{ "id": 8203026, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHAHEEDAH DARINA RUSHDAN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Rushdan", "decision_date": "2007-05-15", "docket_number": "No. COA06-1229", "first_page": "281", "last_page": "286", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "183 N.C. App. 281" } ], "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": "320 S.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "11" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 603", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4685063 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "618" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0603-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 L. Ed. 2d 436", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "516 U.S. 994", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 324192, 326433, 325570, 326147, 328450, 325243, 328216, 323051, 328556, 324366, 324911, 327448, 327675, 328317 ], "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/516/0994-10", "/us/516/0994-09", "/us/516/0994-01", "/us/516/0994-14", "/us/516/0994-08", "/us/516/0994-07", "/us/516/0994-12", "/us/516/0994-06", "/us/516/0994-13", "/us/516/0994-05", "/us/516/0994-04", "/us/516/0994-02", "/us/516/0994-03", "/us/516/0994-11" ] }, { "cite": "457 S.E.2d 841", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "861" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "340 N.C. 264", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 790203 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "299" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/340/0264-01" ] }, { "cite": "347 S.E.2d 403", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "409" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "318 N.C. 114", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4731888 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "125" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/318/0114-01" ] }, { "cite": "333 S.E.2d 245", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "248" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "314 N.C. 232", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4696763 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "236" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/314/0232-01" ] }, { "cite": "264 S.E.2d 66", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "74" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 547", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575616 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "560" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0547-01" ] }, { "cite": "301 S.E.2d 91", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "97" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 159", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4710741 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "167" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0159-01" ] }, { "cite": "456 S.E.2d 789", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "808" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "340 N.C. 119", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 790125 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "155" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/340/0119-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 623, "char_count": 12143, "ocr_confidence": 0.76, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.822123157029673e-08, "percentile": 0.49745622235118725 }, "sha256": "6f65aae4315d8d53e252280fdc6dc36e3bb22b89c4b179b1fc64592d2cac2b7f", "simhash": "1:c7688426dd07ccd6", "word_count": 1953 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:58.512650+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges WYNN and CALABRIA concurs." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHAHEEDAH DARINA RUSHDAN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "TYSON, Judge.\nShaheedah Darina Rushdan (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals from judgment entered after a jury found her to be guilty of four counts of obtaining property by false pretense, five counts of attempting to obtain property by false pretense, and one count of breaking and entering a vehicle. We find no prejudicial error.\nI. Background\nA. State\u2019s Evidence\nOn 16 August 2004, defendant drove a red van containing her daughter and a friend, Adrienne Williams, (\u201cWilliams\u201d) to a finance company parking lot. Defendant parked in an adjoining parking space occupied by Vanessa Sykes\u2019s (\u201cSykes\u201d) car and said, \u201cI ought to take [that] pocketbook for . . . pulling in this close to me.\u201d Williams helped defendant\u2019s daughter out of the car. Defendant told Williams to \u201c[p]ut [her daughter] back in the car [and to] ... . [g]et back in the car.\u201d Defendant \u201cput the car in reverse and . . . skidded out of the parking lot.\u201d\nSykes walked out of the finance company and noticed a red van leaving the lot \u201creal fast.\u201d Sykes had left her purse on her car\u2019s front seat and discovered it was missing. Sykes\u2019s purse contained her checkbook, credit cards, and her North Carolina driver\u2019s license. Sykes reported the theft to law enforcement. Defendant stopped the van a few minutes later and went through Sykes\u2019s pocketbook.\nA few days later, Williams watched as defendant taped a color picture of herself over Sykes\u2019s driver\u2019s license\u2019s photograph. Defendant told Williams she wanted to use the license and the checks. Defendant later told Williams the license had \u201cworked\u201d and she had used it as identification to purchase merchandise from Target. Defendant asked Williams to accompany her to the mall, but Williams refused.\nDefendant went to the mall with two of her children and Williams\u2019s daughter. Defendant returned with several bags of merchandise, including a Belk\u2019s bag. Defendant left the Belk\u2019s bag with merchandise therein at Williams\u2019s home.\nOn 22 August 2004, defendant attempted to negotiate a check using Sykes\u2019s altered license at the Finish Line and Foot Locker at Oak Hollow Mall. On 29 August 2004, defendant attempted, but failed, to negotiate a check using Sykes\u2019s altered license as identification at Food Lion. Defendant exited the store and left a check and her wallet inside. The wallet contained Sykes\u2019s altered license and defendant\u2019s identification. It also contained carbon copies of checks written on 22 August 2004, payable to Belk\u2019s, Dillard\u2019s, Motherhood Maternity, and Gold & Diamond, and checks dated 25 August 2004 and 29 August 2004, payable to Food Lion, after Sykes\u2019s purse was stolen. Food Lion videotaped the 29 August 2004 attempted transaction and defendant was identified as the person who left the wallet inside Food Lion.\nOn 9 September 2004, defendant was arrested. Defendant provided and signed a statement that she had found Sykes\u2019s pocketbook on the ground, not inside her car. She admitted altering Sykes\u2019s license and using it and the stolen checks to obtain merchandise from various stores. Williams was also arrested after defendant told law enforcement officers that Williams was involved in the crimes. Williams told police officers about a taped conversation between Williams and defendant. During that conversation, defendant told Williams, \u201cthere\u2019s no chance that they can convict you of it, because it was my ID, it\u2019s my name on the checks, it\u2019s my signature. I\u2019m the one who did it.\u201d\nB. Defendant\u2019s Evidence'\nDefendant\u2019s evidence consisted solely of her testimony. She testified she found the pocketbook on the ground and did not remove it from Sykes\u2019s car. She denied altering Sykes\u2019s license and denied writing any checks. Defendant stated Williams had altered Sykes\u2019s license, had written checks, and that she did not know how her wallet was left at Food Lion. She admitted she had written the checks and signed the statement with the police, but claimed she had written down what the police had suggested in hopes of receiving favorable treatment.\nOn 23 January 2006, a jury found defendant to be guilty of four counts of obtaining property by false pretense, five counts of attempting to obtain property by false pretense, and one count of breaking and entering a vehicle. Defendant pled guilty to attaining the status of an habitual felon. Defendant was sentenced in the presumptive range as a Rrior Record Level II offender to two consecutive terms of 100 months minimum active imprisonment and 129 months maximum active imprisonment. Defendant appeals.\nII. Issue\nDefendant argues the trial court erred when the trial judge clarified witnesses\u2019 testimony and evidence presented at trial.\nIII. Standard of Review\n\u201cThe judge may not express during any stage of the trial, any opinion in the presence of the jury on any question of fact to be decided by the jury.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1222 (2005). \u201cIn evaluating whether a judge\u2019s comments cross into the realm of impermissible opinion, a totality of the circumstances test is utilized.\u201d State v. Larrimore, 340 N.C. 119, 155, 456 S.E.2d 789, 808 (1995).\nIV. Trial Court\u2019s Statements\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1222 has been interpreted to prohibit a trial judge from expressing any opinion regarding the weight or credibility of any competent evidence presented before the jury. State v. Harris, 308 N.C. 159,167, 301 S.E.2d 91, 97 (1983). All facts and attendant circumstances must be considered and the judge\u2019s remarks must be considered in context. State v. Brady, 299 N.C. 547, 560, 264 S.E.2d 66, 74 (1980).\n\u201c[I]t is well settled that it is the duty of the trial judge to supervise and control the course of a trial so as to insure justice to all parties.\u201d State v. Blackstock, 314 N.C. 232, 236, 333 S.E.2d 245, 248 (1985). A trial judge \u201cmay question a witness for the purpose of clarifying his testimony and promoting a better understanding of it.\u201d State v. Whittington, 318 N.C. 114, 125, 347 S.E.2d 403, 409 (1986). \u201cIn so doing the court may question a witness in order to clarify confusing or contradictory testimony.\u201d Id. The trial court maintains a duty to control the examination of witnesses, both for the purpose of conserving the trial court\u2019s time and to protect the witness from prolonged, needless, or abusive examination. State v. White, 340 N.C. 264, 299, 457 S.E.2d 841, 861, cert. denied, 516 U.S. 994, 133 L. Ed. 2d 436 (1995). A new trial is not required if, considering the totality of the circumstances under which a remark was made, defendant fails to show prejudice. State v. King, 311 N.C. 603, 618, 320 S.E.2d 1, 11 (1984).\nA. Williams\u2019s Testimony\nDefendant argues the trial court mischaracterized Williams\u2019s testimony. Williams testified she could not recall the exact time when she recorded a telephone conversation with defendant. In the jury\u2019s presence, the trial judge clarified that Williams was unsure when she recorded the telephone conversation. The trial judge stated, \u201cThat conversation, the witness says, was prior to the conversation that this witness says she taped. However, she does not \u2014 she is not sure that the conversation she taped was after her second arrest. So I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.\u201d\nThe trial judge\u2019s clarification was not prejudicial to defendant. The trial judge did not express an opinion on or bolster Williams\u2019s testimony. After a review of the totality of the circumstances, the trial court did not err when it clarified Williams\u2019s testimony.\nB.Food Lion Manager\u2019s Testimony\nDefendant argues the trial court expressed an opinion on or bolstered the Food Lion manager\u2019s testimony. The Food Lion manager testified he could not determine whether defendant\u2019s proffered check was dated 27 August or 29 August and stated, \u201cit looks like the loop didn\u2019t quite get fully rounded.\u201d The trial judge then asked, \u201cBut whatever the date that it looks like on the check, the check was passed or attempted to be passed on August 29th.\u201d The witness responded, \u201cYes, and that date is stamped on the back from the register.\u201d The trial judge did not express an opinion upon the testimony and merely clarified the manager\u2019s testimony regarding the date of the check.\nThe manager also testified that the woman pictured in the surveillance video had slightly darker hair than defendant had at trial. The trial judge stated, \u201c[T]his person\u2019s hair seemed to be darker at the time, perhaps, in the video, but then he said things get darker over time. So I believe \u2014 was that your testimony? I don\u2019t mean to be testifying for you.\u201d The manager responded, \u201cRight.\u201d\nThe trial court clarified the manager\u2019s testimony that the woman\u2019s hair in the video was slightly darker than defendant\u2019s hair color. The trial court did not express an opinion upon or bolster the manager\u2019s testimony. After review of the totality of the circumstances, the trial judge\u2019s clarification of the Food Lion manager\u2019s testimony and its question did not prejudice defendant.\nC. Defendant\u2019s Confession\nDefense counsel attempted to impeach a witness- on whether defendant had written and signed her confession at 10:00 a.m. or 10:02 a.m. The trial court asked the witness, \u201cIs there a big clock on the wall \u2014 \u201d The trial judge questioned the witness to clarify that defendant\u2019s waiver of her rights was signed before her statement began. The trial court did not express an opinion upon or bolster the witness\u2019s testimony and did not prejudice defendant.\nD. Trial Judge\u2019s Comments\nDefendant argues the trial judge made several other comments throughout her trial that prejudiced her, including: (1) clarifying whether a witness was involved in her bond-setting process; (2) clarifying that it would be customary for a detective to report whether defendant denied committing the offenses; (3) stating, \u201call right,\u201d after a detective\u2019s testimony; (4) correcting himself when he stated Williams\u2019s mother would help pay for an attorney instead of Williams\u2019s mother would help pay for a car; (5) asking about the tone of the recorded telephone conversation between defendant and Williams; and (6) stating, \u201cI know,\u201d after defendant explained the Belk\u2019s merchandise was new and not worn.\nDefendant has failed to show any of the trial judge\u2019s comments throughout the trial prejudiced her to award a new trial. Overwhelming evidence shows defendant: (1) took Sykes\u2019s purse out of her car; (2) altered Sykes\u2019s license; and (3) purchased and attempted to purchase merchandise using Sykes\u2019s altered driver\u2019s license and stolen checks. Defendant confessed she altered Sykes\u2019s license and used it and Sykes\u2019s checks to purchase merchandise. The trial court did not express an opinion upon or bolster any witnesses\u2019 testimony and did not prejudice defendant by clarifying witnesses\u2019 testimony. This assignment of error is overruled.\nV. Conclusion\nThe trial judge did not prejudice defendant when he asked questions and clarified witnesses\u2019 testimony. Defendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial errors she preserved, assigned, and argued.\nNo Prejudicial Error.\nJudges WYNN and CALABRIA concurs.", "type": "majority", "author": "TYSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Dennis Myers, for the State.", "Kevin R Bradley, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHAHEEDAH DARINA RUSHDAN\nNo. COA06-1229\n(Filed 15 May 2007)\nJudges\u2014 no expression of opinion or bolstering of witness testimony \u2014 failure to show prejudice \u2014 totality of circumstances\nA totality of circumstances test revealed that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in a multiple obtaining property by false pretense, multiple attempting to obtain property by false pretense, and breaking and entering a vehicle case by asking defendant questions and clarifying witnesses\u2019s testimony, because: (1) the trial court did not express an opinion or bolster witness testimony, nor did it prejudice defendant by clarifying witness testimony; and (2) defendant failed to show any of the court\u2019s comments throughout the trial prejudiced her in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt.\nAppeal by defendant from judgments entered 27 January 2006 by Judge Michael E. Helms in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 April 2007.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Dennis Myers, for the State.\nKevin R Bradley, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0281-01", "first_page_order": 313, "last_page_order": 318 }