{
  "id": 8552529,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARY HAZEL GRAY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Gray",
  "decision_date": "1979-12-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 7925SC624",
  "first_page": "318",
  "last_page": "323",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "44 N.C. App. 318"
    }
  ],
  "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": "113 N.C. 716",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653930
      ],
      "year": 1893,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/113/0716-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 S.E. 2d 793",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.C. 641",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563176
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/276/0641-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 S.E. 547",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1931,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 N.C. 190",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8618224
      ],
      "year": 1931,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/200/0190-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 S.E. 2d 24",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 N.C. App. 407",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553792
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/4/0407-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 174",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 663",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571959
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0663-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 S.E. 2d 429",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 S.E. 2d 426",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 N.C. App. 140",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549200
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/16/0140-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 522,
    "char_count": 9535,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.841,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530788474540407
    },
    "sha256": "aa96d8af0f0feaaa67a73515d848d88bbca6c09e7cb751520bfc151260d3eab3",
    "simhash": "1:cf3f22b48eb62859",
    "word_count": 1647
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:31.887789+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Clark and Erwin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARY HAZEL GRAY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to allow her counsel to question the witness Hallyburton about unrelated criminal charges against him, for the purpose of showing that he had a hope of reward from his testimony. Before ruling upon the defendant\u2019s request to so examine Hallyburton, the trial court held a lengthy voir dire. It revealed that a number of the charges against the witness had been dismissed as frivolous by the trial judges before whom they were brought, dropped by the prosecuting witnesses, or dismissed by prosecutors for insufficient evidence. On the remaining felony charges no offers of leniency in exchange for the testimony had been made, and in fact the State had rejected a plea agreement proposed by Hallybur-ton\u2019s attorney. Upon this evidence the court denied defendant\u2019s request, and we find no error in this denial. We are aware of this court\u2019s holding in State v. Biggerstaff, 16 N.C. App. 140, 191 S.E. 2d 426 (1972), that evidence of unrelated criminal charges which had been dropped should have been admitted to show that the witness \u201cwas in such a position that she might have felt it advisable to curry favor with the State.\u201d Id. at 145, 191 S.E. 2d 429. However, the evidence presented on voir dire in the present case gave no indication that the witness had received, or hoped for, favors from the State. Hallyburton\u2019s testimony was consistent with the final statement he gave to police two days after the shooting, and with the testimony of Robert Campbell. He testified that his attorney sought a plea bargain \u201cwanting them to guarantee me probation if I testified, but they wouldn\u2019t deal, so I\u2019m going to testify anyway.\u201d We note that any witness under indictment is in a position where it may appear to him \u201cadvisable to curry favor with the State,\u201d and yet our Supreme Court has expressly held that for purposes of impeachment a witness may not be cross-examined as to whether he has been indicted on an unrelated criminal offense. State v. Williams, 279 N.C. 663, 185 S.E. 2d 174 (1971).\nDefendant cannot complain of purported inadequacies in the charge on self-defense, since there is no evidence in this case to support a charge on self-defense. See State v. Bailey, 4 N.C. App. 407, 167 S.E. 2d 24 (1969). The charge given in error could only have worked to defendant\u2019s benefit.\nDefendant contends that the trial court erred in charging the jury on \u201cacting in concert\u201d and failing to charge on \u201caiding and abetting.\u201d Defendant has failed to show, however, how this alleged error is prejudicial.\nOne who actually participates in the deed is a principal in the first degree (acting in concert), and one who is actually or constructively present and aids in the commission of the crime is a principal in the second degree (aiding and abetting). State v. Allison, 200 N.C. 190, 156 S.E. 547 (1931). It has long been recognized in North Carolina that the distinction between principals in the first and second degree is a distinction without a difference, and that both are equally guilty. State v. Benton, 276 N.C. 641, 174 S.E. 2d 793 (1970); State v. Allison, supra; State v. Whitt, 113 N.C. 716 (1893). The trial court adequately charged the jury, upon sufficient evidence, that defendant would be guilty if she and Robert Campbell, acting together, killed the deceased. We find no prejudicial error in the charge.\nThe defendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Clark and Erwin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney J. Chris Prather, for the State.",
      "Mitchell, Teele, Blackwell & Mitchell, by W. Harold Mitchell and H. Dockery Teele, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARY HAZEL GRAY\nNo. 7925SC624\n(Filed 18 December 1979)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 89.8\u2014 unrelated criminal charges against witness \u2014 hope of reward for testimony \u2014 cross-examination properly denied\nThe trial court in a homicide prosecution did not err in refusing to allow defendant to question a witness about unrelated criminal charges against him for the purpose of showing that he had a hope of reward from his testimony, since the evidence tended to show that no offers of leniency in exchange for the witness\u2019s testimony had been made; the State had in fact rejected a plea agreement proposed by the witness\u2019s attorney; and the witness\u2019s testimony was consistent with the final statement he gave to police two days after the homicide.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 113.7\u2014 homicide \u2014 instruction on acting in concert proper\nThe trial court in a homicide prosecution adequately charged the jury, upon sufficient evidence, that defendant would be guilty if she and her son, acting together, killed deceased.\nAppeal by defendant from Thornburg, Judge. Judgment entered 7 February 1979 in Superior Court, Burke County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 November 1979.\nDefendant and her son Robert Campbell were indicted for the murder of Donald Gray, defendant\u2019s husband. Under a plea agreement by the terms of which he would testify at defendant\u2019s trial and would receive no more than twenty years active sentence, Robert Campbell pled guilty to second degree murder.\nOfficer Richards of the Drexel police testified for the State that he was called to the Gray home in the early morning hours of 25 June 1978 in relation to a domestic dispute. He had been there at other times for the same reason, and on each occasion defendant had been drinking and her husband had not. Defendant said that her husband had hit her, and she \u201csaid she was going to kill Mr. Gray, something had to be done with him.\u201d Later that morning Richards saw defendant walking down the street and she told him her husband had assaulted her again. Around 7:30 a.m. Richards was called back to the Gray home, the killing having occurred there by that time.\nSubsequently, defendant told the police that Robert had killed her husband because \u201c[w]e no more than walked in the door, and my husband had a twelve gauge shotgun pointed right at me. He told me to get out or he was going to kill me.\u201d\nOfficer Yount testified that he was notified by radio at about 6:55 a.m. that there had been a shooting at the Gray residence. When he entered the house he found defendant, Joe Hallyburton, Robert Campbell and Danny Campbell seated at the kitchen table. Defendant told him that Robert had killed her husband. She told him that it was self-defense, but he observed no bruises or scratches on her. When he first asked her defendant answered that she had not been assaulted.\nRobert Campbell testified that at 6:00 or 6:30 on the morning of 25 June his mother came to the place where he lived and asked him to go with her to Castle Bridge to look for her husband. She said he had beaten her up and she was going to shoot him. Defendant had been drinking \u201cquite a bit.\u201d Robert, his younger brother Danny, and his friend Joe Hallyburton went with her. Defendant \u201csaid if I didn\u2019t shoot him that she would,\u201d and \u201csaid that if she shot him she wouldn\u2019t collect no insurance but if I did, she would.\u201d\nWhen they failed to find Gray at Castle Bridge they went to look for him at Bear Campbell\u2019s, and defendant said \u201cif he come out the door into the parking lot, to shoot him. She said that if I was to get sent off, it wouldn\u2019t be but a couple of years, but it would be worth it to have him gone.\u201d Campbell agreed to shoot Gray, but testified he did not mean it; he was only trying to keep his mother from shooting Gray.\nHaving failed to find Gray at Bear Campbell\u2019s, they returned to the Gray residence, and defendant said her husband was not there because she didn\u2019t see his car. Robert knew Gray was there, and when he went inside he took with him the gun that had been in the car. Defendant went into the bedroom where Gray was lying down, and they started \u201cfussing.\u201d Defendant picked up the twelve gauge shotgun that was lying beside Gray\u2019s bed and started running with it. Gray ran after her \u201cand then she started yelling, shoot him, shoot him.\u201d Campbell shot him once and defendant \u201csaid shoot him, shoot him, he ain\u2019t dead.\u201d Campbell fired four shots altogether. When Gray fell he was still alive, but defendant, rather than calling an ambulance, instructed the boys as to the story they should tell the police. She told them to say that Gray had held a gun to her head, although this was not true. Robert testified that he had taken the gun into the house intending to give it to Gray \u201cto stop the killing,\u201d but he changed his mind when defendant got Gray\u2019s gun and was running with it saying \u201cShoot him, shoot him.\u201d Campbell \u201cbecame excited and shot him.\u201d\nJoe Hallyburton testified, corroborating Robert Campbell\u2019s testimony. When the police came, he told them the story that defendant had told him to tell, but that statement was a lie. He gave the police three false statements and a fourth true one. Defendant\u2019s counsel was not allowed to cross-examine Hallybur-ton about a number of unrelated charges against him which had been dismissed.\nHallyburton\u2019s mother, Gail Williams, testified that about a week before the shooting defendant came to her house, and during the conversation there said that her husband had been beating her and she was going to kill him. Georgia Henson testified that she received a call from defendant around 5:30 on the morning of the shooting. Defendant was looking for her husband and said she was going to kill him.\nDefendant presented no evidence. She was found guilty of second degree murder and sentenced to 30 years. She appeals.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney J. Chris Prather, for the State.\nMitchell, Teele, Blackwell & Mitchell, by W. Harold Mitchell and H. Dockery Teele, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0318-01",
  "first_page_order": 346,
  "last_page_order": 351
}
