{
  "id": 8555315,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DELMAS PEARSALL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Pearsall",
  "decision_date": "1978-11-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 784SC415",
  "first_page": "600",
  "last_page": "603",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "38 N.C. App. 600"
    }
  ],
  "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": "5 A.L.R. 2d 1404",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d",
      "year": 1949,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 A. 2d 207",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.2d",
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "398 Pa. 237",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pa.",
      "case_ids": [
        1289099
      ],
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/pa/398/0237-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "149 A. 2d 666",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.2d",
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 Pa. Super. Ct. 13",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pa. Super.",
      "case_ids": [
        744958
      ],
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/pa-super/189/0013-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 377,
    "char_count": 5996,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.798,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.120160551295081e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5732629585740326
    },
    "sha256": "d3cba7fb24713e3e579a15d2bb5e86e2f0cb0958a2bde2f3fb61d7ac2584b225",
    "simhash": "1:6e5306b3122a81d3",
    "word_count": 1039
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:33.594298+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges PARKER and ERWIN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DELMAS PEARSALL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CLARK, Judge.\nThe sole issue raised by this appeal is whether the trial court erred in ruling that Linda Sutton Williams, having claimed the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, was not required to testify as a witness for the defendant.\nBefore taking the stand to testify in his own behalf, defendant called Linda Sutton Williams as his witness. She informed the court that she would not testify. Her lawyer was not present. She had been convicted of armed robbery of the clerk in the convenience store (as defendant was charged in the case before us) but her appeal was pending at the time of this trial. The trial court ruled that she would not be required to testify.\nIt appears from the record on appeal that counsel then stipulated that \u201cthe following is the testimony of Linda Sutton Williams at a trial conducted on October 12 and October 13, 1977.\u201d\n\u201cQ. Do you know Delmas Pearsall?\nA. No, I put a gun to his head in the store.\nQ. Weren\u2019t you with Delmas Pearsall on this night?\nA. No, sir, I wasn\u2019t.\nQ. He never had occasion to drive your car on this night?\nA. I can\u2019t tell you if he had or not. Yes, I can, because the police officer said that he stopped him in the car.\nQ. You never gave him permission to use your car?\nA. No, sir, I didn\u2019t, and I would like to break his face for breaking up my car. What is all them scratches doing on my car?\u201d\nThe transcript of the testimony was read to the jury by defense counsel.\nDid Linda Sutton Williams by testifying for the defendant in his trial of October, 1977, waive her constitutional right against self-incrimination?\nIt is the majority view that a witness who testifies to incriminating matters in one proceeding does not thereby waive the right to refuse to answer as to such matters on subsequent, separate, or independent trial or hearing. Commonwealth v. Fisher, 189 Pa. Super. Ct. 13, 149 A. 2d 666 (1959), rev\u2019d on other grounds, 398 Pa. 237, 157 A. 2d 207 (1960); C. McCormick, Evidence, \u00a7 132 at 281 (2d ed. 1972); 8 Wigmore on Evidence, \u00a7 2276 at 470 (McNaughten rev. 1961). However, the privilege against self-incrimination is waived as to the testimony given in the first proceeding, provided that the privilege was effectively waived. Annot., 5 A.L.R. 2d 1404 (1949).\nThere was no claim of privilege as to the transcript of the testimony of Linda Sutton Williams and thus no question as to the effectiveness of her waiver of the privilege in the first trial of the defendant. Since the appeal from her conviction and judgment was pending at the time she was called as a witness in the case before us, there had been no final disposition of the armed robbery charge against her, and she was protected by her privilege from being compelled to testify in this case. The trial court did not err in its ruling that Linda Sutton Williams would not be required to testify.\nNo error.\nJudges PARKER and ERWIN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CLARK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Luden Capone III for the State.",
      "Bruce H. Robinson, Jr. for the defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DELMAS PEARSALL\nNo. 784SC415\n(Filed 7 November 1978)\nConstitutional Law \u00a7 74\u2014 witness\u2019s pleading of Fifth Amendment \u2014no compulsion to testify for defendant\nThe trial court properly concluded that a person charged with the same crime for which defendant was on trial and claiming the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination could not be compelled to testify for defendant, since that person\u2019s appeal from her conviction of armed robbery was pending; however, a transcript of that person\u2019s testimony at defendant\u2019s first trial was admissible in defendant\u2019s second trial, since there was no claim of privilege as to the transcript and thus no question as to the effectiveness of her waiver of the privilege in the first trial of defendant.\nAPPEAL by defendant from James, Judge. Judgment entered 18 January 1978, in Superior Court, DUPLIN County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 31 August 1978.\nDefendant was convicted of armed robbery of Cynthia Boykin, clerk in a convenience store at Warsaw on 29 August 1977. He appeals from judgment imposing imprisonment.\nIt appears from the State\u2019s evidence that on the night of 29 August 1977, Ms. Boykin was robbed of about $433 by a black female, (thereafter identified as Linda Sutton Williams) carrying a shotgun.\nShortly before the robbery, Police Chief R. P. Wood observed a 1968 gold-colored Plymouth parked at a warehouse next to the convenience store. About the time of the robbery two police officers on patrol observed the Plymouth drive away from the warehouse and stopped the vehicle. Defendant was the operator. After getting permission from defendant to search the vehicle, the officers received a radio call directing them to investigate a robbery at the convenience store. About an hour later the two officers observed the same Plymouth about two blocks from the same store. The operator and sole occupant was Linda Sutton Williams. They saw a shotgun on the floor of the vehicle. Ms. Williams was arrested.\nDefendant voluntarily came to the police station about an hour after Ms. Williams\u2019 arrest. Defendant made a statement in substance that he and Ms. Williams on the night in question drank some beer and smoked marijuana. She had a shotgun. They talked about robbing the convenience store. She asked the defendant about going in with her, but he refused because the clerk knew him. Defendant loaded the shotgun and showed her how to cock it. When the police car came by the warehouse, he drove off and the officers stopped him. Defendant also stated he knew where part of the stolen money was hidden, but they would have to find it.\nDefendant testified that he had no knowledge that Ms. Williams intended to rob the convenience store until just before she left the car with the gun; that he told her that he would have nothing to do with it. He left the car and caught a ride back to town. When he heard the police were looking for him, he went to the police station.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Luden Capone III for the State.\nBruce H. Robinson, Jr. for the defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0600-01",
  "first_page_order": 628,
  "last_page_order": 631
}