{ "id": 8237129, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NORRIS DONNELL BELL, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bell", "decision_date": "2006-09-05", "docket_number": "No. COA05-1382", "first_page": "430", "last_page": "433", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "179 N.C. App. 430" } ], "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": "613 S.E.2d 705", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633070 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "706-08" }, { "page": "708" }, { "page": "708" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/613/0705-01" ] }, { "cite": "291 S.E.2d 812", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "815", "parenthetical": "finding that the precedent of Raper was not superseded by amendments to Rule 10 of the General Rules of Practice for the Superior and District Courts" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 N.C. App. 561", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525245 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "564-65", "parenthetical": "finding that the precedent of Raper was not superseded by amendments to Rule 10 of the General Rules of Practice for the Superior and District Courts" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/57/0561-01" ] }, { "cite": "166 S.E. 314", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1932, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "315", "parenthetical": "holding that the closing argument to the jury is a \"substantial legal right,\" the denial of which necessitates a new trial" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "203 N.C. 489", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8613878 ], "year": 1932, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "492", "parenthetical": "holding that the closing argument to the jury is a \"substantial legal right,\" the denial of which necessitates a new trial" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/203/0489-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 N.C. App. 136", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8435503 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "140" }, { "page": "140" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/171/0136-01" ] }, { "cite": "520 S.E.2d 585", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "588-89" }, { "page": "588", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "589-90" }, { "page": "590" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "135 N.C. App. 449", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11241331 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "452-53" }, { "page": "452-53" }, { "page": "455" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/135/0449-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 407, "char_count": 8201, "ocr_confidence": 0.761, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2224343662448088e-07, "percentile": 0.5984501413016744 }, "sha256": "f2aaf48e783e18f4eb467718e2d04a8813aa2ef439c28682198352035ad29174", "simhash": "1:876ba4e468168c22", "word_count": 1352 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:27:33.869735+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges HUDSON and TYSON concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NORRIS DONNELL BELL, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WYNN, Judge.\n\u201cIn all cases, civil or criminal, if no evidence is introduced by the defendant, the right to open and close the argument to the jury shall belong to him.\u201d Defendant argues that since he offered no evidence at his trial, the trial court erred by denying him the right to close argument to the jury. For the reasons given in State v. Shuler, 135 N.C. App. 449, 452-53, 520 S.E.2d 585, 588-89 (1999) and State v. Wells, 171 N.C. App. 136, 140, 613 S.E.2d 705, 706-08 (2005), we agree with Defendant and order a new trial.\nThis appeal arises from Defendant\u2019s trial on the charges of possession of cocaine and attaining habitual felon status. At the end of the State\u2019s evidence, Defendant did not present evidence on his own behalf. However, the trial judge stated that he was allowing the State the final argument to the jury because defense counsel had forfeited the right to final closing argument by cross-examining the State\u2019s witness, Agent Amy Bommer (a forensic drug chemist), with a document which was not admitted into evidence, and questioning her concerning that document. Defense counsel objected to losing his final closing argument.\nFollowing his conviction on the charges and resulting sentence of 95 to 123 months\u2019 imprisonment, Defendant appealed on several issues, seeking a new trial. We find it dispositive that he is entitled to a new trial based on the failure to allow his counsel closing argument.\nThe right of a defendant to present a final closing argument to a jury is governed by Rule 10 of the General Rules of Practice for the Superior and District Courts, which provides that, in cases in which the Defendant introduces no evidence, \u201cthe right to open and close the argument to the jury shall belong to him.\u201d N.C. Super, and Dist. Ct. R. 10. Although there is no right to offer evidence during cross-examination, evidence may be found to be \u201cintroduced\u201d during cross-examination, within the meaning of Rule 10, when: (1) it is \u201coffered\u201d into evidence by the cross-examiner; or (2) the cross-examination introduces new matter that is not relevant to any issue in the case. Shuler, 135 N.C. App. at 452-53, 520 S.E.2d at 588 (citations omitted). If new matter raised during cross-examination is relevant, it is not considered \u201cintroduced\u201d within the meaning of Rule 10. Id. at 453, 520 S.E.2d at 588 (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 401).\nIn Shuler, this Court granted a new trial to a defendant after the trial court denied the defendant\u2019s right to the closing jury argument based on its erroneous finding that the defendant had introduced new evidence during her cross-examination of a State witness. On direct examination, the State\u2019s witness testified to various statements the defendant made during interviews the two had attended. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked the witness to read portions of transcripts from the interviews to put the defendant\u2019s statements into context, and questioned the witness about her accounting procedures and other topics discussed during the interviews. This Court concluded that matters raised during the defendant\u2019s cross-examination of the State\u2019s witness were relevant to evidence introduced by the State. Therefore, the defendant did not introduce any new evidence on cross-examination, and the trial court wrongly denied defendant\u2019s right to the closing jury argument. Id. at 455, 520 S.E.2d at 589-90.\nLikewise, we granted a new trial to the defendant in State v. Wells, 171 N.C. App. 136, 613 S.E.2d 705 (2005), on the grounds that the trial court erred by depriving the defendant of his right to close to the jury. In Wells, the defendant was on trial for murder. During direct examination, the State introduced a statement the witness gave to detectives on 18 December 2002, in which the witness stated that the defendant stood in the middle of the street and fired at the victim and another as they fled, then casually drove away. On cross-examination, the defendant moved to introduce the witness\u2019s 17 December 2002 statement, in which the witness stated that defendant was running away from the recording studio as he fired at the victims. This Court concluded that the witness was questioned about statements which directly related to the witness\u2019s own testimony on direct examination. Therefore, the defendant did not introduce any evidence within the meaning of Rule 10, and the trial court erred in depriving him of the right to the closing argument to the jury. Id. at 140, 613 S.E.2d at 708.\n. In the present case, the State questioned Agent Bommer about the tests, instruments, and procedures she used to reach her conclusion that the powdery substance seized was cocaine. On direct examination, the prosecutor asked Agent Bommer, \u201cSo cocaine has a particular graph that will come out after being bombarded?\u201d Agent Bommer replied, \u201cCorrect.\u201d On cross-examination, the following questioning occurred:\nQ. Did you bring that graph with you?\nA. Yes.\nQ. May I see it?\nA. Sure.\n[Defense Counsel]: May I approach, please?\nCourt: Yes.\nThe Witness: (Document tendered.)\n[Defense Counsel]: Thank you.\nQ. So actually it\u2019s various graphs; is that correct?\nA. It\u2019s various sheets of paper that\u2019s been printed out as the report.\n* \u2021 \u2021 *\nQ. Thank you (document tendered).\nDefense counsel also cross-examined Agent Bommer about a lab report that she used during her testimony on direct examination. Counsel asked Agent Bommer if she produced a lab report outlining the results of her examination. Agent Bommer responded, \u201cIt\u2019s part of the process.\u201d Defense counsel subsequently asked, \u201cAnd do you have a copy of it in front of you?\u201d She responded, \u201cI have a copy of the shortened report in front of me. The DAs get [] a three- to four-page copy of the report.\u201d\nFinally, defense counsel cross-examined Agent Bommer as follows:\nQ: Okay, you brought all of your records and notes concerning this case?\nA: Yes, I have my case notes with me.\nQ: May I approach?\nCourt: Yes, you may.\nQ: Can I see those, please?\nThe witness tendered the documents.\n[Defense Counsel]: Thank you.\nThank you. (Documents tendered.)\nHere, defense counsel\u2019s questioning was related to Agent Bommer\u2019s testimony on direct examination regarding the method and instruments she used to determine the nature of the substance seized from defendant\u2019s sock. We conclude that defense counsel\u2019s cross-examination of Agent Bommer was relevant and directly related to Agent Bommer\u2019s testimony during direct examination.\nIn sum, we hold that Defendant did not introduce any evidence within the meaning of Rule 10, and the trial court therefore erred in depriving him of the right to the closing argument to the jury. As in Shuler and Wells, we conclude that this error entitles Defendant to a new trial. Shuler, 135 N.C. App. at 455, 520 S.E.2d at 590; Wells, 171 N.C. App. at 140, 613 S.E.2d at 708; see also State v. Raper, 203 N.C. 489, 492, 166 S.E. 314, 315 (1932) (holding that the closing argument to the jury is a \u201csubstantial legal right,\u201d the denial of which necessitates a new trial); State v. Hall, 57 N.C. App. 561, 564-65, 291 S.E.2d 812, 815 (1982) (finding that the precedent of Raper was not superseded by amendments to Rule 10 of the General Rules of Practice for the Superior and District Courts).\nNew trial.\nJudges HUDSON and TYSON concur.\n. N.C. Super, and Dist. Ct. R. 10.", "type": "majority", "author": "WYNN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Heather H. Freeman, for the State.", "Haral E. Carlin for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NORRIS DONNELL BELL, Defendant\nNo. COA05-1382\n(Filed 5 September 2006)\nCriminal Law\u2014 final closing argument \u2014 evidence not introduced on cross-examination\nThe trial court erred by depriving defendant of the right to the final closing argument where he cross-examined an SBI agent about the method and instruments she used to determine the nature of the substance seized from defendant\u2019s sock. Defendant did not introduce evidence within the meaning of Rule 10 of the General Rules of Practice for the Superior and District Courts.\nAppeal by Defendant from judgment entered 8 February 2005 by Judge Kenneth C. Titus in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 August 2006.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Heather H. Freeman, for the State.\nHaral E. Carlin for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0430-01", "first_page_order": 462, "last_page_order": 465 }