{
  "id": 8554812,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES WILLIE GRACE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Grace",
  "decision_date": "1978-08-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 7814SC294",
  "first_page": "723",
  "last_page": "725",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "37 N.C. App. 723"
    }
  ],
  "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": "213 S.E. 2d 305",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "286 N.C. 549",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569898
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/286/0549-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 S.E. 2d 587",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 N.C. 567",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571452
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/292/0567-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 409,
    "char_count": 6611,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.811,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530969952302239
    },
    "sha256": "b592ddb147192b22c21a9d8a696439d0e4618c03d0db2a42cf2ae8aa49b9e52d",
    "simhash": "1:0eef0bc1b26730e5",
    "word_count": 1091
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:37.287571+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Mitchell concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES WILLIE GRACE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN, Judge.\nPrior to trial, and pursuant to defendant\u2019s motion, a hearing was conducted to determine defendant\u2019s mental capacity to stand trial. At the close of the evidence, the trial court made findings of fact and based on these findings concluded \u201cthat the defendant is competent to stand trial and has the capacity to proceed in the trial of these actions.\u201d Defendant assigns error to the court\u2019s ruling contending that the court in reaching its decision confused the proper test of a defendant\u2019s competence to stand trial with the test for determining a defendant\u2019s mental capacity to commit a criminal act.\nThe proper test for determining a defendant\u2019s competence to stand trial is succinctly stated by our Supreme Court in State v. Willard, 292 N.C. 567, 234 S.E. 2d 587 (1977):\n\u201cThe test of a defendant\u2019s mental capacity to proceed to trial is whether he has the capacity to comprehend his position, to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to conduct his defense in a rational manner, and to cooperate with his counsel to the end that any available defense may be interposed.\u201d (Citation omitted.)\nThe trial court\u2019s findings of fact thereon, if supported by competent evidence, are conclusive on appeal. State v. Willard, supra; State v. Cooper, 286 N.C. 549, 213 S.E. 2d 305 (1974).\nIn the instant case, the evidence adduced at the competency hearing indicated that defendant was evaluated regarding his competence to stand trial on 21 January and 4 March 1977. He was then considered competent to stand trial by the examining doctor. Defendant was again examined in July 1977 and late August 1977, three weeks prior to the subject hearing. It was the opinion of the examining doctor that on each of these latter occasions defendant was competent to stand trial notwithstanding his apparent confusion as to the particular grade of the charged offenses. The above responses of the expert witness were elicited by inquiries directed to defendant\u2019s competence to stand trial in terms substantially identical to those approved in the Willard case. We are of the opinion that there was sufficient competent evidence from which the trial court could find as it did. This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant next contends that the trial court erred in its recapitulation of the evidence to the jury. He argues that the trial court referred to a material fact not in evidence. We cannot agree.\nDefendant excepted to the following portion of the court\u2019s recapitulation of the evidence:\n\u201cThat various police officers at various times reported to the scene and that additional shots were fired, and that a search was commenced for the defendant. . . .\u201d\nDefendant argues that the implication of the challenged portion of the charge is that shots were fired at police officers at the scene of the incident. Although concededly inartfully worded, we cannot perceive of any prejudice to defendant arising therefrom. The recapitulation of the evidence clearly states, at an earlier point, that only three shots were fired by defendant while he was standing across from the store. This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s remaining assignment of error is without merit. In the trial we find no prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Mitchell concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Douglas A. Johnston, for the State.",
      "Gene Dodd, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES WILLIE GRACE\nNo. 7814SC294\n(Filed 29 August 1978)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 29\u2014 finding of competency to stand trial \u2014supporting evidence\nThe evidence supported the trial court\u2019s determination that defendant was competent to stand trial where a doctor who examined defendant on two occasions testified that, in his opinion, defendant was competent to stand trial notwithstanding his apparent confusion as to the particular grade of the charged offenses.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 113.1\u2014 instructions \u2014 no statement of fact not in evidence\nIn a trial of defendant upon three charges of felonious assault with intent to kill, the trial court\u2019s statement in its recapitulation of the evidence that \u201cvarious police officers at various times reported to the scene and that additional shots were fired, and that a search was commenced for the defendant\u201d did not constitute a statement of a material fact not in evidence that shots were fired at police officers at the scene of the incident where the court had clearly stated in an earlier portion of its recapitulation of the evidence that only three shots were fired by defendant on the occasion in question.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Albright, Judge. Judgment entered 22 September 1977 in Superior Court, DURHAM County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 August 1978.\nDefendant was charged in three separate bills of indictment with the crime of felonious assault with intent to kill. He entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity to all the charges.\nThe State offered evidence at trial tending to show that on the night of 22 December 1976, William Brown, Damon Singleton and Thomas Lennon were standing in front of a store on the corner of South Street and Enterprise Street in Durham when defendant, standing across the intersection from the store, pulled a pistol from his field jacket and fired it three times in their direction. One of the shots struck a water cooler next to which Brown was standing. Defendant then proceeded down Enterprise Street and was overheard by State\u2019s witness Johnson to say, \u201cIf they can do it I can do it too\u201d or words to that effect. Officer Reed investigated the incident and stated that upon approaching defendant\u2019s home, he heard the back door slam and later heard what he thought was gunfire. The day following the incident Officer Rigsbee went to defendant\u2019s home and while there, seized a U. S. Army field jacket with defendant\u2019s last name over the pocket.\nDefendant\u2019s evidence tended to show that during the month preceding 22 December, defendant\u2019s behavior had been abnormal. Defendant had eaten dog food on occasions stating that he was a dog. He had told his mother that he saw dogs running through the house and that she changed size before his eyes, neither of these incidences having in fact occurred. Dr. Billy Royal, an expert in psychiatry, testified that in his opinion such activity was consistent with mental illness causing one not to know the nature and quality of his acts or the difference between right and wrong.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty of three charges. From judgment imposing three consecutive eight (8) to ten (10) year sentences, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Douglas A. Johnston, for the State.\nGene Dodd, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0723-01",
  "first_page_order": 751,
  "last_page_order": 753
}