{ "id": 11242204, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DEBBIE OXENTINE MITCHELL", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Mitchell", "decision_date": "1999-11-16", "docket_number": "No. COA98-1555", "first_page": "617", "last_page": "621", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "135 N.C. App. 617" } ], "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": "277 S.E.2d 376", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "384" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "303 N.C. 75", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571418 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "87" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/303/0075-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 L. Ed. 2d 541", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "495 U.S. 951", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 633957, 634149, 634118, 634316, 633725, 633774, 633934, 633904, 633712, 633906, 633977, 633785, 633821, 634110 ], "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/495/0951-02", "/us/495/0951-04", "/us/495/0951-09", "/us/495/0951-03", "/us/495/0951-14", "/us/495/0951-11", "/us/495/0951-13", "/us/495/0951-10", "/us/495/0951-15", "/us/495/0951-08", "/us/495/0951-07", "/us/495/0951-06", "/us/495/0951-12", "/us/495/0951-05" ] }, { "cite": "386 S.E.2d 569", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "575", "parenthetical": "holding defendant's proffered evidence to be irrelevant because \"it fail[ed] to point to a specific other person as the perpetrator of the crime with which defendant is charged\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "325 N.C. 550", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2489106 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "562", "parenthetical": "holding defendant's proffered evidence to be irrelevant because \"it fail[ed] to point to a specific other person as the perpetrator of the crime with which defendant is charged\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/325/0550-01" ] }, { "cite": "351 S.E.2d 277", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "279", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "318 N.C. 663", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4733270 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "667", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/318/0663-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 L. Ed. 2d 241", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "506 U.S. 915", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12001440, 12001636, 12000708, 12000837, 12000970, 12001711, 12001073, 12001394, 12001300, 12001559, 12000604, 12001500, 12001183 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/506/0915-09", "/us/506/0915-12", "/us/506/0915-02", "/us/506/0915-03", "/us/506/0915-04", "/us/506/0915-13", "/us/506/0915-05", "/us/506/0915-08", "/us/506/0915-07", "/us/506/0915-11", "/us/506/0915-01", "/us/506/0915-10", "/us/506/0915-06" ] }, { "cite": "416 S.E.2d 398", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "331 N.C. 290", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2502533, 2498248, 2500400, 2499516, 2497727 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/331/0290-01", "/nc/331/0290-04", "/nc/331/0290-05", "/nc/331/0290-02", "/nc/331/0290-03" ] }, { "cite": "410 S.E.2d 226", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "228" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 N.C. App. 498", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522544 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "502" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/104/0498-01" ] }, { "cite": "239 S.E.2d 802", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "808" }, { "page": "808" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "294 N.C. 30", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570755 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/294/0030-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 L. Ed. 2d 285", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "459 U.S. 972", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6443841, 6443747, 6443588, 6443384, 6443270, 6444523, 6444651, 6444273, 6443666, 6444179, 6443989, 6443512, 6443930, 6444413 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/459/0972-07", "/us/459/0972-06", "/us/459/0972-04", "/us/459/0972-02", "/us/459/0972-01", "/us/459/0972-13", "/us/459/0972-14", "/us/459/0972-11", "/us/459/0972-05", "/us/459/0972-10", "/us/459/0972-09", "/us/459/0972-03", "/us/459/0972-08", "/us/459/0972-12" ] }, { "cite": "675 F.2d 825", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1175571 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "834" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/675/0825-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-258.1", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 533, "char_count": 8915, "ocr_confidence": 0.738, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.283159945918396e-08, "percentile": 0.47916094722124725 }, "sha256": "b787369d0b7a6fb9ff5a8ee1d2e9aabadc38cf11b4116f18f4e20ade30c9523d", "simhash": "1:056b652e673b1e44", "word_count": 1460 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:51:33.981101+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges JOHN and McGEE concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DEBBIE OXENTINE MITCHELL" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "LEWIS, Judge.\nDefendant was tried at the 4 August 1998 session of Alexander County Superior Court for providing drugs to an inmate at a local confinement facility on 4 May 1997, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-258.1(a). The jury returned a verdict of guilty on 4 August 1998, and defendant now appeals.\nAt trial, the State\u2019s evidence tended to show that defendant visited her boyfriend, Bobby Hightower (\u201cHightower\u201d), at the Alexander County jail on Sunday afternoon, 4 May 1997, where Hightower was then an inmate. They proceeded to speak in a cubicle for ten minutes, separated only by a glass window. Following their conversation, defendant was observed rising up from a squatting position and Hightower was then seen bending over and picking something up near the main jail door. At that time, there was approximately an inch or an inch-and-a-half separation between the jail door and the floor. When the jailer on duty and a deputy sheriff immediately questioned Hightower as to what was in his hand, he told defendant to \u201churry\u201d or \u201cleave.\u201d The jailer and deputy sheriff discovered in Hightower\u2019s hand a marijuana cigarette, around which was wrapped twelve dollars.\nIn her first assignment of error, defendant argues that the jailer\u2019s and deputy sheriff\u2019s testimony that Hightower said \u201churry\u201d or \u201cleave\u201d to defendant as she was departing constitutes inadmissible hearsay. We disagree. In their respective briefs, the parties focus on whether such statements fall within the excited utterance exception to hearsay. See N.C.R. Evid. 803(2). We need not address those arguments as these statements are not even hearsay in the first place.\n\u201c \u2018Hearsay\u2019 is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.\u201d N.C.R. Evid. 801(c). The Official Commentary to Rule 801, however, points out that \u201c[i]f the significance of an offered statement lies solely in the fact that it was made, no issue is raised as to the truth of anything asserted, and the statement is not hearsay.\u201d N.C.R. Evid. 801, Official Commentary. Directives, such as those here, are not hearsay because they are simply offered to prove that the directive was made, not to prove the truth of any matter asserted therein. Cf. United States v. Gibson, 675 F.2d 825, 834 (6th Cir.) (\u201cIndeed, a suggestion or an order is not subject to verification at all because such utterances do not assert facts.\u201d), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 972, 74 L. Ed. 2d 285 (1982).\nOn this point, State v. Hood, 294 N.C. 30, 239 S.E.2d 802 (1978), is instructive. In Hood, the following testimony was objected to as hearsay:\nWell, the way it was I suppose to [sic] he said I supposed to set upon the bank....\n[Objection; overruled]\nI suppose to set upon the bank and shoot through the windshield, back windshield.\nId. at 40, 239 S.E.2d at 808. In addressing the defendant\u2019s contention that this testimony amounted to hearsay, our Supreme Court stated:\nThe witness\u2019s response that he \u2018was suppose to set upon the bank [etc.]...\u2019 indicates that defendant directed the witness to do certain things. Such a response is not hearsay in that it is offered only to show that the statement was made, and not to show the truth of matters asserted in the statement. The probative force of such testimony, i.e., that the statement was made, depends on the credibility of the witness himself, and not on the credibility of some person other than the witness producing such testimony.\nId. at 40-41, 239 S.E.2d at 808. Here, as in Hood, the significance of the statement \u201churry\u201d or \u201cleave\u201d was in the fact that the statement was made, not in the truth of any matters asserted therein. Accordingly, defendant\u2019s first assignment of error is overruled.\nNext, defendant contests the trial court\u2019s exclusion of certain questioning purportedly relevant to defendant\u2019s case. \u201c[E]ven though a trial court\u2019s rulings on relevancy technically are not discretionary and therefore are not reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard applicable to Rule 403, such rulings are given great deference on appeal.\u201d State v. Wallace, 104 N.C. App. 498, 502, 410 S.E.2d 226, 228 (1991), disc. review denied, 331 N.C. 290, 416 S.E.2d 398, cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915, 121 L. Ed. 2d 241 (1992). With this standard of review in mind, we turn to defendant\u2019s proffered line of questioning.\nSpecifically, defendant sought to cross-examine the deputy sheriff as to four things: (1) inmates serving DWI sentences being in the jail that weekend; (2) other occasions in which prisoners brought in contraband themselves; (3) the general procedure for visitors bringing in clothing or personal items to inmates; and (4) \u201ctrustees\u201d (i.e. trusted inmates) being allowed in the lobby area of the jail. Defendant argues that such cross-examination would have shown the marijuana here could have come from someone other than defendant. We conclude that such cross-examination was properly excluded by the trial court as being irrelevant.\n\u201cEvidence that another committed the crime for which the defendant is charged generally is relevant and admissible as long as it does more than create an inference or conjecture in this regard. It must point directly to the guilt of the other party.\" State v. Cotton, 318 N.C. 663, 667, 351 S.E.2d 277, 279 (1987) (emphasis added). Here, defendant\u2019s proffered cross-examination only sought to raise the inference that some third party might have smuggled in the marijuana \u2014 it did not point to any specific person. Thus, defendant\u2019s argument is rejected. See also State v. Brewer, 325 N.C. 550, 562, 386 S.E.2d 569, 575 (1989) (holding defendant\u2019s proffered evidence to be irrelevant because \u201cit fail[ed] to point to a specific other person as the perpetrator of the crime with which defendant is charged\u201d), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 951, 109 L. Ed. 2d 541 (1990).\nFinally, defendant contests the trial court\u2019s failure to dismiss the charges against her for insufficient evidence. \u201cIn ruling upon defendant's] motion to dismiss on the grounds of insufficient evidence, the trial court is required to interpret the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, drawing all reasonable inferences in the State\u2019s favor.\u201d State v. Cox, 303 N.C. 75, 87, 277 S.E.2d 376, 384 (1981). There must be substantial evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt as to each element of the crime charged. Id. Here, defendant was charged with providing drugs to an inmate at a local confinement facility. To withstand a motion to dismiss for that offense, the State had to prove three elements: (1) Hightower was an inmate at a local confinement facility; (2) while Hightower was an inmate, defendant gave him a controlled substance; and (3) defendant acted knowingly and intentionally. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-258.1(a) (1993); N.C.P.I., Crim. 233.80. The State\u2019s evidence, as summarized earlier, satisfied each of these three elements. Thus, defendant\u2019s final argument is without merit.\nNo error.\nJudges JOHN and McGEE concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "LEWIS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General James C. Holloway, for the State.", "L. Dale Graham for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DEBBIE OXENTINE MITCHELL\nNo. COA98-1555\n(Filed 16 November 1999)\n1. Evidence\u2014 hearsay \u2014 directive statement\nThe trial court did not err in a prosecution for providing drugs to an inmate by admitting testimony that defendant\u2019s boyfriend, an inmate, said \u201churry\u201d or \u201cleave\u201d to her as she was departing. Directives are not hearsay when they are simply offered to prove that the directive was made, not to prove the truth of any matter asserted.\n2. Evidence\u2014 relevance \u2014 guilt of third party\nThe trial court did not err in a prosecution for providing drugs to an inmate by excluding cross-examination questions by defendant which defendant contends would have shown that the marijuana could have come from someone else. Defendant\u2019s proffered cross-examination only sought to raise the inference that some third party might have smuggled the marijuana and did not point to any specific person.\n3. Drugs\u2014 supplying drugs to inmate \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe trial court did not err by refusing to dismiss for insufficient evidence a charge of providing drugs to an inmate where defendant visited her boyfriend, an inmate at the Alexander County jail; they spoke in a cubicle, separated by a glass window; following their conversation, defendant was seen rising from a squatting position and her boyfriend was seen picking something up near the jail door; there was a separation between the door and the floor; the boyfriend told defendant to hurry and to leave when a jailer and a deputy questioned him; and a marijuana cigarette was found in defendant\u2019s hand.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 5 August 1998 by Judge James C. Davis in Alexander County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 October 1999.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General James C. Holloway, for the State.\nL. Dale Graham for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0617-01", "first_page_order": 651, "last_page_order": 655 }