{ "id": 8186794, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RICKY JACKSON HENNIS, SR.", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hennis", "decision_date": "2007-07-03", "docket_number": "No. COA06-1134", "first_page": "536", "last_page": "539", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "184 N.C. App. 536" } ], "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": "633 S.E.2d 712", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12636475 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "714" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/633/0712-01" ] }, { "cite": "613 S.E.2d 705", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633070 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "706", "parenthetical": "quoting Shuler, 135 N.C. App. at 453, 520 S.E.2d at 588" }, { "page": "708" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/613/0705-01" ] }, { "cite": "346 S.E.2d 447", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "450", "parenthetical": "\"The right to closing argument is a substantial legal right of which a defendant may not be deprived by the exercise of a judge's discretion.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "317 N.C. 511", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4779881 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "517", "parenthetical": "\"The right to closing argument is a substantial legal right of which a defendant may not be deprived by the exercise of a judge's discretion.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/317/0511-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S.E.2d 142", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 579", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565591 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0579-01" ] }, { "cite": "238 S.E.2d 299", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.C. 570", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565614 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/293/0570-01" ] }, { "cite": "254 S.E.2d 579", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "585", "parenthetical": "\"A witness may use sketches and diagrams, on a blackboard or otherwise, to illustrate his testimony.\" (emphasis added) (citing State v. Lee, 293 N.C. 570, 238 S.E.2d 299 (1977); State v. Cox, 271 N.C. 579, 157 S.E.2d 142 (1967))" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 N.C. 227", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568468 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "235-36", "parenthetical": "\"A witness may use sketches and diagrams, on a blackboard or otherwise, to illustrate his testimony.\" (emphasis added) (citing State v. Lee, 293 N.C. 570, 238 S.E.2d 299 (1977); State v. Cox, 271 N.C. 579, 157 S.E.2d 142 (1967))" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/297/0227-01" ] }, { "cite": "484 S.E.2d 538", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 7, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "540" }, { "page": "541" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "346 N.C. 109", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 139668 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "113" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/346/0109-01" ] }, { "cite": "291 S.E.2d 812", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "814" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 N.C. App. 561", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525245 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/57/0561-01" ] }, { "cite": "179 N.C. App. 430", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8237129 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "433" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/179/0430-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 N.C. App. 136", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8435503 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "138", "parenthetical": "quoting Shuler, 135 N.C. App. at 453, 520 S.E.2d at 588" }, { "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" }, { "page": "588" }, { "page": "588" }, { "page": "588" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "135 N.C. App. 449", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11241331 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "453" }, { "page": "453" }, { "page": "452-53" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/135/0449-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 475, "char_count": 8714, "ocr_confidence": 0.749, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.4503541321376382e-07, "percentile": 0.6549074868843705 }, "sha256": "42a399f6b324b708f1526eea45a657890aceb6cd65da78a396966045b5e0da41", "simhash": "1:87616122d8bd1eda", "word_count": 1415 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:59.559545+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges STEELMAN and STEPHENS concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RICKY JACKSON HENNIS, SR." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Chief Judge.\nDefendant was convicted by a jury of felonious possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia and subsequently entered a plea of guilty to habitual felon status pursuant to a plea agreement. He appeals from a judgment sentencing him to a term of imprisonment for a minimum of 80 months and a maximum of 105 months.\nThe State\u2019s evidence at trial tended to show that three detectives of the Rockingham County Vice Narcotics Unit conducted \u201cknock and talk\u201d operations in defendant\u2019s neighborhood on 8 July 2005. Defendant\u2019s residence was an area of investigative interest based on several anonymous complaints of drug activity. The detectives drove past defendant\u2019s residence, observed a truck pull into the driveway, and pulled in behind the truck. As the detectives approached the truck, they noticed a crack pipe on the seat between the driver and defendant, who was in the passenger seat. Defendant exited the vehicle, and Detective Vaughn asked him to step to the rear of the truck. Detective Vaughn found another crack pipe on defendant\u2019s person, crack cocaine crumbs on the passenger seat, and a rock of crack cocaine on the ground where defendant exited the truck.\nDetective Vaughn testified during the State\u2019s direct examination to the facts described above. On cross-examination, defense counsel requested that Detective Vaughn draw a diagram of the arrest scene, which was marked as Defendant\u2019s Exhibit A. Detective Vaughn stepped down from the witness stand to diagram the scene where defendant was arrested. The diagram illustrated that the crack rock was found on the ground directly beside the truck where defendant exited the vehicle.\nDefense counsel also questioned Detective Vaughn about the incident report that he filed on 8 July 2005. The State requested that the report be marked as an exhibit since it was being used to cross-examine the witness. Defense counsel complied with this request and continued questioning Detective Vaughn about the changes and additions to the report that were added months after it was initially written. The report, however, was never published to the jury.\nDefendant did not testify or call witnesses in his behalf. The trial court, however, ruled that defendant had offered evidence through his cross-examination of Detective Vaughn and had thereby forfeited his right to make the final jury argument. Defendant\u2019s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying him the final closing argument to the jury. We agree and grant defendant a new trial.\nRule 10 of the North Carolina General Rules of Practice for the Superior and District Courts provides \u201cif no evidence is introduced by the defendant, the right to open and close the argument to the jury shall belong to him.\u201d N.C. Super, and Dist. Ct. R. 10 (2006). In State v. Shuler, 135 N.C. App. 449, 520 S.E.2d 585 (1999), this Court determined that evidence is \u201cintroduced,\u201d within the meaning of Rule 10, when the cross-examiner either formally offers the material into evidence, or when the cross-examiner presents new matter to the jury that is not relevant to the case. Id. at 453, 520 S.E.2d at 588; see also State v. Wells, 171 N.C. App. 136, 138, 613 S.E.2d 705, 706 (2005) (quoting Shuler, 135 N.C. App. at 453, 520 S.E.2d at 588). However, \u201c[n]ew matters raised during the cross-examination, which are relevant, do not constitute the \u2018introduction\u2019 of evidence within the meaning of Rule 10.\u201d Shuler, 135 N.C. App. at 453, 520 S.E.2d at 588. Most recently, in State v. Bell, 179 N.C. App. 430, 633 S.E.2d 712, (2006), this Court stated that evidence is introduced during cross-examination when: \u201c(1) it is \u2018offered\u2019 into evidence by the cross-examiner; or (2) the cross-examination introduces new matter that is not relevant to any issue in the case.\u201d Id. at 431, 633 S.E.2d at 713 (citing Shuler, 135 N.C. App. at 452-53, 520 S.E.2d at 588).\nIn this case, the State does not contend that the matters about which defendant cross-examined Detective Vaughn concern a new and irrelevant issue under the second test articulated in Bell. Rather, the issue presented in this appeal is whether, under the first test in Bell, the defendant \u201coffered\u201d the diagram and incident report into evidence during his cross-examination.\nIn State v. Hall, 57 N.C. App. 561, 291 S.E.2d 812 (1982), this Court set forth the following test to determine whether evidence is \u201coffered\u201d within the meaning of Rule 10: \u201cwhether a party has offered [an object] as substantive evidence or so that the jury may examine it and determine whether it illustrates, corroborates, or impeaches the testimony of the witness.\u201d Id. at 564, 291 S.E.2d at 814. This test has been adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Macon, 346 N.C. 109, 113, 484 S.E.2d 538, 540 (1997).\nWhile Defendant\u2019s Exhibits A and B were not formally received into evidence, the State contends that defendant \u201coffered\u201d such exhibits as substantive evidence. The State cites Macon in support of this argument. In Macon, during the State\u2019s direct examination, a police officer gave testimony regarding the investigation of the victim\u2019s death and the search of the defendant\u2019s home. Id. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked the police officer to read notes made by another officer from the defendant\u2019s post-arrest interview, which had not been discussed in the State\u2019s case. Id. Defense counsel marked the notes as an exhibit but neither offered the notes into evidence nor published the notes to the jury. Id. Our Supreme Court concluded the notes were actually offered into evidence and held that defendant had introduced evidence within the meaning of Rule 10. Id. at 114, 484 S.E.2d at 541. The Court stated that, while the writing was not introduced into evidence by the defense, Rule 10 was satisfied because the witness read the notes to the jury. Id. The Court\u2019s decision was based on the fact that \u201c[t]he jury received the contents of defendant\u2019s statement as substantive evidence without any limiting instruction, not for corroborative or impeachment purposes, as defendant did not testify at trial and the statement did not relate in any way to [the witness].\u201d Id.\nThe instant case is distinguishable from Macon. Here, defendant\u2019s exhibits related directly to Detective Vaughn\u2019s testimony on direct examination. Moreover, such exhibits did not constitute substantive evidence. Although the jury received the diagram (Exhibit A) without any limiting instruction, the record shows it was used to merely illustrate Detective Vaughn\u2019s prior testimony. See State v. Sledge, 297 N.C. 227, 235-36, 254 S.E.2d 579, 585 (1979) (\u201cA witness may use sketches and diagrams, on a blackboard or otherwise, to illustrate his testimony.\u201d (emphasis added) (citing State v. Lee, 293 N.C. 570, 238 S.E.2d 299 (1977); State v. Cox, 271 N.C. 579, 157 S.E.2d 142 (1967))). The record also shows the incident report (Exhibit B) was not published to the jury as substantive evidence, nor was it given to the jury to examine whether it illustrated, corroborated, or impeached Detective Vaughn\u2019s testimony.\nAccordingly, we hold that defendant did not \u201coffer\u201d evidence under either test articulated in Bell, and therefore, he did not \u201cintroduce\u201d evidence within the meaning of Rule 10. As in Bell and Wells, we must conclude the trial court\u2019s error in denying defendant the final argument entitles defendant to a new trial. Bell, 179 N.C. App. at 433, 633 S.E.2d at 714; Wells, 171 N.C. App. at 140, 613 S.E.2d at 708; see also State v. Eury, 317 N.C. 511, 517, 346 S.E.2d 447, 450 (1986) (\u201cThe right to closing argument is a substantial legal right of which a defendant may not be deprived by the exercise of a judge\u2019s discretion.\u201d).\nNew trial.\nJudges STEELMAN and STEPHENS concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Derrick C. Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "J. Clark Fischer for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RICKY JACKSON HENNIS, SR.\nNo. COA06-1134\n(Filed 3 July 2007)\nCriminal Law\u2014 final argument \u2014 witness drawing diagram during cross-examination \u2014 not the introduction of evidence\nThe trial court erroneously denied defendant the final argument based on offering evidence where defendant asked a detective during cross-examination to draw a diagram of the arrest scene and cross-examined the detective about changes to an incident report he had filed. The exhibits related directly to the detective\u2019s testimony on direct examination, did not constitute substantive evidence, and were not \u201coffered\u201d into evidence by defendant.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 9 May 2006 by Judge Judson D. DeRamus in Rockingham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 May 2007.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Derrick C. Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nJ. Clark Fischer for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0536-01", "first_page_order": 568, "last_page_order": 571 }