{ "id": 8557031, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. AMOS GRAINGER", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Grainger", "decision_date": "1976-06-16", "docket_number": "No. 7513SC994", "first_page": "694", "last_page": "698", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "29 N.C. App. 694" } ], "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": "158 S.E. 2d 511", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572796 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 U.S. 436", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12046400 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "34 A.L.R. 3d 1256", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "97 L.Ed. 549", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "344 U.S. 561", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11300671 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/344/0561-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 S.E. 2d 526", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 N.C. 690", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563327 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/276/0690-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 S.E. 2d 41", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "44" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "9 N.C. App. 279", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549920 ], "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "284" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/9/0279-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 514, "char_count": 8893, "ocr_confidence": 0.619, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.5046715916883656e-08, "percentile": 0.2825081693952041 }, "sha256": "c7c1b253bc6ff758944f1109c8d0035011f8f2f87d3c2a782776f655f055f14d", "simhash": "1:61a5427e3ef09bd7", "word_count": 1520 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:22.308082+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Britt and Clark concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. AMOS GRAINGER" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nDefendant first contends that in denying his timely motion, made on 15 April 1975, for the appointment of a psychiatrist at State expense to interview him and testify in his behalf at trial, the Court denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers. He asserts that, being indigent, he was entitled to be put on the same footing as all other defendants in criminal actions, and, since he could not afford to pay the psychiatrist, the State was responsible to provide one for him.\nEvery criminal defendant has the constitutional right to confront his accusers with other testimony, including \u201cthe right to consult with his counsel and to have a fair and reasonable opportunity, in the light of all attendant circumstances, to investigate, to prepare, as well as to present his defense.\u201d State v. Hill, 9 N.C. App. 279, 284, 176 S.E. 2d 41, 44 (1970), and cases cited therein; State v. Baldwin, 276 N.C. 690, 174 S.E. 2d 526 (1970). However, in United States ex rel. Smith v. Baldi, 344 U.S. 561, 97 L.Ed. 549, 73 S.Ct. 391 (1953), the United States Supreme Court held there was no constitutional mandate placed upon the States to appoint a psychiatrist to make a pretrial examination.\nG.S. 7A-454 provides as follows:\n\u201cSupporting services. \u2014 The court, in its discretion, may approve a fee for the service of an expert witness who testifies for an indigent person, and shall approve reimbursement for the necessary expenses of counsel. Fees and expenses accrued under this section shall be paid by the State.\u201d\nIn appropriate circumstances our courts do have power to order a mental or physical examination at State expense, but this procedure is left to the sound discretion of the court. The 15 April 1975 motion to the court submitted by defendant\u2019s counsel simply states, \u201cThat the defendant is an indigent person with Court appointed counsel, and, in the opinion of counsel, psychiatric evidence will be necessary and proper in behalf of the defense of the charges of murder against the Defendant, Amos Grainger.\u201d Without more, we see no abuse of the trial court\u2019s discretion in denying this motion. See, Annot., 34 A.L.R. 3d 1256, Right of Indigent Defendant in Criminal Case to Aid of State by Appointment of Investigator or Expert (1970). We note that defendant did not, as required by G.S. 15A-959(a), give notice of intention to raise the defense of insanity, nor did anything occur at his trial which suggested the existence of any question as to his \u201cincapacity to proceed\u201d under G.S. ISA-1001.\nDefendant\u2019s second assignment of error presents his contention that his statement made to Trooper L. W. Davis on the night of 9 November 1974 should not have been admitted in evidence. He concedes that, as his confession was not made while he was in custody and was not the result of police interrogation, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966), is not applicable, but argues that his statement should not have been admitted because it was not knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily made. Trooper Davis testified that he talked with the defendant on the night in question. Upon objection by defendant\u2019s attorney, the Court excused the jury in order to conduct a voir dire on the admissibility of any statement made by the defendant. On voir dire Trooper Davis stated that he interrupted defendant\u2019s conversation to advise him of his rights; that he asked defendant if he understood his rights and defendant replied in the affirmative; that although it was apparent defendant had been drinking, he did not appear to' be sleepy or confused; and that defendant appeared coherent. Defendant offered testimony of two witnesses who testified that at this time he had been heavily drinking and did not appear to be in control of his faculties. The Court made findings of fact stating, in pertinent part, that any statement made by defendant to Trooper Davis on 9 November 1974 was made \u201cvoluntarily, knowingly, and independently.\u201d Such a finding by the Court, when based upon competent evidence, as it is in this case, is binding upon appellate review. State v. Bishop, 272 N.C. 283, 158 S.E. 2d 511 (1968). We find the statement made by defendant to Trooper Davis to have been properly admitted.\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Clark concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PARKER, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Acie L. Ward for the State.", "John R. Hughes for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. AMOS GRAINGER\nNo. 7513SC994\n(Filed 16 June 1976)\n1. Constitutional Law \u00a7 30; Criminal Law \u00a7 63\u2014 indigent defendant \u2014 failure to provide psychiatrist at State expense \u2014 no error\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the indigent defendant\u2019s motion for the appointment of a psychiatrist at State\u2019s expense to interview him and testify in his behalf at trial, where defendant did not, as required by G.S. 15A-959(a), give notice of intention to raise the defense of insanity.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 75\u2014 drinking defendant \u2014 statement to officer prior to arrest \u2014 voluntariness \u2014 admissibility\nA statement by defendant to a law enforcement officer made before defendant was arrested was properly admitted in his trial for second degree murder, though defendant had apparently been drinking before he made the statement, where the officer testified that defendant did not appear to be sleepy or confused but appeared coherent, and the officer advised defendant of his rights, asked defendant if he understood them, and defendant replied in the affirmative.\nAppeal by defendant from Lee, Judge. Judgments entered 11 September 1975 in Superior Court, Brunswick County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 March 1976.\nBy separate indictments defendant was charged with the murders in the first degree of Annie Lou Dykes and Elwood Matthews. Without objection the two cases were consolidated for trial, and the State elected to try defendant for murders in the second degree. It was stipulated that Dykes and Matthews died on 9 November 1974 as a result of gunshot wounds.\nL. W. Davis, a highway patrolman, testified that he was called to the home of defendant\u2019s brother in the Town Creek Area of Brunswick County on the night of 9 November 1974. On arriving there at approximately 10:30 p.m., he found defendant present. On voir dire the officer testified that after he advised defendant of his rights, the defendant stated that he had shot his \u201cwife\u201d and her boyfrieind after he discovered them in an embrace on the bed in the bedroom of defendant\u2019s home. Davis testified that defendant appeared to have been drinking but that he was coherent at the time he made the statement. Defendant offered on voir dire the testimony of his sister-in-law and his brother who stated they observed him on the night in question after the shooting, that defendant had been drinking heavily, was \u201ccrying and jerking like someone who was having a convulsion,\u201d and that he did not appear to be in his right mind. Defendant testified on voir dire that the first thing he remembered about the incident was waking up at his home, sitting in a chair, bleeding from the forehead, in a very disoriented state, and that it took him three or four days to get back to normal. Trooper Davis was recalled on voir dire and testified that defendant was not under arrest at the time he made his statement. The court made findings of fact and allowed the testimony of Davis to be admitted before the jury.\nDefendant testified before the jury in substance as follows: He was not married to Annie Lou Dykes, but he lived with her, loved her, and considered her as his wife. Early on 9 November 1974 Matthews came to his home and they drank whiskey and beer. Late in the day, he lay down on a day bed in his living room and went to sleep. When he woke up, he heard a noise in the bedroom. Upon investigating, he found Matthews and Dykes in the performance of an unnatural sex act. He turned to leave room and heard Annie Lou Dykes shout, \u201cGet him. Get him.\u201d As he was leaving the room through the door and while his back was turned to the bed, he felt something hit him hard over the head and he saw a flash of light. His loaded shotgun was sitting beside the door through which he was walking. The next thing he remembers is waking up in his living room, sitting on the side of his day bed with blood dripping from his forehead. He was disoriented and everything appeared strange. He returned to the bedroom to find the two lying on the bed apparently dead. The shotgun was also lying on the bed. He then left for his brother\u2019s home to report what he had found.\nDefendant\u2019s sister-in-law testified that when she saw defendant on the night in question he did not appear to have control of his normal faculties and in her opinion he was not sane.\nThe jury found defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter in each case, and from judgments imposing prison sentences, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Acie L. Ward for the State.\nJohn R. Hughes for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0694-01", "first_page_order": 726, "last_page_order": 730 }