{ "id": 8549283, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FLOYD COLLINS WILLIAMS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Williams", "decision_date": "1977-11-02", "docket_number": "No. 773SC550", "first_page": "386", "last_page": "388", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "34 N.C. App. 386" } ], "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": "391 U.S. 123", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1767670 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/391/0123-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 S.Ct. 2875", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "33 L.Ed. 2d 762", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "408 U.S. 939", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1782912, 1782720, 1782785, 1782723, 1782762, 1782831, 1782832, 1782961, 1782833, 1782865, 1782868, 1782933, 1782941, 1782835, 1782936, 1782777, 1782813 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/408/0939-06", "/us/408/0939-13", "/us/408/0939-10", "/us/408/0939-16", "/us/408/0939-01", "/us/408/0939-05", "/us/408/0939-02", "/us/408/0939-08", "/us/408/0939-07", "/us/408/0939-17", "/us/408/0939-14", "/us/408/0939-15", "/us/408/0939-03", "/us/408/0939-12", "/us/408/0939-04", "/us/408/0939-11", "/us/408/0939-09" ] }, { "cite": "183 S.E. 2d 671", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "678" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 413", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569338 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "424" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0413-01" ] }, { "cite": "434 F. 2d 345", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 2220329 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/434/0345-01" ] }, { "cite": "391 U.S. 123", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1767670 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/391/0123-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 311, "char_count": 4224, "ocr_confidence": 0.816, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.524934089433913e-08, "percentile": 0.4472836061098543 }, "sha256": "0f51e252db3137d0d45fc0d444cf153ec6a3822aaa0cb38ba71a3d6645b9d80e", "simhash": "1:3eaf2e7a5b1e9e7a", "word_count": 684 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:28:15.830309+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge BROCK and Judge PARKER concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FLOYD COLLINS WILLIAMS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nThe first issue presented by defendant on this appeal is whether the trial court cured a violation of the rule of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 20 L.Ed. 2d 476, 88 S.Ct. 1620 (1968), by allowing a co-defendant, whose incriminating statement had been admitted into evidence, subsequently to change his plea of not guilty and to testify. The record shows that State\u2019s witness Annie Simpson offered the following testimony:\n\u201cOn a day which the case at hand had been set for some sort of disposition in the courthouse, I don\u2019t remember exactly when, I had a conversation with defendant Wise. Out in the hallway, with defendant Williams standing with him, defendant Wise said, \u2018Mrs. Simpson, I\u2019m sorry. If I knew you lived there, I wouldn\u2019t have went in your house. I thought whites lived there.\u2019 That is what he told me and I asked him, what difference did that make, who lived there.\u201d\nThe Bruton case held that where a co-defendant did not testify, the introduction of his confession, implicating the other co-defendant, added substantial weight to the government\u2019s case in a form not subject to cross-examination and, therefore, violated the other co-defendant\u2019s right of cross-examination secured by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.\nAssuming, arguendo, that defendant was implicated by his silence during the conversation between Mrs. Simpson and Wise, we nevertheless must conclude that any violation of the Bruton rule was cured by Wise\u2019s later testimony in defendant\u2019s trial. Defendant admits that at that time he had the opportunity to cross-examine his former co-defendant; hence, the underlying reason of the Bruton decision is not present in the instant case. See, e.g., Duggar v. United States, 434 F. 2d 345 (10th Cir. 1970).\nDefendant\u2019s second argument is that the trial court erred when it dictated its findings of fact on voir dire relating to the admission of statements of co-defendant Wise, after court had adjourned and approximately one (1) month after trial. While we agree with State v. Doss, 279 N.C. 413 at 424, 183 S.E. 2d 671 at 678 (1971), modified and remanded 408 U.S. 939, 33 L.Ed. 2d 762, 92 S.Ct. 2875 (1972), that \u201cit is better practice for the court to make such findings at some stage during the trial, preferably at the time the statement is tendered and before it is admitted,\u201d defendant has failed to set forth any prejudice which resulted from the trial court\u2019s delay.\nHaving reviewed defendant\u2019s other assignment of error, we conclude that there was\nNo error.\nChief Judge BROCK and Judge PARKER concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ARNOLD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Donald W. Grimes, for the State.", "Everett & Cheatham, by James T. Cheatham, for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FLOYD COLLINS WILLIAMS\nNo. 773SC550\n(Filed 2 November 1977)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 74.3\u2014 admission of co-defendant\u2019s statements \u2014 error cured by co-defendant\u2019s subsequent testimony\nAny violation of the rule of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, by the admission of a co-defendant\u2019s statements which implicated defendant by his silence at the time they were made was cured when the co-defendant thereafter changed his plea to guilty and testified at the trial.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 76.5\u2014 co-defendant\u2019s incriminating statements \u2014 voir dire hearing-dictation of findings after trial\nDefendant was not prejudiced by the court\u2019s failure to dictate its findings of fact on voir dire relating to the admission of a co-defendant\u2019s statements implicating defendant until approximately one month after the trial, although it is the better practice for the court to make such findings at some stage during the trial.\nAppeal by defendant from Browning, Judge. Judgment entered 11 February 1977, in Superior Court, PITT County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 October 1977.\nDefendant was charged by two indictments with feloniously breaking and entering two occupied buildings, with the intent to commit larceny, and larceny. To each indictment, he entered a plea of not guilty. Prior to trial, and over objection, defendant\u2019s trial was consolidated with that of defendant, Clarence Wise. A jury found defendant guilty on all counts and from that conviction he appeals to this Court.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Donald W. Grimes, for the State.\nEverett & Cheatham, by James T. Cheatham, for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0386-01", "first_page_order": 414, "last_page_order": 416 }