{ "id": 8554160, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LAWRENCE RAYE BYRD", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Byrd", "decision_date": "1979-02-06", "docket_number": "No. 7810SC807", "first_page": "659", "last_page": "662", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "39 N.C. App. 659" } ], "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": "240 S.E. 2d 494", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "497" } ], "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "35 N.C. App. 42", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8547089 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "47" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/35/0042-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 S.Ct. 328", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "34 L.Ed. 2d 259", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "409 U.S. 995", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6433152, 6433005 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/409/0995-02", "/us/409/0995-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 111", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572889 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "401 U.S. 222", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11712077 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1971, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/401/0222-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 S.E. 2d 767", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "264 N.C. 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570869 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/264/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "97 S.Ct. 2178", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "53 L.Ed. 2d 226", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "431 U.S. 916", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1729, 1731, 2025, 1737, 1995, 2155, 1943, 1978, 2171, 1661, 1983 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/431/0916-03", "/us/431/0916-04", "/us/431/0916-08", "/us/431/0916-01", "/us/431/0916-10", "/us/431/0916-02", "/us/431/0916-06", "/us/431/0916-09", "/us/431/0916-05", "/us/431/0916-11", "/us/431/0916-07" ] }, { "cite": "230 S.E. 2d 390", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "396" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "291 N.C. 253", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8557872 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "262-3" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/291/0253-01" ] }, { "cite": "244 S.E. 2d 442", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "36 N.C. App. 627", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8555073 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/36/0627-01" ] }, { "cite": "228 S.E. 2d 437", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "444" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "290 N.C. 681", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564438 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "693" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/290/0681-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 397, "char_count": 6652, "ocr_confidence": 0.835, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08, "percentile": 0.35668816985082913 }, "sha256": "c3da63d206106026567112a8c26f704c873c70b5dd8b0d553f28975e6e3bab17", "simhash": "1:bff8822e62820ec7", "word_count": 1082 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:00.834910+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges ARNOLD and WEBB concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LAWRENCE RAYE BYRD" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nAfter hearing testimony of the two interrogating officers, of the defendant, and of the Clinical Psychologist who tested and examined the defendant, the court entered its order in which it made detailed and extensive findings of fact, including the following:\n18. The defendant\u2019s statement resulted from his voluntary choice to make a statement in response to the questions of the officers, understanding that at the time he made the statement the nature and import of what he was doing by making a statement.\nBased on its findings of fact, the court concluded that defendant\u2019s statement to the officers was knowingly and understandingly made. There was competent evidence to support the court\u2019s factual findings and these in turn support its conclusion.\nAlthough defendant\u2019s testimony conflicted with that of the officers as to what occurred at the time defendant\u2019s inculpatory statements were made, it was the function of the trial judge, who heard the testimony, to resolve these conflicts. \u201cA trial judge\u2019s finding that an accused freely and voluntarily made an inculpatory statement will not be disturbed on appeal when the finding is supported by competent evidence even when there is conflicting evidence.\u201d State v. Harris, 290 N.C. 681, 693, 228 S.E. 2d 437, 444 (1976). We note that the evidence in the present case was very different from that which was presented in State v. Spence, 36 N.C. App. 627, 244 S.E. 2d 442 (1978). Defendant\u2019s assignments of error directed to the court\u2019s findings and conclusions that defendant\u2019s statements were voluntarily and understandingly made are overruled.\nDefendant assigns error to the denial of his motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. \u201c[A] motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and the refusal to grant the motion is not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion.\u201d State v. Sauls, 291 N.C. 253, 262-3, 230 S.E. 2d 390, 396 (1976), cert. den., 431 U.S. 916, 53 L.Ed. 2d 226, 97 S.Ct. 2178 (1977); accord, State v. Morrow, 264 N.C. 77, 140 S.E. 2d 767 (1965); 4 Strong\u2019s N.C. Index 3rd, Criminal Law, \u00a7 131.1, p. 677-8. No abuse of discretion has been shown in the present case. This assignment of error is overruled.\nIn overruling this assignment of error, we do not reach or express an opinion on the questions (1) whether evidence of the psychological evaluation of the defendant obtained after verdict was such newly discovered evidence as would warrant granting a new trial, (2) whether defendant could make the requisite showing of due diligence in discovering the evidence, or (3) whether defendant waived any right he might once have had to rely on the defense of insanity by failing to avail himself of the procedures provided by G.S. 15A-959 and by not raising the question at all until after the return of the verdict.\nThe order appealed from directing that commitment issue on the judgment imposed on 28 March 1977 is\nAffirmed.\nJudges ARNOLD and WEBB concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PARKER, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Donald W. Grimes for the State.", "Barringer and Howard by Thomas L. Barringer for the defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LAWRENCE RAYE BYRD\nNo. 7810SC807\n(Filed 6 February 1979)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 76.10\u2014 voluntariness of inculpatory statements \u2014 findings of court supported by evidence\nEvidence was sufficient to support the trial court\u2019s findings and conclusion that defendant voluntarily and understandingly made inculpatory statements to police officers during custodial interrogation.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 131.1\u2014 new trial for newly discovered evidence \u2014 discretion of trial court\nDefendant failed to show an abuse of discretion in the trial court\u2019s denial of his motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence consisting of a psychological evaluation of defendant.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Brewer, Judge. Order entered 7 April 1978 in Superior Court, WAKE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 January 1979.\nDefendant was tried on charges of incest. As part of its case in chief, the State offered testimony of police officers concerning inculpatory statements made by defendant during custodial interrogation. After a voir dire hearing, the court ruled this evidence inadmissible, finding that although defendant had been fully advised of his Miranda rights, he was \u201cnot then of such mental capacity to fully understand\u201d that he had the right to request assistance of an attorney. Defendant testified and denied guilt. He was cross-examined about the statements he had made to the officers, but denied making any statement implying guilt. In rebuttal, the State presented evidence of his statements for purposes of impeachment. He was convicted and appealed.\nOn appeal, this Court, citing Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1971) and State v. Bryant, 280 N.C. 551, 187 S.E. 2d 111, cert, den., 409 U.S. 995, 34 L.Ed. 2d 259, 93 S.Ct. 328 (1972), held that the evidence concerning defendant\u2019s statements was admissible for the purpose of impeaching his credibility provided the statements were found to have been voluntarily made. There having been no such finding, the cause was remanded to the Superior Court with instructions to conduct a hearing to determine whether the statements were voluntarily and understandingly made. This Court further instructed that \u201c[i]f the presiding judge determines by the preponderance of the evidence that the statement of the defendant was made voluntarily and understandingly, he will make findings of fact and conclusions, and order commitment to issue in accordance with the judgment appealed from and entered on 28 March 1977.\u201d State v. Byrd, 35 N.C. App. 42, 47, 240 S.E. 2d 494, 497 (1978).\nOn remand the Superior Court granted defendant\u2019s motion that he be given an intelligence quotient test and such other tests as might provide evidence of his mental capacity at the time he was interrogated. The testing and examination of defendant was made on 28 February 1978 by Dr. Bruce A. Norton, an expert in Clinical Psychology.\nThe hearing on remand was held on 7 April 1978. The trial court determined that defendant\u2019s statement was knowingly and understandingly made and ordered that commitment should issue. The defendant moved for a new trial for newly discovered evidence, in this connection referring to the testimony of Dr. Norton concerning his evaluation of defendant\u2019s mental capacity. Defendant also moved that he be allowed to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. These motions were denied. From these rulings, the defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Donald W. Grimes for the State.\nBarringer and Howard by Thomas L. Barringer for the defendant." }, "file_name": "0659-01", "first_page_order": 687, "last_page_order": 690 }