{
  "id": 8548322,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RUDOLPH JOHNSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Johnson",
  "decision_date": "1976-01-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 7514SC613",
  "first_page": "265",
  "last_page": "269",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 265"
    }
  ],
  "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": "421 U.S. 684",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        541415
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/421/0684-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "220 S.E. 2d 575",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 N.C. 632",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570479
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/288/0632-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "220 S.E. 2d 558",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 N.C. 680",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570581
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/288/0680-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 S.Ct. 860",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 L.Ed. 2d 784",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "386 U.S. 911",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6194816,
        6194625,
        6195241,
        6194352,
        6195000,
        6194137
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/386/0911-04",
        "/us/386/0911-03",
        "/us/386/0911-06",
        "/us/386/0911-02",
        "/us/386/0911-05",
        "/us/386/0911-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 69",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560152
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0069-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "483 F. 2d 405",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        242532
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/483/0405-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 S.E. 2d 581",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 N.C. 84",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559426
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/274/0084-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 S.E. 2d 16",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 N.C. App. 463",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554210
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/4/0463-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "421 U.S. 684",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        541415
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/421/0684-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 503,
    "char_count": 10266,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530442894547134
    },
    "sha256": "de99dab6039e463026fa94d26676a3c12912885f938fd993c3f9d4bb0896a08c",
    "simhash": "1:58ac107d35953c43",
    "word_count": 1686
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:46.500479+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RUDOLPH JOHNSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nBy his first assignment of error, defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting into evidence statements made by defendant while in custody. We find no merit in the assignment.\nDefendant argues that the evidence was inadmissible for the reasons that he was not properly advised of his right to counsel prior to being questioned, his statements were triggered by the use of illegally obtained evidence, and he was intoxicated at the time he allegedly made the statements.\nBefore admitting the evidence, the court conducted a voir dire in the absence of the jury. The detective who questioned defendant testified that before asking defendant any questions he advised him of his Miranda rights by reading from two cards or documents. From one of the documents, defendant was informed, among other things, that the police had no way of providing him with a lawyer, but if he wanted a lawyer, one would be appointed if and when he went to court. From the other document, he was informed that if he could not afford to employ a lawyer and wanted one, one would be appointed to represent him before questioning. The detective testified that after each document was read to defendant, he stated that he understood his rights and would answer questions without an attorney. Testimony was also presented with respect to defendant\u2019s state of intoxication and that he was informed that a pistol had been found under his mattress. Defendant did not testify on voir dire.\nFollowing the voir dire, the court found, among other things, that after each document was read to defendant, he stated he understood his rights and was willing to answer questions without a lawyer being present; that although defendant was under the influence of intoxicants at the time he was questioned, he was not drunk. The court concluded, among other things, that the circumstances surrounding defendant\u2019s detention at the time he was questioned and prior to his arrest were neither oppressive nor coercive; that although defendant at the time of questioning was under the influence of intoxicants, had he sufficient control of his mental faculties to understand his circumstances and his rights \u201cto silence and to representation by counsel\u201d; that the statements made by defendant to police were freely, understandingly, and voluntarily made, therefore, were admissible in evidence.\nOn the question of defendant\u2019s having been properly advised of his rights, defendant relies on State v. Robbins, 4 N.C. App. 463, 167 S.E. 2d 16 (1969). The State relies on State v. Wright, 274 N.C. 84, 161 S.E. 2d 581 (1968). See also, Wright v. North Carolina, 483 F. 2d 405 (4th Cir. 1973). If there is a conflict between Robbins and Wright, obviously Wright is the controlling authority. However, we think the instant case is distinguishable from Robbins. In this case, not only did the detective read to defendant the statement of rights which we said in Robbins, was inadequate, he also read the statement which has been approved in many previous decisions. The evidence discloses, and the court found as a fact, that after each statement was read to defendant, he said he understood his rights and was willing to answer questions without a lawyer being present.\nWe find unconvincing defendant\u2019s argument that his incriminating statements were inadmissible for the reason that they were triggered by police telling him that a pistol had been found under his mattress. As to the extent of defendant\u2019s intoxication at the time he made the statements, this presented a question for the trial judge to determine and his findings and conclusions are supported by competent testimony.\nThe findings of fact by the trial judge following a voir dire as to the voluntariness of a confession or admission are conclusive if the findings are supported by competent evidence in the record, and the reviewing court may not set aside or modify the findings if they are supported by competent evidence. State v. Gray, 268 N.C. 69, 150 S.E. 2d 1 (1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 911, 17 L.Ed. 2d 784, 87 S.Ct. 860 (1967).\nDefendant assigns as error the court\u2019s instructions to the jury that if the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intentionally inflicted a wound on Nesbitt with a deadly weapon that proximately caused his death, the law raises presumptions that the killing was unlawful and was done with malice. Defendant argues that while the instructions were consistent with well settled case law in this State, they were invalidated by Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 44 L.Ed. 2d 508, 95 S.Ct. 1881 (1975).\nThe assignment has no merit. Our State Supreme Court in State v. Williams, 288 N.C. 680, 220 S.E. 2d 558 (1975), held that Mullaney does not apply to the presumption of malice created when the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally inflicted a wound with a deadly weapon proximately causing death.\nDefendant assigns as error the court\u2019s instructions to the jury which had the effect of placing on defendant the burden of showing (1) absence of malice or heat of passion on sudden provocation that would reduce the offense to manslaughter, or (2) that would entitle him to a verdict of not guilty on the ground of self-defense. Defendant argues that while these instructions were consistent with North Carolina case law, they were invalidated by Mullaney, supra. The question raised by this assignment was answered by our State Supreme Court in State v. Hankerson, 288 N.C. 632, 220 S.E. 2d 575, (1975). The court held that while the instructions are invalidated, Mullaney will not be given retroactive effect in North Carolina and will apply only to trials conducted on or after 9 June 1975. The case at bar was tried in March of 1975.\nWe have considered all of the assignments of error brought forward and argued in defendant\u2019s brief but find all of them without merit.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Charles M. Hensey, for the State.",
      "Paul, Keenan, Rowan & Galloway, by James V. Rowan, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RUDOLPH JOHNSON\nNo. 7514SC613\n(Filed 7 January 1976)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 75 \u2014 in-custody statements \u2014 admissibility\nThe trial court properly allowed into evidence statements made by defendant while in custody where the court concluded on voir dire that two documents advising defendant of his rights were read to him, defendant stated that he understood his rights and would answer questions without an attorney, although defendant was under the influence of intoxicants at the time of questioning he had sufficient control of his mental faculties to understand his circumstances and his rights, the circumstances surrounding defendant\u2019s detention at the time he was questioned and prior to his arrest were neither oppressive nor coercive, and the statements made by defendant to police were freely, understandingly, and voluntarily made.\n2. Homicide \u00a7 24 \u2014 use of deadly weapon \u2014 presumptions \u2014 instructions proper\nThe trial court did not err in instructing the jury that if the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intentionally inflicted a wound on his victim with a deadly weapon that proximately caused his death, the law raises presumptions that the killing was unlawful and was done with malice.\n3. Homicide \u00a7 24 \u2014 instructions on burden of proof \u2014 validity of instructions \u2014 date of trial determinative\nThe trial court\u2019s instructions to the jury which had the effect of placing on defendant the burden of showing (1) absence of malice or heat of passion on sudden provocation that would reduce the offense to manslaughter, or (2) that would entitle him to a verdict of not guilty on the ground of self-defense were not invalidated by Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, since that decision applies only to trials conducted on or after 9 June 1975, and defendant\u2019s trial was in March of 1975.\nAppeal by defendant from McLelland, Judge. Judgment entered 13 March 1975 in Superior Court, Durham County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 October 1975.\nBy indictment complying with G.S. 15-144, defendant was charged with the murder of William Nesbitt. When the case was called for trial, the district attorney announced that the State would seek no verdict greater than second-degree murder. Defendant pled not guilty and the State presented evidence summarized in pertinent part as follows:\nOn 8 November 1974, at about 12:15 a.m., Listia Langley, with whom Nesbitt was living, went to Lewis Ruffin\u2019s apartment where she found Ruffin, Nesbitt, defendant, and others drinking. Defendant lived in the apartment. Langley criticized Nesbitt for striking her child earlier that night with a horseshoe and left to return later. At the time she left, defendant was arguing with Nesbitt about hitting the child. Thereafter, defendant went into another room, returned with a pistol, and shot Nesbitt in his neck; the bullet severed an artery, causing death a short while later. Previously, defendant had dated Langley while Nesbitt was in prison and Nesbitt had threatened to kill defendant and Langley. (A .22 caliber pistol was found under defendant\u2019s mattress but the court refused to admit it into evidence on the ground that the search of the premises was illegal.) Later that morning, following his arrest about 3:15 a.m. and interrogation, defendant told police that he shot Nesbitt but that Nesbitt was advancing on him with a knife at the time.\nDefendant did not testify but presented evidence tending to show: While he was in jail between 8 and 14 November 1974, and on other occasions, he suffered from, and was treated for, delirium tremens and did not know what he said or did on the morning of 8 November. On the afternoon or evening before Nesbitt was shot, and on a previous occasion, Nesbitt had threatened to kill both defendant and Langley.\nThe court instructed the jury that they might return a verdict of guilty of second-degree murder, guilty of voluntary manslaughter, or not guilty. They found defendant guilty of second-degree murder, and from judgment imposing prison sentence of not less than 12 nor more than 15 years, with credit for time spent in custody awaiting trial, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Charles M. Hensey, for the State.\nPaul, Keenan, Rowan & Galloway, by James V. Rowan, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0265-01",
  "first_page_order": 293,
  "last_page_order": 297
}
