jury to find them guilty of first-degree burglary and armed robbery on acting in concert and/or aiding and abetting theories of guilt; (III) the trial court abused its discretion by granting the State\u2019s motion for joinder; and (IV) the admission of a non-testifying defendant\u2019s out-of-court confession, redacted so as to delete the names of jointly tried codefendants, was prejudicial error.\nI\nDefendants Roope, Cooke, and Overton first contend that the entry of judgments against them for both robbery with a dangerous weapon and felonious larceny violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of our state and federal constitutions. Defendants have waived this claim, however, by failing to raise it at trial; accordingly we do not address it here. See, e.g., State v. Madric, 328 N.C. 223, 231, 400 S.E.2d 31, 36 (1991) (refusing to address double jeopardy issue where defendant failed to raise it at trial); State v. Thompson, 314 N.C. 618, 621, 336 S.E.2d 78, 79-80 (1985) (\u201c[T]he failure of a defendant to properly raise the issue of double jeopardy before the trial court precludes reliance on the defense on appeal.\u201d); State v. McKenzie, 292 N.C. 170, 176, 232 S.E.2d 424, 428 (1977) (\u201c[DJouble jeopardy protection may not be raised on appeal unless the defense and the facts underlying it are brought first to the attention of the trial court.\u201d).\nII\nDefendants Cooke and Overton contend that the evidence of their specific intent to commit first-degree burglary and armed robbery was insufficient to support their convictions for these offenses on either acting in concert or aiding and abetting theories. We disagree.\nThe law applicable to this case provides:\n[W]here multiple crimes are [committed], when two or more persons act together in pursuit of a common plan, all are guilty only of those crimes included within the common plan committed by any one of the perpetrators. . . . [0]ne may not be criminally responsible under the theory of acting in concert for a crime . . . which requires a specific intent, unless he is shown to have the requisite specific intent. The specific intent may be proved by evidence tending to show that the specific intent crime was a part of the common plan.\nState v. Blankenship, 337 N.C. 543, 558, 447 S.E.2d 727, 736 (1994) (citations omitted), overruled by State v. Barnes, 345 N.C. 184, 481 S.E.2d 44, cert. denied sub nom. Chambers v. North Carolina, - U.S. -, 139 L. Ed. 2d 134 (1997), and cert. denied, - U.S. -, 140 L. Ed. 2d 473 (1998). Under either an acting in concert or an aiding and abetting theory, joint participants in a crime can be convicted only where each participant has the requisite mens rea for that crime. State v. Reese, 319 N.C. 110, 141-42, n.8, 353 S.E.2d 352, 370, n.8 (1987), overruled in part by Barnes, 345 N.C. 184, 481 S.E.2d 44 (\u201cTo the extent that . . . Reese . . . [is] inconsistent with [Barnes], [it is] hereby overruled.\u201d).\nIn this case; Childers\u2019 testimony revealed that she, Cooke, Overton, Roope, and Smith indeed had a common purpose to rob and kill all three Braswells. Childers testified that she, Cooke, and Roope initially discussed robbing Cooke\u2019s parents or her own parents, and that as the five of them (Childers, Cooke, Overton, Roope, and Smith) walked together towards their destination, she suggested her grandparents and uncle as alternative victims. After arriving at her grandparents\u2019 house, Childers testified that the five of them \u201chuddled\u201d outside and discussed robbing and killing her grandparents and uncle. All five went inside her grandparents\u2019 house. Robert Braswell\u2019s testimony revealed that Cooke was present as he and Childers\u2019 grandparents were repeatedly stabbed and were robbed, and that Overton stabbed and robbed Robert Braswell as Childers\u2019 grandparents were being stabbed and robbed down the hall. Robert Braswell further testified that he overheard Roope stating: \u201c[R]emember ... we decided no witnesses.\u201d This evidence tended to show that the specific intent crimes of first-degree burglary and armed robbery were part of the common plan formed by Childers, Roope, Overton, Cooke, and Smith. Accordingly, the evidence supports the convictions of both Cooke and Overton on acting in concert and/or aiding and abetting theories, because it reveals that Cooke and Overton each formed the requisite mens rea for first-degree burglary and armed robbery.\nIll\nOur state has a \u201cstrong policy favoring the consolidated trials of defendants accused of collective criminal behavior.\u201d Barnes, 345 N.C. at 222, 481 S.E.2d at 64. The court must nonetheless deny joinder of codefendants for trial on motion of a defendant:\na. If before trial, ... it is found necessary to promote a fair determination of the guilt or innocence of one or more defendants; or\nb. If during trial, ... it is found necessary to achieve a fair determination of the guilt or innocence of that defendant.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-927(c)(2) (1997). A trial court\u2019s ruling on questions of joinder or severance is discretionary and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Carson, 320 N.C. 328, 335, 357 S.E.2d 662, 666-67 (1987). A defendant seeking to overturn this discretionary ruling of the trial court must show that the joinder has deprived him of a fair trial. State v. Porter, 303 N.C. 680, 688, 281 S.E.2d 377, 383 (1981).\nSeverance is not appropriate merely because the evidence against one codefendant differs from the evidence against another. The differences in evidence from one codefendant to another ordinarily must result in a conflict in the defendants\u2019 respective positions at trial of such a nature that, in viewing the totality of the evidence in the case, the defendants were denied a fair trial. However, substantial evidence of the defendants\u2019 guilt may override any harm resulting from the contradictory evidence offered by them individually.\nBarnes, 345 N.C. at 220, 481 S.E.2d at 62 (citations omitted).\nIn this case, Roope contends that the failure of the trial court to deny the State\u2019s motion for joinder was prejudicial error because \u201cRoope was, in essence, subjected to prosecution, not only by the [S]tate, but by his own codefendants.\u201d Even assuming that the evidence presented resulted in a conflict in the defendants\u2019 respective positions at trial, there was substantial evidence of Roope\u2019s guilt. Each of the Braswells testified that they were stabbed by Roope, and all three were able to describe and identify Roope in court. Mrs. Braswell also testified that she watched as Roope repeatedly stabbed her husband. Childers testified that, prior to their entry into the Braswell home, Roope stated his intent to kill all three of the Braswells. Robert Braswell testified that he overheard Roope ordering his death, and that he overheard Roope remind Overton of their agreement to kill all the witnesses. Finally, Roope was driving Robert Braswell\u2019s stolen truck when the defendants were apprehended in Louisiana. This substantial evidence of Roope\u2019s guilt overrides any possible harm to Roope resulting from a joint trial. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State\u2019s motion for a joint trial of all three defendants.\nIV\nWhere prosecutors have chosen to try codefendants jointly, the United States Constitution forbids the use of a non-testifying defendant\u2019s out-of-court confession if that confession names and incriminates a codefendant. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 20 L. Ed. 2d 476 (1968). A trial court\u2019s limiting instruction to the jury that the out-of-court confession can only be considered against the confessor (and not against codefendants) is insufficient to protect the codefendants\u2019 Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine witnesses. Id. A defendant\u2019s out-of-court confession may be read into evidence at a joint trial, however, where the confession has been redacted so as to \u201comit all reference\u201d to codefendants and to \u201comit all indication that anyone other than [the confessor and/or non-defendants] participated in the crime.\u201d Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 203, 95 L. Ed. 2d 176, 183 (1987). Merely omitting a codefendant\u2019s name (by replacing it with an obvious blank space, a word such as \u201cdeleted,\u201d or some other obvious indication of alteration) from a confession which directly incriminates the codefendant violates that codefendant\u2019s constitutional rights. Gray v. Maryland, - U.S. -, -, 140 L. Ed. 2d 294, 301 (1998). \u201c[Bracking out the name of a code-fendant not only \u2018would [be] futile. . . . [T]here could not [be] the slightest doubt as to whose names had been blacked out,\u2019 but \u2018even if there [were], that blacking out itself would have not only laid the doubt, but underscored the answer.\u2019 \u201d Id. at -, 140 L. Ed. 2d at 301-02 (quoting United States v. Delli Paoli, 229 F.2d 319, 321 (2d Cir. 1956)). \u201cThe blank space in an obviously redacted confession . . . points directly to the [non-confessing codefendant], and it accuses the [codefendant] in a manner similar to ... a testifying [defendant\u2019s] accusatory finger.\u201d Id. at -, 140 L. Ed. 2d at 302.\nThe unconstitutional redaction at issue in Gray stated in part:\n\u201cQuestion: Who was in the group that beat Stacey?\n\u201cAnswer: Me, deleted, deleted, and a few other guys.\u201d\nId. at \u2014, 140 L. Ed. 2d at 303. The Gray Court suggested the following constitutionally permissible redaction:\n\u201cQuestion: Who was in the group that beat Stacey?\n\u201cAnswer: Me and a few other guys.\u201d\nId.\nIn this case, Overton\u2019s confession, as redacted and read to the jury, stated in pertinent part:\nI think James and \u201cblank\u201d went in there and stabbed them and cut them up. It looked like somebody just went in there with a knife and just started hacking at a piece of meat.... \u201cBlank\u201d cut the phone [cords] ... so they wouldn\u2019t work .... And I think \u201cblank\u201d came up with a total of six hundred dollars and the young lady, she, came up with I think close to a thousand dollars cash....\nWe first note that Cooke has abandoned this issue by failing to argue it in his brief. See N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(5) (\u201cAssignments of error not set out in the appellant\u2019s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned.\u201d); State v. Davis, 68 N.C. App. 238, 245, 314 S.E.2d 828, 833 (1984) (issue not addressed in defendant\u2019s brief deemed abandoned). We therefore only address the constitutionality of the admission of Overton\u2019s redacted out-of-court confession as it relates to Roope.\nOverton\u2019s confession directly accuses Roope of participation in the charged crimes. The confession was impermissibly redacted by merely replacing Roope\u2019s name with the word \u201cblank.\u201d Regardless of the trial court\u2019s limiting instruction, therefore, the admission of Overton\u2019s out-of-court confession, as thus redacted, violated Roope\u2019s Sixth Amendment rights.\n\u201cA violation of the defendant\u2019s rights under the Constitution of the United States is prejudicial unless the appellate court finds that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1443(b) (1997) (placing the burden to show harmlessness on the State). Overwhelming evidence of a defendant\u2019s guilt may render a constitutional error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 23 L. Ed. 2d 284 (1969); State v. Autry, 321 N.C. 392, 400, 364 S.E.2d 341, 346 (1988).\nIn this case, as discussed above in Issue III, there was overwhelming evidence of Roope\u2019s guilt from sources other than Overton\u2019s confession. Accordingly, although it was constitutional error for Overton\u2019s improperly redacted out-of-court confession to be read into evidence in a joint trial, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore does not require a new trial.\nNo error.\nJudges MARTIN, Mark D. and TIMMONS-GOODSON concur.\n. We note that Cooke and Overton contend that their assault convictions should be reversed because the evidence was insufficient to show their specific intent to assault the Braswells; however, Cooke and Overton were convicted of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, which does not contain a specific intent element. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-32(b) (1993). Their argument on the assault crimes is therefore meritless. In any event, there is substantial evidence that the group\u2019s common plan included assaulting the Braswell\u2019s with an intent to kill.\n. Although our Supreme Court has overruled Blankenship insofar as it applies to the law on acting in concert, the law enunciated in Blankenship applies in this case since the crimes were committed prior to its renunciation. See State v. Brice, 126 N.C. App. 788, 793, 486 S.E.2d 719, 721 (1997) (applying Blankenship in order to avoid infringement of defendant\u2019s ex post facto rights). For crimes committed after the certification of the Barnes opinion on 3 March 1997, \u201c[I]f \u2018two persons join in a purpose to commit a crime, each of them, if actually or constructively present, is not only guilty as a principal if the other commits that particular crime, but he is also guilty of any other crime committed by the other in pursuance of the common purpose ... or as a natural or probable consequence thereof.\u2019 \u201d Barnes, 345 N.C. at 233, 481 S.E.2d at 71 (quoting State v. Erlewine, 328 N.C. 626, 637, 403 S.E.2d 280, 286 (1991)).", "type": "majority", "author": "GREENE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Special Deputy Attorney General Ellen B. Scouten, for the State.", "Appellate Defender Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., by Assistant Appellate Defender Constance H. Everhart, for defendant appellant William Lee Roope.", "Smallwood and Hayes, P.G., by Teresa L. Smallwood, for defendant appellant William David Cooke.", "Ronnie C. Reaves, P.A., by Lynn Pierce, for defendant appellant James Lawrence Overton, Jr." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM LEE ROOPE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM DAVID COOKE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES LAWRENCE OVERTON, JR.\nNo. 97-1087\n(Filed 4 August 1998)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 double jeopardy claim \u2014 not raised at trial \u2014 waived\nDefendants in a prosecution for burglary, assault, and larceny waived a contention that judgments for robbery with a dangerous weapon and felonious larceny violated the double jeopardy clause by failing to raise it at trial.\n2. Aiding and Abetting\u2014 burglary and armed robbery\u2014 intent \u2014 evidence sufficient\nThe evidence supported convictions of defendants for armed robbery and first-degree burglary on acting in concert and/or aiding and abetting theories where the testimony of a coconspirator revealed a common purpose to rob and kill all of the victims, all five of the coconspirators went to the victims\u2019 house, and testimony revealed that the two defendants who brought this appeal stabbed and robbed the victims or were present. The evidence reveals the requisite mens rea for first-degree burglary and armed robbery.\n3. Criminal Law \u2014 joinder\u2014no abuse of discretion\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in a prosecution for burglary, robbery, assault, and larceny by joining the trials of codefendants where, assuming that the evidence presented resulted in conflict in defendants\u2019 respective positions, there was substantial evidence of the appealing defendant\u2019s guilt. This substantial evidence overrides any possible harm resulting from a joint trial.\n4. Evidence\u2014 statement of nontestifying codefendant \u2014 no prejudice\nThe Sixth Amendment rights of a defendant in a burglary, robbery, assault, and larceny prosecution were violated by the use of a nontestifying defendant\u2019s out-of-court confession which was improperly redacted by merely replacing this defendant\u2019s name with the word \u201cblank,\u201d but there was overwhelming evidence of this defendant\u2019s guilt from other sources and the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.\nAppeal by defendants from judgments dated 11 November 1996 by Judge Herbert O. Phillips, III, in Halifax County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 May 1998.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Special Deputy Attorney General Ellen B. Scouten, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., by Assistant Appellate Defender Constance H. Everhart, for defendant appellant William Lee Roope.\nSmallwood and Hayes, P.G., by Teresa L. Smallwood, for defendant appellant William David Cooke.\nRonnie C. Reaves, P.A., by Lynn Pierce, for defendant appellant James Lawrence Overton, Jr." }, "file_name": "0356-01", "first_page_order": 388, "last_page_order": 399 }