{ "id": 8554401, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. J. C. CASTOR", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Castor", "decision_date": "1974-02-06", "docket_number": "No. 7419SC178", "first_page": "565", "last_page": "570", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "20 N.C. App. 565" } ], "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": "178 S.E. 2d 399", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "277 N.C. 602", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566982 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/277/0602-01" ] }, { "cite": "405 U.S. 427", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11722669 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/405/0427-01" ] }, { "cite": "192 S.E. 2d 283", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 220", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564078 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0220-01" ] }, { "cite": "375 U.S. 85", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11717703 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/375/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "395 U.S. 250", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1771609 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/395/0250-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 A.L.R. 3d 1065", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "386 U.S. 18", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6168882 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/386/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 677", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "682" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 273", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571097 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "280" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0273-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 673, "char_count": 11938, "ocr_confidence": 0.581, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.497341544922816e-08, "percentile": 0.3999480278579948 }, "sha256": "bee46fea102afd7a5acc43cc030a080e4ee1749ad095bd8cec91a5d99be3447f", "simhash": "1:afa233237f769bda", "word_count": 2051 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:00.958655+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Parker and Vaughn concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. J. C. CASTOR" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nBy his first assignment of error, defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to quash the bill of indictment upon which defendant was tried for the reason that the indictment does not indicate that it was returned as a true bill. We find no merit in this assignment as the indictment clearly discloses that it was returned as a true bill.\nBy his second and third assignments of error, defendant contends the trial court erred (1) in allowing into evidence certain statements allegedly made by Edith Crisco in the presence of defendant and defendant\u2019s response thereto, and (2) instructing the jury that they could consider defendant\u2019s silence in the face of the statements as evidence of his guilt. The assignments have merit.\nThe challenged testimony was given by SBI Agent Barrier. He testified, among other things, that he talked with Edith Crisco on the night she was arrested, 1 July 1971, and again on 8 July 1971; that the latter conversation took place in the presence of defendant; that on that occasion, in response to questions from Barrier, she stated that defendant and Scearcy accompanied her to the Walker home, that defendant was in the house when the shot was fired, and that they went to Miss Walker\u2019s house \u201cfor the purpose of robbing the old woman.\u201d The solicitor then asked Barrier if defendant made any denial and Barrier\u2019s answer was that defendant did not. Defendant\u2019s motion to strike Barrier\u2019s answer that defendant made no denial was overruled.\nThe challenged instruction to the jury was as follows:\n\u201cEvidence had been received which tends to show that a statement accusing the defendant of the crime charged in this case was made in his presence and the defendant neither denied or objected to the statement. This evidence should be considered by you with great caution before you may consider the defendant\u2019s silence on this as evidence of his guilt, you must find first that the defendant \u2014 that the statement was in fact made in the hearing of the defendant, second, that he understood it and that it contained an accusation against him and third, that all the circumstances including the content of the statement and the identity of the person making it in the other person\u2019s presence was sufficient to make a reply natural and proper and fourth, that the defendant had an opportunity to reply. Unless you find all these things to be present you must completely disregard this evidence. If you consider the defendant\u2019s silence together with all other facts and circumstances in this case in determining the defendant\u2019s guilt or innocence.\u201d\nDefendant contends the challenged testimony and instruction violated his right to remain silent as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and by \u00a7 23 of Article I of the State Constitution. This contention is supported by decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court and our State Supreme Court and the current rule appears to be stated accurately in 2 Stansbury\u2019s N. C. Evidence \u00a7 179, at 53-54 (Brandis rev. 1973), as follows:\n\u201cIt was formerly a general rule that silence might amount to an admission though the party (usually, of course, a criminal defendant) was in custody under a charge of crime, and. though the person making the statement was incompetent to testify as an adverse witness; but in some custodial circumstances no reply was required and, therefore, the evidence was inadmissible. More recently, relying upon then section 11 (now section 23) of Article I of the North Carolina Constitution and upon a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, our Court held that officers questioning an accused must advise him of his right to remain silent. If such a warning is given, it is obvious that his silence may not be used against him. If no warning is given, and the circumstances would be such as to make a confession inadmissible, evidence as to silence also seems to be inadmissible. Therefore, whenever an accused has' been taken into custody and officers are present, evidence of an admission by silence is banned, at least as substantive evidence.\u201d\nNevertheless, we do not think defendant was sufficiently prejudiced by the challenged testimony and instruction to warrant a new trial. In State v. Taylor, 280 N.C. 273, 280, 185 S.E. 2d 677, 682 (1972), we find:\n\u201cEvery violation of a constitutional right is not prejudicial. Some constitutional errors are deemed harmless in the setting of a particular case, not requiring the automatic reversal of a conviction, where the appellate court can declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 17 L.Ed. 2d 705, 87 S.Ct. 824, 24 A.L.R. 3d 1065 (1967); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 23 L.Ed. 2d 284, 89 S.Ct. 1726 (1969). Unless there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction, its admission is harmless. Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 11 L.Ed. 2d 171, 84 S.Ct. 229 (1963).\u201d\nSee also State v. Knight, 282 N.C. 220, 192 S.E. 2d 283 (1972); Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 31 L.Ed. 2d 340, 92 S.Ct. 1056 (1972); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 23 L.Ed. 2d 284, 89 S.Ct. 1726 (1969); and State v. Swaney, 277 N.C. 602, 178 S.E. 2d 399 (1971).\nApplying the test quoted above to the case at bar, considering the overwhelming competent evidence presented against defendant, particularly the testimony of Edith Crisco and Brenda Leasor, we perceive no reasonable possibility that the challenged testimony and instruction had any significant bearing on the jury finding defendant guilty of murder. As was said in Schneble v. Florida, supra, \u201cIn some cases the properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming, and the prejudicial effect of [the improperly admitted evidence] is so insignificant by comparison, that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the improper use of the [incompetent evidence] was harmless error.\u201d\nFor the reasons stated, we conclude that defendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Parker and Vaughn concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "BRITT, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ ". Attorney General Robert Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General Richard N. League, for the State.", "Smith, Carrington, Patterson, Follin & Curtis, by J. David James and Michael K. Curtis, for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. J. C. CASTOR\nNo. 7419SC178\n(Filed 6 February 1974)\nHomicide \u00a7 15; Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 77, 168, 169\u2014 first degree murder \u2014 silence of defendant as admission \u2014 no prejudicial error\nIn a first degree murder prosecution the trial court erred in allowing into evidence testimony by a witness that defendant made no denial when she told an SBI agent in the presence of defendant that defendant and a third person accompanied her to the victim\u2019s home, that defendant was in the house when the shot was fired, and that they went to the house for the purpose of robbing the victim, and the court erred in instructing the jury that they could consider defendant\u2019s silence in the face of the witness\u2019s statements as evidence of his guilt; however, defendant was not sufficiently prejudiced by the testimony and instruction to warrant a new trial. Fifth Amendment to U. S. Constitution; Art. I, \u00a7 23 of the N. C. Constitution.\nOn certiorari to review judgment of Collier, Judge, entered at the 15 November 1971 Session of Superior Court held in Ca-barrus County. Certiorari was allowed on 17 October 1973 and the case argued in the Court of Appeals on 23 January 1974.\nBy indictment, proper in form, defendant was charged with the murder of Pearl Walker (Miss Walker) on 24 June 1971. He was placed on trial for first-degree murder and pleaded not guilty.\nThe evidence most favorable to the State is summarized in pertinent part as follows:\nEdith Crisco, as a witness for the State, testified; She was 19 at the time of the trial. She spent a large part of 24 June 1971 with defendant and Phillip Scearcy, riding around in an automobile, drinking beer, and doing other things. On the night of 24 June 1971, the three of them went to Miss Walker\u2019s home (shown by other testimony to be in a rural area of Cabarrus County). Prior to going there she had heard defendant say they were going to the Walker home to get some money. At the time they arrived at the home, defendant was armed with a sawed-off shotgun and Scearcy was armed with a rifle. They stopped the car some distance from the Walker home; defendant got out of the car and went to the home, leaving her and Scearcy in the car. She \u201cthought\u201d Scearcy went to the house later. After defendant left the car, she drove it up closer and parked beside the house. She heard voices in the house and heard Miss Walker say, either once or twice, \u201cLord, have mercy on me.\u201d Thereafter, she heard one shotgun blast and the only people in the house at that time were defendant and Miss Walker. During the time defendant was in the house he had a towel wrapped around his head, covering most of his face, and had his fingers covered with Scotch tape. After defendant emerged from the house, she (Crisco), defendant and Scearcy left and went to Gerald Stire-walt\u2019s mobile home. Later, defendant buried the shotgun.\nOther testimony showed: Police officers went to the Walker home at about 11:30 a.m. on Friday (sometimes referred to as June 24 but at other times as June 25). The home is located in the country, some 43 feet west of Cox Mill Road. They found the home completely \u201cransacked,\u201d with drawers pulled out of bureaus and contents scattered over the floor, the telephone wires had been cut, mattresses were thrown off the beds, carpet had been torn up, pictures on the wall had been torn loose or disarranged, and the pipe leading from an old wood burning stove in the living room had been ripped loose. Police found Miss Walker\u2019s body in a pool of blood in her living room; she was lying on the floor on her back, clothed in a thin cotton housecoat pulled up to her waist. She had a large wound in her right shoulder and neck area which a pathologist testified was caused by a shotgun and resulted in her death. Crisco made a statement to police on 8 July 1971, substantially corroborating her testimony on the witness stand. Crisco went to the scene of the crime with officers and pointed out where the car was first parked and where she later parked it. Defendant and Scearcy were arrested in Jacksonville, Florida, on or about 8 July 1971.\nBrenda Leasor testified: She was acquainted with defendant and \u201chad seen\u201d Scearcy. On 17 June 1971, she met defendant at a party and after the party saw him at Stirewalt\u2019s trailer at which time defendant told her that \u201cthey knew where some money was and they were going to get it.\u201d She saw defendant on 25 June 1971 at Stirewalt\u2019s trailer and defendant told her \u201cthey had done the job.\u201d \u201cAs to whether he described the person he had to kill, he just said it was an old colored lady.\u201d On redirect examination, she testified that defendant related to her on that Friday night that he had shot an old Negro woman, that Scearcy had called his name and that Scearcy said he would have to shoot her or she would be able to identify them.\nSBI Agent Jack Richardson testified that Brenda Leasor made a statement to him substantially the same as the testimony given by her.\nDefendant did not testify but offered several witnesses whose testimony tended to show where defendant was in Cabar-rus County at various hours up until 10:30 p.m. on 24 June 1971; that he and Edith Crisco were seen together early in the morning (around 3:30 or 4:00 a.m.) of 24 or 25 June 1971; and that he was seen at various places during the day of 25 June 1971.\nThe jury for their verdict found defendant guilty of second-degree murder and from judgment imposing prison term of 30 years, less credit for time spent in jail awaiting trial, defendant appealed. He later withdrew his appeal but thereafter petitioned for a writ of certiorari which was allowed.\n. Attorney General Robert Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General Richard N. League, for the State.\nSmith, Carrington, Patterson, Follin & Curtis, by J. David James and Michael K. Curtis, for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0565-01", "first_page_order": 593, "last_page_order": 598 }