{
  "id": 8554129,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CALVIN MONROE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Monroe",
  "decision_date": "1975-11-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 755SC594",
  "first_page": "405",
  "last_page": "407",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 405"
    }
  ],
  "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": "181 S.E. 2d 561",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565516
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0001-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 287,
    "char_count": 4449,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.569,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2059834376444341
    },
    "sha256": "7574b527c461fd7ab487126cd81f1040ce5c4c409d3b23b2a78b5e1afac260a1",
    "simhash": "1:92bcd1012c69b2f1",
    "word_count": 716
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:36.927205+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CALVIN MONROE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nDefendant contends that the court erred in admitting testimony of Sgt. Brown concerning defendant\u2019s oral confession. After extensive voir dire examination in which Sgt. Brown, Detective Todd, and defendant testified, the trial judge made findings of fact that on 23 November 1974 Sgt. Brown read to defendant his constitutional rights, explained them in detail, explained the waiver, and that \u201cthe defendant knowingly and understandingly and voluntarily signed a waiver which has since been misplaced.\u201d The court\u2019s findings were supported by competent evidence and these' findings in turn support the court\u2019s conclusion that the defendant\u2019s statement was given freely and voluntarily and without duress.\nDefendant contends that the best evidence, rule . should have precluded the introduction of oral testimony to show that he signed the written waiver. This contention is without merit. What was at issue here was whether defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights, not what were the contents or terms of the written document itself. The best evidence rule had no application to this case. 2 Stansbury, N. C. Evidence 2d (Brandis Rev. 1973) \u00a7 191. Furthermore, the State was not required to produce a signed written waiver of rights in order to make the confession admissible. Although such a writing was necessary under former G.S. 7A-457 (a) to show waiver by an indigent defendant of his right to be represented by counsel, State v. Lynch, 279 N.C. 1, 181 S.E. 2d 561 (1971), this requirement was deleted for all except capital cases by the 1971 amendment to that statute.\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Eclmisten by Associate Attorney General David S. Crump for the State.",
      "James K. Larrick for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CALVIN MONROE\nNo. 755SC594\n(Filed 5 November 1975)\n1. Constitutional Law \u00a7 37; Criminal Law \u00a7 75 \u2014 waiver of rights form misplaced \u2014 confession voluntary\nEvidence was sufficient to support the trial court\u2019s findings that defendant\u2019s constitutional rights were explained to him, a waiver was explained to him, defendant knowingly, understandingly and voluntarily signed the waiver, but the waiver was subsequently mislaid, and defendant\u2019s confession was given freely, voluntarily and without duress.\n2. Constitutional Law \u00a7 37; Criminal Law \u00a7 81 \u2014 waiver of rights form misplaced \u2014 best evidence rule inapplicable\nIntroduction of oral testimony to show that defendant signed a written waiver of his rights was not precluded by the best evidence rule since the issue was not the contents or terms of the written document itself but was instead whether defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights; furthermore, the State was not required to produce a signed written waiver of rights in order to make the confession admissible.\nAppeal by defendant from Cowper, Judge. Judgment entered 28 February 1975 in Superior Court, New Hanover County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 October 1975.\nDefendant was tried on a bill of indictment charging him with the felony of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. He pled not guilty.\nState\u2019s witness, James Rhodes, an employee of the Yellow Cab Company, testified that on 20 November 1974 at about 8:30 p.m., after receiving a call, he drove his cab to the intersection of Love\u2019s Alley and Taylor Street in Wilmington. No one was with him. Upon arriving, he was approached by three males who \u201cautomatically started shooting.\u201d Rhodes was struck in the head twice with .22 caliber rifle bullets. Rhodes could not identify the defendant as one of his assailants.\nThe State offered testimony on voir dire of Sgt. W. C. Brown to show that on 23 November 1974 the defendant, after being informed of his constitutional rights and signing a waiver of those rights, voluntarily confessed to participation in the crime. Sgt. Brown testified that he signed the waiver form as a witness but was unable to-produce this written waiver and did not know where it was. Detective Todd testified on voir dire that he \u201csaw a Rights Waiver that was signed by Calvin Monroe on the 23rd lying on Lt. Davis\u2019s desk.\u201d\nThe defendant denied that he had confessed to having participated in the shooting and offered evidence to show an alibi.\nThe jury found defendant guilty of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious bodily injury, and from judgment on the verdict, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Eclmisten by Associate Attorney General David S. Crump for the State.\nJames K. Larrick for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0405-01",
  "first_page_order": 433,
  "last_page_order": 435
}