{
  "id": 8548547,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WARREN SANDERS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Sanders",
  "decision_date": "1974-11-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 7410SC777",
  "first_page": "33",
  "last_page": "38",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 33"
    }
  ],
  "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": "86 S.E. 2d 277",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 N.C. 689",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616761
      ],
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/241/0689-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 S.E. 2d 755",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 N.C. App. 436",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553698
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/1/0436-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 S.E. 2d 852",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1948,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 123",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12164915
      ],
      "year": 1948,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0123-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "177 S.E. 2d 398",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 N.C. 286",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564719
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/277/0286-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "386 U.S. 18",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6168882
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "24"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/386/0018-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 S.E. 2d 269",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 N.C. 588",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569694
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/270/0588-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 S.E. 2d 407",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 N.C. 646",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567147
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/277/0646-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 577,
    "char_count": 10716,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.595,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530458339463034
    },
    "sha256": "08e3a92a6fa379f4337fb6e1a65d8bb7d33d0d2cbea39e8e0fc95627b3a1971e",
    "simhash": "1:a0a57cfc86f455f7",
    "word_count": 1768
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:40.635509+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Baley concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WARREN SANDERS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nDefendant contends the court erred in denying his motion for judgment as of nonsuit. When the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the State, it is clearly sufficient to require submission of this case to the jury.\nDefendant assigns as error the admission into evidence of the defendant\u2019s in-custody statement made to the arresting officer the day after the alleged crime. Before admitting the defendant\u2019s in-custody statement into evidence, the able trial judge conducted an extensive voir dire in the absence of the jury as to whether the statement was understandingly and voluntarily made. At the conclusion of the voir dire examination, the court made extensive findings of fact and concluded that the statement was \u201cfreely, understandingly and voluntarily made.\u201d There is plenary competent evidence in the record to support the facts found which, in turn, support the conclusions made. This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant further contends that the court erred in allowing Deputy Hilliard to testify over defendant\u2019s general objection that he found a butcher knife and four shotgun shells in defendant\u2019s coat pocket when he searched the defendant immediately before he p\u00fct the defendant in the patrol car. If the search of defendant\u2019s person was incidental to a lawful arrest, the challenged testimony was admissible. State v. Woody, 277 N.C. 646, 178 S.E. 2d 407 (1971) ; State v. Tippett, 270 N.C. 588, 155 S.E. 2d 269 (1967). If Deputy Hilliard had reasonable grounds to believe the defendant committed a felony and that the defendant would evade arrest if not immediately taken into custody, he would have had the authority to arrest the defendant without a warrant. G.S. 15-41 (2). Obviously the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that a felonious homicide had been committed in the defendant\u2019s house. Whether the evidence in this record is .sufficient to show that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant killed Fowler and would escape if not taken into immediate custody so as to justify a warrantless arrest is. questionable. Upon this record we cannot say that the search of the defendant\u2019s person at the particular time described was legally justified as contended by the State. Assuming, therefore, that the court erred in allowing the officer to testify that he found a butcher knife and four shotgun shells in the-defendant\u2019s coat pocket, we are of the opinion that the circumstances of this case call for an application of the rule that some federal constitutional errors in the setting of a particular case are so unimportant and insignificant that they may be deemed harmless, not requiring the automatic reversal of the conviction. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) ; State v. Brinson, 277 N.C. 286, 177 S.E. 2d 398 (1970). The test is that \u201cbefore a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the Court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d Chapman v. California, supra at 24. Here, the testimony complained of could have added nothing to the State\u2019s case. The defendant\u2019s admission that he shot Fowler precludes any possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the jury\u2019s verdict. We hold, therefore, that the error assigned was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.\nAssignments of error 7, 8, and 9, based on exceptions duly noted in the record, relate to supplementary instructions given to the jury by the judge ex mero motu after the jury had deliberated for a \u201cnumber of hours.\u201d When the charge is considered contextually as a whole, we conclude each of these assignments of error to be without merit. However, the exception challenging that portion of the supplementary instructions stating that the burden of proving the defenses of insanity and self-defense \u201cin mitigation of murder in the second degree so as to make it voluntary manslaughter is on the defendant\u201d merits further discussion. Clearly the challenged instruction is erroneous, for insanity and self-defense, if proven to the satisfaction of the jury, would entitle the defendant to an acquittal. State v. Swink, 229 N.C. 123, 47 S.E. 2d 852 (1948) ; State v. Weaver, 1 N.C. App. 436, 161 S.E. 2d 755 (1968). The initial instructions on insanity and self-defense were correct, and the defendant does not contend otherwise. He does contend, however, that since the erroneous instructions came near the end of the supplementary instructions, the error was prejudicial and entitled him to a new trial. Since the jury found the defendant guilty of second degree murder, it is clear the defendant failed to satisfy the jury that he was insane at the time he shot Fowler or that he acted in self-defense. Had the jury found the defendant guilty of manslaughter, as in State v. Street, 241 N.C. 689, 86 S.E. 2d 277 (1955), the prejudicial effect of the erroneous instruction would be apparent.\nDefendant\u2019s other assignments of error are formal in nature and require no discussion. We conclude that the defendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Baley concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General James H. Carson, Jr., by Assistant Attorney General Thomas B. Wood for the State.",
      "Maivpin, Taylor & Ellis by Thomas W. H. Alexander for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WARREN SANDERS\nNo. 7410SC777\n(Filed 25 November 1974)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 76\u2014 admissibility of in-custody statement\nThe trial court properly admitted defendant\u2019s in-custody statement made to the arresting officer where the court found upon supporting voir dire evidence that the statement was freely, understandingly and voluntarily made.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 84, 169; Searches and Seizures \u00a7 1\u2014 search incident to unlawful arrest \u2014 admission of articles seized \u2014 harmless error\nAlthough the record in this homicide case was insufficient to show that the arrest of defendant without a warrant was lawful and that a search of defendant at the time of the arrest was therefore lawful, the admission of a butcher knife and shotgun shells found in defendant\u2019s coat pocket during the search was harmless error where defendant admitted that he shot deceased with a shotgun but contended that he acted in self-defense.\n3. Homicide \u00a7 28\u2014 insanity \u2014 self-defense \u2014 erroneous instruction on effect \u2014 harmless error\nIn this second degree murder case, the trial court\u2019s erroneous instruction in its supplemental instructions that the burden of proving 'the defenses of insanity and self-defense \u201cin mitigation' of murder in the second degree so as to make it voluntary manslaughter is \u2022 on the defendant\u201d did not constitute prejudicial error where the jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder, since, it is clear that defendant failed to satisfy the jury that he was insane at the time of the crime or that he acted in self-defense.\nAppeal by defendant from McLelland, Judge, 8 June 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Wake County. Heard in the Court of Appeals on 21 October 1974.\nThis is a criminal prosecution wherein the defendant, Warren Sanders, was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with first degree murder. When the case was called for trial, the State announced that it would not prosecute the defendant for first degree murder but would proceed on the charge of murder in the second degree.\nThe State offered evidence tending to establish the following:\nOfficer W. M. Perry of the Zebulon Police Department, in response to a telephone call, went to the home of Warren Sanders on 21 December 1973. Mrs. Sanders, the wife of the defendant, met Perry at the door. She was hollering and seemed hysterical. The defendant was intoxicated and was lying on a bed in the front part of the house. Mrs. Sanders directed Perry to the kitchen, where he found a dead man, Clarence Fowler, sitting in a chair. Perry called the Wake County Sheriff\u2019s Department.\nJ. H. Hilliard of the Wake County Sheriff\u2019s Department arrived at the Sanders\u2019 residence about ten minutes later. .When he arrived, both the defendant and Mrs. Sanders were in the front room of the house. He noticed that the defendant was intoxicated and told the defendant to have a seat. The defendant, however, followed Hilliard into the kitchen. Hilliard again asked the defendant to go into the living room and sit down. When the defendant \u201cinsisted on hanging around,\u201d Hilliard searched the defendant, finding four shotgun shells and an eight-inch butcher knife in the defendant\u2019s right coat pocket. He then put the defendant in the police car until he could finish his investigation. After completing his investigation, Hil-liard went out to the police car, advised the defendant of his constitutional rights, and told the defendant that he would be charged with murder. When the coroner arrived, Hilliard took the defendant to the Wake County Jail.\nThe next morning the defendant was taken to the interrogation room and fully advised of his constitutional rights. He then executed a statement, by making his mark thereon, to the effect that he understood his rights, was willing to make a statement and answer questions, did not want a lawyer at that time, had not been pressured, coerced, or threatened, and knew and understood what he was doing. The defendant signed the statement after he was given an opportunity to read it and after it was read to him. The defendant then told Deputy Hil-liard that Clarence Fowler had tried to make him drink some wine. Since the defendant drank whiskey and not wine, he refused and the two men got into an argument. He further told Hilliard that Fowler picked up a piece of wood from the wood box and that he [the defendant] got his shotgun from his bedroom and shot Fowler.\nDeputy Hilliard further testified that the deceased had one gunshot wound in his left breast. He also stated that he found a spent twelve-gauge shotgun shell about six feet from Fowler\u2019s body and an unloaded shotgun between the mattress and springs of a bed in one of the rooms of the house.\nThe defendant offered evidence tending to show that he was insane at the time of the alleged crime and that he did not know the difference between right and wrong. His daughter-in-law testified that the defendant had been having hallucinations and at times thought people were \u201cafter him.\u201d From 7 July 1973 until 11 July 1973, the defendant was a voluntary mental patient at Dorothea Dix Hospital.\nThe State offered the rebuttal testimony of Laverne McLean, the defendant\u2019s son, who stated that his father acted \u201ccrazy\u201d sometimes and sometimes he did not.\nThe defendant was found guilty of second degree murder; and from a judgment imposing a prison sentence of twenty (20) years, he appealed.\nAttorney General James H. Carson, Jr., by Assistant Attorney General Thomas B. Wood for the State.\nMaivpin, Taylor & Ellis by Thomas W. H. Alexander for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0033-01",
  "first_page_order": 61,
  "last_page_order": 66
}