{ "id": 8555491, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF STEVEN RANDALL STOKES", "name_abbreviation": "In re Stokes", "decision_date": "1976-05-05", "docket_number": "No. 7510DC924", "first_page": "283", "last_page": "290", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "29 N.C. App. 283" } ], "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": "23 S.E. 153", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "117 N.C. 706", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653835 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/117/0706-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 674, "char_count": 15586, "ocr_confidence": 0.676, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.428965615154966e-08, "percentile": 0.3972557859550885 }, "sha256": "e4567dee1038aecb65368d715dd7c46219a75416c66b5f48694a6e3cb0a8f5bb", "simhash": "1:f2a1c4858695d262", "word_count": 2600 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:22.308082+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Martin concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF STEVEN RANDALL STOKES" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nCounsel for respondent appellant has appropriately grouped his four assignments of error into two arguments.\nThe first argument goes to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court\u2019s finding that respondent is a delinquent child.\nThe State offered evidence tending to show the following:\nOn 6 August 1975, at about 10:00 a.m., the body of Mrs. Euphie Adams was found in the yard of her home on Six Forks Road. The Medical Examiner was called to the scene and determined that Mrs. Adams had been dead about ten or twelve hours. At the time of her death, Mrs. Adams was 80 years old and weighed 118 pounds. She had been badly beaten about the head, neck and chest. Her injuries included fractures of the left mandible, the left hyoid bone and thirteen ribs. There had been considerable bleeding from wounds on her head.\nThe investigating officers found a six cell flashlight near a storm drain. Some ashes and a piece of burned wood were found in the storm drain. The flashlight was bent. There was blood on the flashlight. Blood taken from the body of Mrs. Adams and that taken from the flashlight were of blood group \u201c0.\u201d\nDuring the afternoon of the day of the killing, investigating officers went to the home where respondent, a 13-year-old boy, lived. Respondent\u2019s parents and several of his brothers and sisters were present. Respondent, his brothers and sisters were informed that they were going to be charged with murder in connection with Mrs. Adams\u2019 death.\nIn the light most favorable to the State, respondent gave the officers the following account of the events surrounding the killing.\nHe, his sisters Linda and Kathy and his brother Tim decided to go to Mrs. Adams\u2019 home on the pretext of asking her for flowers but for the real purpose of robbing her. Respondent carried a sheet and flashlight. When they arrived, respondent asked Mrs. Adams for some flowers. He and his sister, Linda, got Mrs. Adams to the side of her house and respondent\u2019s brother, Tim, threw the sheet over Mrs. Adams. After the robbery they burned the sheet. Several of the children returned home. Later, respondent\u2019s sister, Kathy, told them that she had killed Mrs. Adams. Respondent told the officers that he and the others took a rifle, some money and a check from the Adams\u2019 home. A ten dollar bill was recovered from under a couch cushion in respondent\u2019s home. A United States Government check was also discovered in the home.\nRespondent first argues that there is no evidence that respondent is a \u201cchild\u201d less than sixteen years of age. During that part of the hearing devoted to the admissibility of certain statements made by respondent, a prior order of the juvenile court adjudging that respondent was a delinquent was introduced by respondent. That order, dated 13 March 1974, determined that respondent, on that date, was 12 years of age. Moreover, the juvenile court can take judicial notice of its own records to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the alleged delinquent.\nRespondent next argues that, if there was evidence that respondent was 13 years of age, there was no evidence that respondent was capable of forming the mental intent to commit the criminal offense alleged. Citing State v. Yeargan, 117 N.C. 706, 23 S.E. 153 and other cases involving criminal prosecutions, he argues that a person between the ages of seven and fourteen years of age is rebuttably presumed incapable of committing a criminal offense. Even if we assume that the statements found in those cases, involving the prosecution of children in the criminal courts, are relevant to proceedings in the juvenile court, there is ample evidence in the case before us from which the trier of the facts could find the required intent.\nRespondent\u2019s final point in his first argument goes to the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to show his participation in the murder.\nWe have already set out our summary of the evidence adduced at the juvenile hearing. That evidence is sufficient to support the inferences that Mrs. Adams was killed in the course of a robbery, in which respondent was an active participant, and supports the finding of the trial judge.\nRespondent\u2019s remaining assignments of error are grouped in his argument concerning the admissibility of written and oral statements made by him.\nThe \u201ctotality\u201d of the circumstances under which the statements were made are disclosed by the judge\u2019s recital of his findings:\n\u201cOn the morning of August 6, 1975, between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., Raleigh Police Detectives Brinson and Pratt went to the residence of Mrs. Euphie D. Adams, Six Forks Road, Raleigh, where they found the body of Mrs. Adams lying on the ground approximately ten feet from her house. The house was approximately one hundred feet from the road.\nSubsequently that day Detective Brinson was at the home of the respondent, Steven Randall Stokes, on two occasions. On the first occasion, between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., the detective saw the respondent\u2019s mother and father and some brothers and sisters. The detective had no conversation with the respondent at that time.\nSeveral hours later, Detective Brinson was at the Stokes\u2019 residence again where the detective saw the respondent along with his mother, two older brothers, and an older sister. Raleigh Police Detective Keeter and Sergeant R. D. Williams were also there.\nAt this time Detective Brinson learned the identity of the respondent, his brother Timothy, and sister Linda and informed them in the presence of their mother that they were going to be charged with murder in connection with the death of Mrs. Adams.\nDetective Brinson then took the respondent with his brother Timothy and his sister Linda to the Raleigh Police Department.\nThe respondent and his brother Timothy were taken upstairs to the Juvenile Division while the sister Linda was taken downstairs to the area for adults.\nOn voir dire relating to the admissibility of statements made by the respondent, the Court finds the following facts:\nAt the Juvenile Division of the Raleigh Police Department, the respondent was placed in a small room alone, behind a closed door, and was asked no questions until his parents arrived. On the arrival of the respondent\u2019s parents, approximately forty-five minutes or one hour later, they joined the respondent in the small room for questioning along with Detectives Brinson and Keeter.\nMeanwhile, respondent\u2019s older brother Timothy was in another small room, separated from the respondent\u2019s room by a central room having two-way mirrors permitting both boys to be viewed from the central room.\nAt the time of this questioning of the respondent, both of his parents were present. The respondent had not been previously questioned.\nBefore this questioning began, Detective Brinson advised the respondent and his parents that he would have to advise them of their rights and that they must understand these rights.\nThe detective gave the respondent and his parents a written copy of the statement of rights that included a waiver of rights and asked them to listen carefully and to read along with him while he read from the written statement. The detective placed the respondent in a position where he could read along with the detective.\nThe detective read the complete page which was as follows :\nYour Rights\nBefore we ask you any questions, you must understand your rights.\nYou have the right to remain silent and not make any statement.\nAnything you say can and will be used against you in court.\nYou have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions and to have him or anyone else with you during questioning.\nIf you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you by the Court before questioning if you wish.\nIf you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time. You also have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to a lawyer.\nWaiver of Rights\nI am willing to make a statement and answer questions. I do not want a lawyer at this time. I understand and know what I am doing.- No promises or threats have been made to me, and no pressure or coercion of any kind has been used against me by anyone. I have read or had read to me this statement of my rights and the above Waiver of Rights, and I understand what my rights are.\nThe entire period that the detective spent in explaining the rights and reading the rights was approximately five minutes.\nDetective Brinson talked with the parents at that time; they appeared normal, although they were slightly upset.\nAt the time of the reading of the rights, Detective Brinson did not specifically tell the respondent what a lawyer was. There was no conversation as to whether the respondent had the money to hire a lawyer.\nNeither a representative of the Wake County Department of Social Services nor a representative from the District Court was present.\nFollowing the reading of the rights, the detective asked the respondent if he understood his rights and if he would talk to the detective without a lawyer present. The respondent said that he would, giving an affirmative answer, as did his father. That reply was the respondent\u2019s only comment. No questions were asked by either the respondent or his parents.\nFollowing the reading of the rights and the reading of the waiver form and following the affirmative answer of the respondent that he would talk to the detective without a lawyer present, respondent and his parents signed the Waiver of Rights. The date and time was August 6, 1975, 5:37 p.m. The signatures were witnessed by Detective Brinson and Keeter.\nAt the time of the respondent\u2019s affirmative answer as to talking without a lawyer, he had been told again of the case that the detective was investigating and that the detective wanted the respondent to talk to him about that case.\nAll of the foregoing voir dire findings were made from the examination of the witness, Brinson. The respondent did not testify or offer evidence on voir dire except to place into evidence a portion of the respondent\u2019s Juvenile Court file consisting of an Adjudicatory Order and a Dis-positional Order dated March 13, 1974, wherein respondent was found to be delinquent and placed in the custody of the Wake County Department of Social Services. The Adjudicatory Order included a finding by the Court that as of March 13, 1974, the respondent was twelve years of age. It is from that 1974 finding of the Court that the Court now finds the respondent to be thirteen years of age at the time of his interrogation on August 6,' 1975, and within the jurisdiction of the court at this juvenile hearing. There was no testimony as to the respondent\u2019s age in the evidence of the petitioner.\nAt the conclusion of the questions and argument on voir dire, the Court determined that the respondent freely, understandingly, voluntarily, and intelligently answered questions for Detective Brinson beginning at 5:37 p.m. on August 6,1975, without undue influence, coercion or duress, and without any promise, threat, reward, or hope of reward; that the respondent had been fully advised of his constitutional rights and understood his rights; that after being advised of his rights, he knowingly and intelligently waived his rights to counsel at the time of interrogation, making a statement to Detective Brinson.\nIt was therefore adjudged that the respondent\u2019s answer and statement to Detective Brinson are competent and can be admitted into evidence.\u201d\nThe judge made similar findings in connection with a written statement by respondent on the same day.\nWe have set the judge\u2019s findings out in detail. On their face, we hold that they refute respondent\u2019s contention that the juvenile\u2019s statements were inadmissible because:\n\u201cThey were not made voluntarily and with understanding because (A) Respondent was not of sufficient age to understand the import of his statements, (B) he was being illegally detained, (C) his legal guardian was not present, (D) he was in circumstances fraught with intimidation, (E) he was not of sufficient intelligence to understand the import of his statements, and (F) he spoke reluctantly.\u201d\nIt is hard to imagine that officers, charged with the duty of identifying the perpetrators of a horrible crime could have done more to insure that any statement made by respondent was made voluntarily and with full understanding of all of his legal rights.\nWe have carefully reviewed the proceeding in the juvenile court. There, and on this appeal, the juvenile was diligently represented by able counsel. We find no error in the proceedings in the juvenile court. The order of that court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Martin concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "VAUGHN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General William Woodward Webb, for the State.", "Tharrington, Smith & Hargrove, by Roger W. Smith, for respondent appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF STEVEN RANDALL STOKES\nNo. 7510DC924\n(Filed 5 May 1976)\n1. Infants \u00a7 10\u2014 delinquent child \u2014 age of child sufficiently shown\nIn a hearing upon a petition alleging that respondent was a delinquent child in that he murdered a named person, evidence was sufficient to show that respondent was a child less than sixteen years of age where such evidence consisted of a prior order of the juvenile court, dated 18 months prior to the present hearing, which stated that defendant was at that time twelve years of age.\n2. Infants \u00a7 10\u2014 delinquent child \u2014 murder \u2014 possession of intent to commit\nEven if the presumption that a person between the ages of seven and fourteen is rebuttably presumed incapable of committing a criminal offense is relevant to proceedings in the juvenile court, there was ample evidence in this proceeding from which the trier of facts could find that respondent possessed the required intent to commit the murder alleged.\n3. Infants \u00a7 10\u2014 delinquent child \u2014 murder in perpetration of robbery \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nIn a hearing upon a petition alleging that respondent was a delinquent child in that he murdered a named person, evidence was sufficient to show respondent\u2019s participation in the murder where such evidence tended to show that the victim was killed during the course of a robbery in which respondent was an active participant.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 75\u2014 juvenile respondent \u2014 statements to officers \u2014 admissibility\nWritten and oral statements made by respondent to police officers were admissible where they were made understandingly, freely, voluntarily, and without coercion or intimidation, and where respondent\u2019s parents were present throughout the questioning.\nAppeal by juvenile respondent from Bason, Judge. Order entered 15 September 1975 in District Court, Wake County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 March 1976.\nOn 6 August 1975, a juvenile petition was filed alleging that respondent \u201cis a delinquent child as defined by G.S. 7A-278(2) in that at and in the county named above and on or about the 5th day of August 1975, the child did unlawfully, wil-fully and feloniously and of his malice aforethought kill and murder Euphie D. Adams. In violation of G.S. 14-17.\u201d\nAfter the hearing on the petition, the court entered an order wherein it found facts and concluded that respondent had committed the act alleged in the petition and was a delinquent child. The court also entered an order placing respondent in the custody of the Department of Human Resources, Division of Youth Services for an indefinite period of time not to extend beyond his 18th birthday. Respondent, through court appointed counsel, gave notice of appeal.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General William Woodward Webb, for the State.\nTharrington, Smith & Hargrove, by Roger W. Smith, for respondent appellant." }, "file_name": "0283-01", "first_page_order": 315, "last_page_order": 322 }