{
  "id": 11309201,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MOLLIE HICKS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hicks",
  "decision_date": "1974-08-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 745SC334",
  "first_page": "554",
  "last_page": "559",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "22 N.C. App. 554"
    }
  ],
  "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": "19 S.E. 2d 257",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 N.C. 153",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626630
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/221/0153-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 S.E. 2d 617",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 348",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12165961
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0348-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 558,
    "char_count": 11187,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.602,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1696467741400647e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7708989983585915
    },
    "sha256": "6f9a8e49c500f515c2d2d61e29c9f2b966ba87d0d3af2959d214a09a9d68a6c8",
    "simhash": "1:d6ec04f0c7b520c9",
    "word_count": 1941
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:41.671000+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MOLLIE HICKS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nDefendant contends that his motion for nonsuit should have been allowed. To take the case to the jury, the State was required to offer evidence tending to show:\n\u201c(1) that the principal felon had actually committed the felony. . .; (2) that the accused knew that such felony had been committed by the principal felon; and (3) that the accused received, relieved, comforted, or assisted the principal felon in some way in order to help him escape, or to hinder his arrest, trial, or punishment.\u201d State v. Williams, 229 N.C. 348, 49 S.E. 2d 617.\nMerely concealing knowledge regarding the commission of a crime or falsifying such knowledge does not cause a person to become an accessory after the fact.\n\u201cWhere, however, the concealment of knowledge of the fact that a crime has been committed, or the giving of false testimony as to the facts is made for the purpose of giving some advantage to the perpetrator of the crime, not on account of fear, and for the fact of the advantage to the accused, the person rendering such aid is an accessory after the fact.\u201d State v. Potter, 221 N.C. 153, 19 S.E. 2d 257.\nWe hold that the evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury. Defendant concedes that the State met its burden regarding proof that the felony, namely involuntary manslaughter, was committed. The felon, Nixon, told defendant that he had shot Wright while playing with the gun. There is evidence that defendant deliberately aided, comforted and encouraged Nixon in his effort to avoid detection as the killer.\nOn several occasions defendant successfully discouraged the felon from admitting his guilt, an admission which would have, of course, resulted in his arrest. Defendant successfully encouraged the felon to lie to those charged with the investigation of the crime so as to divert suspicion from himself and avoid detection. When questioned by investigating officers defendant concealed her knowledge that Nixon had shot and killed Wright. To divert suspicion from the real killer, she attempted to lay down a false trail for the officers to follow by telling Officer Fredlaw that someone had shot Wright from outside the apartment. She continued to help spread and extend the false trail away from the felon by publishing the same concocted story to others. She told Willie Belon, \u201c. . . a white guy knocked on the door and Wright answered the door and that\u2019s when he got shot.\u201d As a result of the false story she had encouraged and helped spread, the Federal Bureau of Investigation made inquiry about the possibility that a civil rights violation might be involved in the death of Wright. Defendant, in April 1971, repeated the false version to the investigating federal agent, adding that she heard a rumor that \u201ca white man had been seen running from the house. That she had been told that by Mr. Chavis. . . .\u201d\nIt is manifest that defendant was not acting out of fear and equally clear that defendant\u2019s actions were calculated to and did aid the guilty felon to avoid detection and arrest.\nDefendant argues that there is no evidence that she had knowledge that the crime had been committed. We hold that the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to find that defendant knew that the unlawful killing had taken place and that Nixon was the slayer.\nDefendant's argument that the court failed to explain the law arising on one of her \u201ccontentions\u201d is without merit.\nDefendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by R. Bruce White, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, and Alfred N. Sailley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "John H. Harmon for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MOLLIE HICKS\nNo. 745SC334\n(Filed 7 August 1974)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 11; Homicide \u00a7 21\u2014 accessory after fact to involuntary manslaughter \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of defendant\u2019s guilt of accessory after the fact of involuntary manslaughter where it tended to show that the principal felon told defendant that he had shot decedent while \u201cplaying\u201d with a shotgun in defendant\u2019s apartment, that defendant successfully encouraged the principal and others who were in the apartment at the time of the shooting to tell investigating officers that deceased was shot by someone from outside when he opened the door, that defendant published such false story to others, and that when questioned by officers defendant concealed her knowledge that the principal had killed decedent and told officers she had heard a rumor that a white man had been seen running from the apartment.\nOn certiorari to review trial before Rouse, Judge, at the 18 June 1973 Session of Superior Court held in New Hanover County.\nDefendant was indicted for being an accessory after the fact to involuntary manslaughter.\nEvidence for the State tended to show the following. Early in the evening on 13 March 1971, Clifton Eugene Wright was fatally shot by Donald Jerome Nixon while Nixon was \u201cplaying\u201d with a shotgun in defendant\u2019s apartment. Nixon had been staying in the apartment with defendant, her daughter and another youth. Nixon stated he did not know the gun was loaded but admitted that he intentionally pointed it at deceased and that he intentionally pulled the trigger.\nDefendant\u2019s daughter, Leatrice Hicks, was at the apartment when the incident occurred and immediately telephoned defendant who was at a meeting. Shortly after the police arrived, defendant returned home and was met by Nixon outside the apartment. Nixon described the ensuing conversation as follows :\n\u201cShe asked me what happened. I told her the truth. I told her that we was in there playing and I shot him. She asked me what did we tell the police. I told her nothing. And I told her what the three of us agreed on. I told her I was going to tell the truth. She said, \u2018No, don\u2019t do that. I will do the talking in the house.\u2019 I told her that we was playing with the shotgun and I shot him. I then told her the story that we were going to tell the police. I told her that we had agreed to tell the police that we heard a knock from the door and that he (Clifton Eugene Wright) was shot answering the door. Told her that McClaim, Leatrice and I had agreed upon the story. She said, \u2018Okay.\u2019 \u201d\nWhile police were still questioning witnesses at defendant\u2019s apartment, Nixon at one point told defendant that he was \u201cgoing to tell the truth,\u201d and defendant replied, \u201cNo, don\u2019t do that.\u201d Nixon ultimately conveyed \u201cthe false story\u201d to the police. Leatrice Hicks and Jerome McClain gave the police substantially similar false accounts of the killing. Defendant told the police \u201cshe had no knowledge who committed this offense. . . At that time she only said that a man had \u2014 that Wright had been shot at the apartment by someone from outside. . . .\u201d\nLater on the evening of 13 March, defendant met with Nixon and McClain and suggested that the trio go to Laurin-burg the next day to meet with Benjamin Chavis and his lawyer for \u201csome legal advice.\u201d Nixon again stated he was going to tell the truth, and defendant urged him to \u201c[w]ait until we get the legal advice we get from the lawyer. . . .\u201d\nDefendant arranged for the group to change vehicles during the excursion to Laurinburg. She expressed the fear that they were \u201cbeing followed.\u201d\nUpon arriving in Laurinburg, defendant met alone with Benjamin Chavis. Chavis then talked with Nixon and McClain. \u201cChavis said, \u2018What\u2019s happening. I already know what you\u2019all told the police.\u2019 He said, \u2018who wasted the brother?\u2019 [Nixon] told him that we were in there playing and [he] shot [Wright]. And then he asked what did I tell the police. I told him.\u201d Chavis inquired if either Nixon or McClain intended to tell anyone the truth and pointed out the two might \u201cget railroaded\u201d if they did tell the truth. Chavis explained that he would talk to an attorney and then \u201clet\u201d Nixon and McClain \u201crun the story down, what [they] told the police. . . .\u201d He said, \u201c[I]f he [attorney] go for it, we will leave it like that.\u201d\nDefendant, Chavis, Nixon, McClain and Leatrice Hicks also conferred with a lawyer in a motel room in Laurinburg. Defendant and Chavis talked privately with the lawyer before the other three were called in. McClain described the discussion.\n\u201cWe went on in the room. Like at that time I didn\u2019t know what to say. Don didn\u2019t say anything and I didn\u2019t say anything. As the result of what Ferguson said, we didn\u2019t know whether we should tell him what exactly happened, so he rephrased the question that he asked us. He asked us what did we tell the police. And Don went on and told him the false story that we gave the police. He told him that \u2014 Don told Ferguson that me and him was in the kitchen arguing about a soda and a knock came to the door and Wright answered it and it was a shot.\u201d\nAfter returning to Wilmington, defendant warned Nixon and McClain, \u201cDon\u2019t drink too much and start talking. . . .\u201d\nOn the night of the killing, defendant told a close friend, Willie Belon, that \u201ca white guy knocked on the door and Wright answered the door and that\u2019s when he got shot.\u201d\nTwo weeks after the shooting, Nixon and McClain determined to go to the police and tell the truth. They located Leatrice Hicks who persuaded them not to talk with the police until she contacted her mother, the defendant. Unable to reach defendant, Leatrice Hicks talked with Chavis, telling him that she, Nixon and McClain were going to the police. Chavis spoke to Nixon:\n\u201cChavis said, \u2018Keep your head. That\u2019s what the pigs want you to do, break.\u2019 He said that we\u2019d probably get railroaded for waiting so long. Said we wouldn\u2019t get a fair trial. And he would be down in a few days and talk about it.\u201d\nChavis also spoke with McClain:\n\u201c[H]e asked me was the pigs riding my back; was they giving me a hassle. I told him, \u2018Yes, every day.\u2019 He told me they wanted me to break. If I break I was going to get railroaded. He said try to keep a cool head and he would be down there in a couple of days and don\u2019t do nothing until he got there. Then he said something about if they should charge, pick us up and charge any of us with it to get up touch with some lawyers. . . .\u201d\nJames M. Underhill, a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, testified that in April 1971, the Justice Department instructed him \u201cto make an inquiry as to a possible civil rights violation in which involved the death of Clifton Eugene Wright.\u201d During the course of his investigation, Un-derhill interviewed defendant who told him \u201cthat she had gotten the information from her daughter and the two other young men [Nixon and McClain] that Wright had opened the door and had been shot by an unknown party. . . .\u201d Defendant said \u201cshe had heard of a rumor that a white man had been seen running from the house.\u201d\nIn December of 1971, Nixon told the police he had shot Wright. He was then charged with murder and pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter.\nDefendant offered no evidence. The jury found defendant guilty as charged. Defendant was sentenced to a prison term of 8 to 12 months, suspended and placed on probation for two years.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by R. Bruce White, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, and Alfred N. Sailley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nJohn H. Harmon for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0554-01",
  "first_page_order": 586,
  "last_page_order": 591
}
