{ "id": 8551688, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WALLACE D. RILEY", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Riley", "decision_date": "1978-07-11", "docket_number": "No. 789SC138", "first_page": "213", "last_page": "216", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "37 N.C. App. 213" } ], "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": "231 S.E. 2d 618", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "625-6" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "291 N.C. 546", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558778 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "557" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/291/0546-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 858", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 322", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571913 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0322-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 S.Ct. 3203", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "49 L.Ed. 2d 1206", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "428 U.S. 902", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6180680, 6180844, 6180492, 6180302, 6181071, 6180146 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/428/0902-04", "/us/428/0902-05", "/us/428/0902-03", "/us/428/0902-02", "/us/428/0902-06", "/us/428/0902-01" ] }, { "cite": "213 S.E. 2d 255", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 698", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570153 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0698-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 S.E. 2d 527", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "530" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 N.C. 404", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561566 ], "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "409-10" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/276/0404-01" ] }, { "cite": "204 S.E. 2d 848", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 286", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563999 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0286-01" ] }, { "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": "426 U.S. 610", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6181032 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/426/0610-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 412, "char_count": 6570, "ocr_confidence": 0.823, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07, "percentile": 0.753072283364783 }, "sha256": "1ec87055285f1a651b7b147cba18d8e769e9ed3b0525cea3471075faf49f7095", "simhash": "1:6be954e91f3d14da", "word_count": 1075 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:37.287571+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Britt and Arnold concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WALLACE D. RILEY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ERWIN, Judge.\nDefendant presents two questions for our resolution. He first contends that his right to remain silent was violated when defendant was cross-examined in an effort to impeach his contention of self-defense, which was asserted for the first time at trial. Defendant was questioned by the prosecution as to why he did not give his exculpatory version of the incident to the officers after being arrested and after he had been given his Miranda warnings. In support of this argument, defendant relies primarily on Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 49 L.Ed. 2d 91, 96 S.Ct. 2240 (1976), State v. Williams, 288 N.C. 680, 220 S.E. 2d 558 (1975), and State v. Castor, 285 N.C. 286, 204 S.E. 2d 848 (1974).\nDefendant has noted four exceptions which, he asserts, support this first assignment of error. Three relate to the cross-examination of defendant, and the fourth is noted in the cross-examination of one of defendant\u2019s witnesses. In three of the instances complained of, defendant neither made an objection nor a motion to strike. (The fourth exception is noted following defendant\u2019s objection to a question which sought to determine when defendant first told his attorney that he had acted in self-defense; defendant\u2019s objection was sustained as to his conversation with his counsel.)\nIn Doyle, supra, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that defendant had made timely objections to the questions asked. As Justice Lake wrote for our Supreme Court in State v. Mitchell, 276 N.C. 404, 409-10, 172 S.E. 2d 527, 530 (1970):\n\u201cIt is elementary that, \u2018nothing else appearing, the admission of incompetent evidence is not ground for a new trial where there was no objection at the time the evidence was offered.\u2019 . . . An assertion in this Court by the appellant that evidence, to the introduction of which he interposed no objection, was obtained in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of this State, does not prevent the operation of this rule.\u201d\nSee also State v. Lowery, 286 N.C. 698, 213 S.E. 2d 255 (1975), modified on other grounds, 428 U.S. 902, 49 L.Ed. 2d 1206, 96 S.Ct. 3203 (1976); State v. Jones, 280 N.C. 322, 185 S.E. 2d 858 (1972). We note also that in the case of State v. Foddrell, 291 N.C. 546, 231 S.E. 2d 618 (1977), defendant sought to raise the same issues as defendant herein does. In Foddrell, Chief Justice Sharp cited the above rule with approval and observed:\n\u201cTo this contention there are several answers, each sufficient to overrule Assignment No. 16. One is that defendant neither objected to the questions at the time they were asked nor moved to strike the answers which were made. The final question, to which objection was made and sustained, was not answered.\u201d 291 N.C. at 557, 231 S.E. 2d at 625-6.\nThis assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s remaining argument is that he was prejudiced by the prosecutor\u2019s asking, during cross-examination of defendant, when he first advised his attorney of his exculpatory explanation. Defendant asserts that this was an improper inquiry into a matter covered by attorney-client privilege.\nTwo exceptions are noted in support of this argument. As to the first exception, again no objection was made and, in any event, the line of questioning at that point pertained to what defendant did or did not tell Deputy Brame, not his attorney. In the other instance, defendant\u2019s objection to the question was sustained. (There was an earlier question pertaining to communications between defendant and his attorney, to which defendant had his objection sustained. And in any event, no exception appears in the record as to that question.) Defendant\u2019s remaining assignment of error is overruled.\nIn the trial below, we find\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Arnold concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ERWIN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Norman M. York, Jr., for the State.", "Watkins, Finch & Hopper, by William T. Watkins, and Vann & Vann, by Arthur Vann, Sr., for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WALLACE D. RILEY\nNo. 789SC138\n(Filed 11 July 1978)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 162\u2014 failure to object or make motion to strike\nDefendant\u2019s assignment of error to his cross-examination which allegedly violated his right to remain silent is overruled since defendant neither objected nor moved to strike evidence at trial, and he therefore cannot complain for the first time on appeal.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 169.2\u2014 objection sustained \u2014 defendant not prejudiced\nDefendant was not prejudiced by the prosecutor\u2019s asking, during cross-examination of defendant, when he first advised his attorney of his exculpatory explanation, since defendant\u2019s objection to such questioning was sustained.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Baley, Judge. Judgment entered 15 September 1977 in Superior Court, GRANVILLE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals I June 1978.\nDefendant was indicted and tried for first degree murder, convicted by a jury of voluntary manslaughter, and received a ten-year sentence.\nAt trial, the State presented evidence which tended to show that on the night of 17 November 1974, defendant entered a pool hall in Stem and was approached by Jackie Strange, who was slapped by defendant and knocked against a pool table. Shortly thereafter, defendant went to the back room, and after a comment, Allen Grissom stood up; defendant produced a gun and shot Grissom, who later died. Two witnesses saw defendant with a gun shortly after the shooting approximately three feet from the deceased. Tests made on defendant\u2019s hands indicated he had fired a gun from his right hand.\nDefendant testified that on the night in question, he slapped Strange after Strange told him he had damaged defendant\u2019s property, but he apologized and they shook hands. Defendant testified that after this incident every time he went to the back room, decedent \u201cwould pick at\u201d him. Finally, decedent got up and approached defendant with an open knife, and when he did not stop his advance upon being warned, defendant shot him. An open pocket knife was found under a pool table by Thomas Crabtree after the incident.\nOn cross-examination, defendant was asked about certain statements he made after he had been given his Miranda warning and was in custody. One of these questions concerned when he told his attorney the story he testified to at trial. Counsel objected, and the trial court did not require defendant to answer that question. The questions that were allowed were in reference to his responses to certain of the officers\u2019 questions at the time of investigation.\nDefendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Norman M. York, Jr., for the State.\nWatkins, Finch & Hopper, by William T. Watkins, and Vann & Vann, by Arthur Vann, Sr., for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0213-01", "first_page_order": 241, "last_page_order": 244 }