{ "id": 8519255, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WAYNE HAYWOOD BROOKS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Brooks", "decision_date": "1980-10-07", "docket_number": "No. 8029SC67", "first_page": "14", "last_page": "23", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "49 N.C. App. 14" } ], "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": "248 S.E. 2d 369", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "38 N.C. App. 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554501 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/38/0445-01" ] }, { "cite": "214 S.E. 2d 67", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "287 N.C. 207", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561346 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/287/0207-01" ] }, { "cite": "241 S.E. 2d 128", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "35 N.C. App. 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548089 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/35/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "226 S.E. 2d 629", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "290 N.C. 313", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561442 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/290/0313-01" ] }, { "cite": "388 U.S. 263", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6168184 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/388/0263-01" ] }, { "cite": "388 U.S. 293", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6168284 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/388/0293-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 420", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 177", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566236 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0177-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 677", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 273", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571097 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0273-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 844", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 306", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571880 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0306-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 174", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 663", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571959 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0663-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 S.E. 2d 871", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "876" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "233 N.C. 511", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611849 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "518" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/233/0511-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 S.E. 2d 485", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "270 N.C. 357", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568040 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/270/0357-01" ] }, { "cite": "200 S.E. 2d 626", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "630" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 N.C. 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561787 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/284/0321-01" ] }, { "cite": "249 S.E. 2d 804", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "295 N.C. 735", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569197, 8569107, 8569141, 8569020, 8569054 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/295/0735-05", "/nc/295/0735-03", "/nc/295/0735-04", "/nc/295/0735-01", "/nc/295/0735-02" ] }, { "cite": "247 S.E. 2d 38", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "38 N.C. App. 48", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8551780 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/38/0048-01" ] }, { "cite": "206 S.E. 2d 213", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 497", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565262 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0497-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 20", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 718", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573537 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0718-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 S.E. 2d 342", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "241 N.C. 382", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8610947 ], "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/241/0382-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 A.L.R. 435", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "87 L. Ed. 268", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "case_ids": [ 303755 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/317/0269-01" ] }, { "cite": "262 S.E. 2d 2", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 N.C. 807", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574404, 8574440, 8574482, 8574422, 8574461 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/298/0807-01", "/nc/298/0807-03", "/nc/298/0807-05", "/nc/298/0807-02", "/nc/298/0807-04" ] }, { "cite": "258 S.E. 2d 81", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "84" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "43 N.C. App. 49", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549719 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "52" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/43/0049-01" ] }, { "cite": "203 S.E. 2d 71", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "21 N.C. App. 83", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554244 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/21/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 Wake Forest L. Rev. 265", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "Wake Forest L. Rev.", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "190 S.E. 2d 164", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 658", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8576334 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0658-01" ] }, { "cite": "422 U.S. 806", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9431 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "835" }, { "page": "582" }, { "page": "2541" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/422/0806-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1015, "char_count": 21823, "ocr_confidence": 0.733, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.7004308969934495e-07, "percentile": 0.8283583328603328 }, "sha256": "21112475f229bea9cfe724a6dc0e4533ea9f92c2a3284243582a218471c53e77", "simhash": "1:0b79450e65db287c", "word_count": 3666 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:45:37.060516+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge Morris and Judge Martin (Harry C.) concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WAYNE HAYWOOD BROOKS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "CLARK, Judge.\nThe indigent defendant moved \u201cto represent himself as a jailhouse lawyer.\u201d He was advised of his right to have counsel trained in the law to represent him but he filed a written waiver and insisted on proceeding pro se. He thereupon filed numerous, voluminous and repetitious pretrial motions, which account for about half of the 511-page record on appeal.\nDefendant now assigns as error the trial court\u2019s allowing him to represent himself and refusing to appoint standby counsel for him. This assignment of error is without merit. Defendant waived his right to appointed counsel and the record makes it clear that the waiver was knowingly and intelligently made, and that it was granted only after defendant had been informed of the nature of the charges against him and of his right to appointed counsel. Defendant\u2019s decision may not have been wise, but it is clear that he had every right to represent himself. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 45 L.Ed.2d 562, 95 S. Ct. 2525 (1975); State v. Mems, 281 N.C. 658, 190 S.E. 2d 164 (1972); N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1242. See Note, Self-Representation in Criminal Trials \u2014 The Pro Se Defendant, 9 Wake Forest L. Rev. 265 (1973).\nThe trial court, although not required to make any special effort to accommodate a defendant proceeding pro se, State v. Lashley, 21 N.C. App. 83, 203 S.E. 2d 71 (1974), showed unlimited patience with the defendant throughout the trial. On one occasion defendant requested standby counsel, and the judge agreed to grant the request, but defendant changed his mind and elected not to use standby counsel. When, a few pages further into the record the defendant again requested standby counsel, it is not surprising that the judge refused. If defendant was not confident of his ability to represent himself, he was entitled to counsel appointed for his defense; but he had no right to standby counsel. The appointment of standby counsel is in the sound discretion of the trial court. G.S. 15A-1243; State v. Brincefield, 43 N.C. App. 49, 258 S.E. 2d 81, disc. rev. denied, 298 N.C. 807, 262 S.E. 2d 2 (1979). We find no abuse of discretion in the case sub judice.\nDefendant claims that his imperfect understanding of the rules of evidence resulted in his failure to get certain evidence in the record. We would note first that the evidence defendant wished to get in was either irrelevant and immaterial or repetitive. We must also point out that \u201c[wjhatever else the defendant may raise on appeal, when he elects to represent himself he cannot thereafter complain that the quality of his own defense amounted to a denial of effective assistance of counsel.\u201d State v. Brincefield, 43 N.C. App. at 52, 258 S.E. 2d at 84. While we must concede that defendant in his representation of himself left much to be desired, the issue here is not whether defendant had the skill and training to represent himself adequately but whether \u2018\u201che knows what he is doing [when he chooses to represent himself] and his choice is made with his eyes open.\u2019 Adams v. United States ex rel McCann, 317 U.S. at 279, 87 L. Ed. 268, 63 S. Ct. 236, 143 A.L.R. 435.\u201d Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. at 835, 45 L. Ed. 2d at 582, 95 S. Ct. at 2541. In defendant\u2019s motion to proceed pro se he cites fifteen years as a jailhouse lawyer drafting legal papers and a previous successful pro se defense of a felony charge in Cleveland County Superior Court. There can be little doubt that the defendant had the utmost confidence in himself and made a conscious choice.\nTen of defendant\u2019s assignments of error relate to pretrial motions. All are overruled. Defendant made numerous novel motions, including a \u201cMotion for Trial by Videotape\u201d; a \u201cMotion to Question Prospective Jurors Individually With the Simultaneous Use of Hypnosis, Polygraph, and Truth Serum\u201d; a Motion for Attorney\u2019s Fees \u201cfor Self-Litigant in his Capacity as a Jailhouse Lawyer\u201d (wherein defendant notes that the State ought to pay him $45,000 for his services to himself, although he will settle for $7,000); and a motion to declare North Carolina \u201cEvidential Rules\u201d unconstitutional.\nThough the trial court denied many of defendant\u2019s motions, the rulings are not issues on appeal because defendant failed to except to them. An attorney presumably would have known of the necessity to note an exception to the ruling in order to give the trial judge an opportunity to correct the alleged error. G.S. 15A-1446. Though defendant may have been ignorant of this need, his failure to do so constitutes a waiver of the right to assert the alleged error on appeal. G.S. 15A-1446(b).\nDefendant assigns as error the failure of the trial judge to rule upon his motion for appropriate relief. G.S. 15A-1448(a)(4) provides: \u201cIf there has been no ruling by the trial judge on a motion for appropriate relief within 10 days after motion for such relief has been made, the motion shall be deemed denied.\u201d Under this statute defendant did receive a ruling on his motion. We shall not review the trial judge\u2019s denial of the defendant\u2019s motion because any error could not possibly prejudice defendant since he is entitled to assert those same errors on this appeal. G.S. 15A-1422(e).\nDefendant makes several assignments of error to the trial court\u2019s sustaining the prosecutor\u2019s objections to certain of defendant\u2019s questions on both direct and cross examinations. We note that defendant failed to make an offer of proof, leaving the record void of any indication of what the witness would have answered, so that it is impossible for this Court to determine what evidence was kept out and thus whether the defendant was prejudiced by the court\u2019s sustaining of the objection. See State v. Poolos, 241 N.C. 382, 85 S.E. 2d 342 (1955); 1 Stansbury\u2019s N.C. Evidence \u00a7 26 (Brandis rev. 1973). The defendant, thus, has not met his burden of showing that the alleged error was prejudicial. State v. Robinson, 280 N.C. 718, 187 S.E. 2d 20 (1972) (per curiam).\nDefendant seeks to challenge the long-standing rule in this jurisdiction that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to sustain a conviction. State v. Carey, 285 N.C. 497, 206 S.E. 2d 213 (1974); State v. Haney, 19 N.C. (2 Dev. & Bat.) 390 (1837). That this Court is not disposed to disturb that rule of evidence should be clear to defendant from our ruling against him in his appeal of a related case in which he assigned the same error. State v. Brooks, 38 N.C. App. 48, 247 S.E. 2d 38, appeal dismissed, 295 N.C. 735, 249 S.E. 2d 804 (1978). Not only would we uphold the rule, but we note also that, in this case, the accomplice\u2019s testimony was not the only testimony placing defendant at Dean\u2019s Grocery. Dean Burgess\u2019s testimony that defendant was one of the two men who broke into his store on 31 January 1977 served to corroborate the accomplice\u2019s testimony.\nDefendant assigns as error the trial court\u2019s allowing the police dispatcher to read from the official police records. The dispatcher\u2019s testimony was confined to when the alarm system went off in Dean\u2019s Grocery and to whom he sent to Dean\u2019s Grocery on the night of the robbery. The defendant does not dispute the fact that Dean\u2019s Grocery was robbed on the night in question, the testimony was not inconsistent with the defendant\u2019s defense, and the defendant failed even to cross-examine the witness regarding his testimony. We can see no possible prejudice arising from the admission of this evidence.\nDefendant contends that the identification of the defendant\u2019s voice by the witness Burgess was not based upon the witness\u2019s recollection of the night of the crime in question but was based upon his recollection of having heard the defendant\u2019s voice when the defendant appeared without counsel involuntarily in Rutherford County Superior Court on a previous occasion to inquire about the appointment of counsel for his defense. The Supreme Court of North Carolina in State v. Jackson, 284 N.C. 321, 200 S.E. 2d 626 (1973) stated:\n\u201cUnless barred by constitutional grounds identification by voice is admissible. State v. Coleman, 270 N.C. 357, 154 S.E. 2d 485; State v. Hicks, 233 N.C. 511, 64 S.E. 2d 871; 1 Stansbury\u2019s North Carolina Evidence (Brandis Revision) \u00a7 96 (1973). When identification testimony is offered and defendant objects and requests a voir dire hearing, the trial judge should hear evidence from both the State and the defendant, make findings of fact, and thereupon rule on the admissibility of the evidence. State v. Williams, 279 N.C. 663, 185 S.E. 2d 174; State v. Stepney, 280 N.C. 306, 185 S.E. 2d 844. If the trial judge\u2019s findings are supported by the evidence they are conclusive upon appellate courts. State v. Taylor, 280 N.C. 273, 185 S.E. 2d 677; State v. Harris, 279 N.C. 177, 181 S.E. 2d 420.\u201d\nId., at 327, 200 S.E. 2d at 630.\nThe able trial judge in this case held a voir dire hearing, made findings of fact, and concluded that Burgess\u2019s voice identification was of independent origin and properly admissible. We have carefully examined the record and find ample evidence to support the judge\u2019s findings.\nThere remain the constitutional grounds alluded to in the above quote from State v. Jackson, supra. In that case our Supreme Court held that the requirements of due process in the case of voice identification were the same as for identification by sight, i.e., that circumstances surrounding a pretrial confrontation not be \u201cunnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification.\u201d Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1199, 87 S. Ct. 1967 (1967). We note, however, that the issue of whether the pretrial confrontation at the preliminary hearing was unconstitutionally suggestive is not properly before this Court since we hold that the trial judge\u2019s conclusion that Burgess\u2019s in-court identification was based solely upon the events he heard and saw on the night of the crime was properly supported by the evidence. The identification was therefore not susceptible to the taint of any possible constitutional impropriety in the pretrial confrontation. Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1178, 87 S. Ct. 1951 (1967). Moreover, both this Court and our Supreme Court have held that the viewing of a defendant at a preliminary hearing is not, of itself, sufficient to taint a witness\u2019s subsequent in-court identification absent other circumstances which are so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification as to deprive defendant of due process. State v. Covington, 290 N.C. 313, 226 S.E. 2d 629 (1976); State v. Thomas, 35 N.C. App. 198, 241 S.E. 2d 128 (1978).\nOne final comment upon Burgess\u2019s voice identification is in order. Burgess stated that defendant\u2019s voice was \u201cvery familiar to\u201d that of the robber who had told Marlon Edwards to shoot him. From the context of this testimony and his explanation of the term, we believe Burgess used \u201cfamiliar\u201d for \u201csimilar\u201d and that he was suggesting to the jury that defendant\u2019s voice was \u201cvery similar to\u201d that of one of the robbers. Although he refused to identify the defendant positively, he was unshakable in his assessment of defendant\u2019s voice as being \u201cvery familiar to\u201d the one he had heard at the robbery. We hold that any lack of certainty in defendant\u2019s identification went to the credibility of his testimony and not to its admissibility. See State v. Hicks, 233 N.C. 511, 518, 64 S.E. 2d 871, 876 (1951), citing Stansbury\u2019s N.C. Evidence \u00a7 96.\nDefendant assigns as error the denial of his speedy trial right. We note that there are two bases for defendant\u2019s claim that he was entitled to speedy trial. The first is statutory; the second, constitutional.\nDefendant alleges that the six-month delay between issuance of the mandate from this Court to retry the defendant and the actual retrial was in excess of the 120-day limit imposed on the courts by the North Carolina Speedy Trial Act,. G.S. 15A-701(al)(5). In relying upon the Speedy Trial Act, defendant overlooks the plain language of G.S. 15A-701(al) that its time limit does not apply to a defendant charged with a criminal offense who is arrested, served with criminal process, waives an indictment, or is indicted before 1 October 1978. All the applicable operable events in this case occurred prior to that time; thus defendant may not rely upon the 120-day time limit of G.S. 15A-701(al)(5) which did not take effect until 1 October 1978.\nDefendant does not address the issue of whether his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated. We note that even had defendant properly brought that issue before us, under the test of State v. Hill, 287 N.C. 207, 214 S.E. 2d 67 (1975), we would find no violation. Not only does the delay appear from the record to be for the purpose of allowing defendant to locate his alibi witness, Tonya Huffman, but defendant makes no showing of prejudice and the record reveals none, due to the delay in his retrial.\nWe have carefully examined the oppressive record on appeal and considered all 53 assignments of error and find that the defendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Morris and Judge Martin (Harry C.) concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "CLARK, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Archie W. Anders for the State.", "C. Frank Goldsmith, Jr., for the defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WAYNE HAYWOOD BROOKS\nNo. 8029SC67\n(Filed 7 October 1980)\n1. Constitutional Law \u00a7 45- defendant appearing pro se - refusal to appoint standby counsel\nThe trial court did not err in allowing the indigent defendant to represent himself and in refusing to appoint standby counsel for him, since defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appointed counsel; his motion to represent himself was granted only after defendant had been informed of the nature of the charges against him and of his right to appointed counsel; and defendant had no right to standby counsel, and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying such counsel where defendant requested it, the motion was granted, defendant changed his mind and elected not to use standby counsel, defendant later requested such counsel again, and the court refused. Furthermore, defendant could not complain that his imperfect understanding of the rules of evidence resulted in his failure to get certain evidence in the record, since the evidence he wished to get in was either irrelevant and immaterial or repetitive, and, having chosen to represent himself, he could not complain of the quality of his own defense.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 161- defendant representing self - necessity for exceptions\nFailure of defendant, who represented himself, to note exceptions to rulings of the trial court constituted waiver of the right to assert the alleged errors on appeal. G.S. 15A-1446(b).\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 128- motion for appropriate relief - failure to rule on as denial\nThere was no merit to defendant\u2019s contention that the trial judge erred in failing to rule upon his motion for appropriate relief, since defendant did receive a ruling on his motion under G.S. 15A-1448(a) (4) which provides that, if no ruling has been made by the trial judge on a motion for appropriate relief within 10 days, the motion is deemed denied.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 169- failure of record to show excluded testimony\nDefendant failed to show prejudice in the exclusion of certain testimony where the record did not show what the witness would have testified.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 106.5- uncorroborated testimony of accomplice - sufficiency of evidence\nThe uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to sustain a conviction.\n6. Criminal Law \u00a7 87.3- reading from police records - no prejudice\nThere was no merit to defendant\u2019s assignment of error to the trial court\u2019s allowing a police dispatcher to read from the official police records concerning the sounding of a burglar alarm in a grocery store, since defendant did not dispute the fact that the store was broken into on the night in question; the testimony was not inconsistent with defendant\u2019s defense; and defendant failed even to cross-examine the witness regarding this testimony.\n7. Criminal Law \u00a7 67- voice identification of defendant - independent origin\nThe trial court in an armed robbery case did not err in determining that the victim\u2019s voice identification of defendant was of independent origin and was admissible; moreover, any lack of certainty in the victim\u2019s testimony that defendant\u2019s voice was \u201cvery familiar to\u201d that of the robber went to the credibility of the testimony and not to its admissibility.\n8. Constitutional Law \u00a7 50- Speedy Trial Act inapplicable - delay in retrial for defendant\u2019s benefit\nThere was no merit to defendant\u2019s contention that the six month delay between issuance of the mandate from the Court of Appeals to retry defendant and the actual retrial was in excess of the 120 day limit imposed on the courts by the Speedy Trial Act, since that Act did not take effect until 1 October 1978 and therefore was not applicable to defendant\u2019s case; moreover, his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated, since the delay was for the purpose of allowing defendant to locate his alibi witness, and since defendant made no showing of prejudice by the delay in his retrial.\nAppeal by defendant from Ferrell, Judge. Judgment entered 23 May 1979 in Superior Court, Rutherfokd County. Heard in the Court of Appeals in Waynesville on 26 August 1980.\nDefendant was charged in separate bills of indictment with armed robbery and with breaking and entering and larceny. He was convicted on all counts in a trial held in 1978, won a new trial in an appeal before this Court reported at 38 N.C. App. 445, 248 S.E. 2d 369 (1978), and was again convicted on retrial. He appeals from a consolidated judgment imposing a sentence of not less than nor more than thirty years, to begin at the expiration of sentences he is now serving for other offenses.\nState\u2019s Evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that on 31 January 1977, Dean Burgess, owner and operator of Dean\u2019s Grocery in Spindale, closed his store about 8:00 p.m. and drove to his home several blocks away. At approximately 10:30 p.m. Burgess received a call from the police advising him that the burglar alarm in his store had been activated. Burgess drove to his store and entered through the front door, at which time a voice said, \u201cGod damn you, if you move I\u2019ll kill you.\u201d A large man wearing goggles and something covering his nose and mouth stuck a gun against Burgess\u2019s chest and forced him to lie down on the floor in the back of the store. For several minutes Burgess heard his assailant and another man talking. While Burgess was lying on the floor, the larger man, later identified as Marlon Edwards, took a billfold containing $1,200 from Burgess\u2019s pants pocket. Thereafter, the second person walked over to Edwards and told him to shoot Burgess and \u201clet\u2019s get out of here.\u201d Edwards fired a shot which hit the floor next to Burgess\u2019s head, and then the two men fled.\nBurgess never saw the face of either man. However, Burgess later identified Edwards by hearing and recognizing his voice and observing his build. After voir dire hearing in which the trial judge made findings of fact and conclusions of law, Burgess was allowed to testify that he could identify the defendant\u2019s voice as being \u201cvery much familiar to\u201d the voice of Edwards\u2019 accomplice.\nThe State also presented the testimony of Rodney Wiggins, an accomplice in the breaking and entering and larceny of Dean\u2019s Grocery on 31 January. Wiggins stated that on the evening of 31 January 1977, he, the defendant, and Edwards drove to the grocery store. Wiggins stood watch outside the building while the defendant and Edwards broke into the store. When Wiggins heard a shot several minutes later, he ran away from the scene leaving the defendant and Edwards still in the store. Wiggins told the police about the defendant\u2019s involvement several days later, after he was arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs. Wiggins denied that he was a drug addict, although he admitted that he abused drugs at the time. Wiggins denied that his reason for giving his statement to the police implicating the defendant was that he had been offered a deal. He pled guilty to charges of armed robbery and breaking and entering with the intent to commit larceny. At the close of State\u2019s evidence the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss was denied.\nDefendant\u2019s Evidence\nDefendant\u2019s brothers testified that prior to 1976 defendant spent twenty years in jail in North Carolina and Florida. After his parole he worked diligently in a print shop owned by his brothers. Defendant\u2019s parole officer testified that defendant was gainfully employed until his arrest. Both he and defendant\u2019s brothers and sister-in-law testified that the defendant had a good reputation in the community.\nDeborah Mailman, an attorney, testified that she met the defendant in 1973 while he was in prison; that lie became involved in projects for prisoners\u2019 rights; that he had a good reputation. Jean Edwards testified that in the past defendant had urged her husband, Marlon Edwards, to \u201cgo straight.\u201d\nDefendant also presented evidence that on 30 January 1977, he spent the night with Ann McKeon at the Oakden Motel in Charlotte; and that on 31 January 1977, at about 7:00 p.m., the defendant checked into the Twins Motel in Gastonia; that the desk clerk observed defendant\u2019s car parked in front of his room until midnight; that she did not see the defendant leave his room between 9:00 p.m. and midnight; and that she saw the defendant on 1 February 1977 at 9:00 a.m. Finally, Clark Self testified for the defendant that Wiggins admitted to him that he had lied about the defendant\u2019s participation in the robbery to avoid a drug charge.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Archie W. Anders for the State.\nC. Frank Goldsmith, Jr., for the defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0014-01", "first_page_order": 42, "last_page_order": 51 }