{ "id": 12170085, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RENEE MAKERSON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Makerson", "decision_date": "1981-05-19", "docket_number": "No. 8029SC1005", "first_page": "149", "last_page": "153", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "52 N.C. App. 149" } ], "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": "212 S.E. 2d 400", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "25 N.C. App. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550412 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/25/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "184 S.E. 2d 282", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 515", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570959 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0515-01" ] }, { "cite": "229 S.E. 2d 904", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "291 N.C. 235", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8557860 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/291/0235-01" ] }, { "cite": "238 S.E. 2d 456", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.C. 447", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565179 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/293/0447-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 S.E. 2d 169", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 704", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627899 ], "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/254/0704-01" ] }, { "cite": "256 S.E. 2d 154", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "stress evaluation tests" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 N.C. 485", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571879 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "stress evaluation tests" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/297/0485-01" ] }, { "cite": "215 S.E. 2d 94", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "polygraph test" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "287 N.C. 436", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563025 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "polygraph test" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/287/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "215 S.E. 2d 123", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "polygraph test" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "287 N.C. 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563955 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "polygraph test" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/287/0470-01" ] }, { "cite": "235 S.E. 2d 63", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "292 N.C. 643", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572354, 8572325, 8572301, 8572245, 8572277 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/292/0643-05", "/nc/292/0643-04", "/nc/292/0643-03", "/nc/292/0643-01", "/nc/292/0643-02" ] }, { "cite": "232 S.E. 2d 475", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "478" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "32 N.C. App. 408", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550945 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "413" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/32/0408-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 S.E. 175", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1937, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "211 N.C. 93", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624330 ], "year": 1937, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/211/0093-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 S.E. 2d 388", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1953, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "389" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "238 N.C. 535", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8612779 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1953, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "537" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/238/0535-01" ] }, { "cite": "232 S.E. 2d 648", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "292 N.C. 179", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567796 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/292/0179-01" ] }, { "cite": "241 S.E. 2d 105", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "35 N.C. App. 202", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548115 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/35/0202-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 N.C. 602", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683424 ], "year": 1880, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "evidence must not only implicate another, but also must be completely inconsistent with the guilt of the defendant" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/82/0602-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 N.C. 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2083709 ], "year": 1873, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/68/0158-01" ] }, { "cite": "257 S.E. 2d 468", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "470-71" }, { "page": "471" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "42 N.C. App. 637", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8555490 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "641" }, { "page": "641" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/42/0637-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 S.E. 2d 839", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "845" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 33", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8557615 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "41" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0033-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 585, "char_count": 9970, "ocr_confidence": 0.858, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.665549851731867e-08, "percentile": 0.5287899024228826 }, "sha256": "a6d7d53e67f4e4cc14396e84d29162ea9cff10274380b7b9b86c104bc033536e", "simhash": "1:17640666e67e35d6", "word_count": 1714 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T23:00:28.379499+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judge VAUGHN and Judge Wells concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RENEE MAKERSON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BECTON, Judge.\nDefendant makes four assignments of error, but only brings forward two on appeal. First, defendant assigns as error the trial judge\u2019s refusal to admit into evidence testimony presumably showing Robert Thomas\u2019 guilt, rather than the defendant\u2019s guilt. At trial, defendant\u2019s attorney attempted to elicit testimony of ill will existing between the deceased and Robert Thomas. On direct examination of defendant\u2019s mother, Margaret Makerson, the following transpired:\nQ. Do you know anything else about any problems that Robert Thomas might have had [with Jobie Miller]. . .\nMr. Leonard: Objection.\nThe Court: Sustained.\nThe witness\u2019 answer to this question was never placed in the record for review on appeal.\nAs pointed out in a recent decision of this court, \u201c[t]he law of this State with respect to the admissibility of evidence tending to show the guilt of one other than the accused has been described by our Supreme Court as being \u2018rather unsettled.\u2019 State v. Gaines, 283 N.C. 33, 41, 194 S.E. 2d 839, 845 (1973).\u201d State v. Britt, 42 N.C. App. 637, 641, 257 S.E. 2d 468, 470-71 (1979). For many years, the North Carolina Courts, as a general rule, prohibited a defendant from introducing evidence of another\u2019s guilt except in very specialized situations. See generally State v. White, 68 N.C. 158 (1873); State v. Baxter, 82 N.C. 602 (1880) (evidence must not only implicate another, but also must be completely inconsistent with the guilt of the defendant). This rule has consistently come under harsh criticism, and \u201cthe rule has been gradually whittled away so that it may fairly be said that today there is no special rule on the subject.\u201d 1 Stansbury \u00a7 93 at 302 (Brandis rev. 1973); see also Wigmore on Evidence, \u00a7\u00a7 139-142 (3d ed. 1940).\nThe rule of admissibility of evidence that someone other than the defendant committed the crime hinges on relevancy. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, \u201cthe admissibility of such evidence [of another\u2019s guilt] should depend upon its relevency in the case in which it is offered \u2014whether it logically tends to prove or disprove some material fact at issue in the particular case.\u201d State v. Britt, 42 N.C. App. at 641, 257 S.E. 2d at 471. See also State v. Gaines, 283 N.C. 33, 194 S.E. 2d 839 (1973); State v. Couch, 35 N.C. App. 202, 241 S.E. 2d 105 (1978); 1 Stansbury, supra, at \u00a7 93. In order to admit evidence of another person\u2019s guilt of the crime charged against the defendant, there must be some proof that the person is connected with the crime or proof of some sequence of facts or circumstances tending to implicate someone other than the accused. 1 Wharton\u2019s Criminal Evidence \u00a7 163 (13th ed. 1974).\nFrequently, defendants have attempted to show that another person had either the motive or the opportunity to commit the offense charged as a means of creating doubt in the jurors\u2019 minds concerning the defendant\u2019s guilt. North Carolina case law is replete, however, with decisions holding that mere evidence that one other than the defendant had a motive or the opportunity to commit the crime is not enough to make the evidence admissible. The theory of the courts has been that this evidence alone is too remote to be relevant. See State v. Jenkins, 292 N.C. 179, 232 S.E. 2d 648 (1977); State v. Shinn, 238 N.C. 535, 78 S.E. 2d 388 (1953); State v. Smith, 211 N.C. 93, 189 S.E. 175 (1937). The courts also have been clear that \u201c[e]vidence which can have no effect except to cast suspicion upon another or to raise a mere conjectural inference that the crime may have been committed by another, . . . is not admissible.\u201d 238 N.C. at 537, 78 S.E. 2d at 389; State v. Jones, 32 N.C. App. 408, 413, 232 S.E. 2d 475, 478, cert. denied, 292 N.C. 643, 235 S.E. 2d 63 (1977).\nIn the case at bar, no evidence had been introduced which linked Robert Thomas with the murder in any way. Counsel asked the question of defendant\u2019s mother in hopes of presenting evidence that Robert Thomas had a motive to commit the murder. However, absent any other evidence that Thomas might have committed the crime, the existence or nonexistence of his motive is inadmissible. 1 Wharton\u2019s Criminal Evidence, supra, at \u00a7 163. In this case, such an inquiry was too speculative and remote to permit it into evidence. The trial judge was therefore correct in sustaining the objection.\nThe defendant next argues that the trial judge erred in not permitting her to present evidence that she was willing to take a polygraph test and did in fact take a voice stress test. The results of the polygraph test and voice stress tests are not considered by the courts in this State to be reliable, and as such are generally not admissible. State v. Jackson, 287 N.C. 470, 215 S.E. 2d 123 (1975) (polygraph test); State v. Brunson, 287 N.C. 436, 215 S.E. 2d 94 (1975) (polygraph test); State v. Milano, 297 N.C. 485, 256 S.E. 2d 154 (1979) (stress evaluation tests). The results may be admitted if both the district attorney and the defendant agree to their admissibility by way of stipulation. State v. Jackson, supra; State v. Foye, 254 N.C. 704, 120 S.E. 2d 169 (1961). Since the results of the polygraph test and the stress test would not be admissible in this case, the facts that the defendant took a stress test and was willing to take a polygraph are simply not competent evidence and were therefore properly excluded by the trial judge.\nDefendant cites a few cases in which this court and the Supreme Court have found that not every reference to a polygraph test results in prejudicial error. State v. Kirkman, 293 N.C. 447, 238 S.E. 2d 456 (1977); State v. Montgomery, 291 N.C. 235, 229 S.E. 2d 904 (1976); State v. Williams, 279 N.C. 515, 184 S.E. 2d 282 (1971); State v. Heath, 25 N.C. App. 71, 212 S.E. 2d 400 (1975). These cases, however, do not suggest that polygraph tests and stress tests are, in any way, reliable. We subscribe to a strict enforcement of the general principle that all references to these tests should be kept from the hearing of the jury. If the results of the test are not competent evidence, then references to the tests are not relevant and should be held inadmissible, as was done in this case. For the foregoing reasons, we find\nNo Error.\nJudge VAUGHN and Judge Wells concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "BECTON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney General William R. Shenton, for the State.", "Robert G. Summey for the defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RENEE MAKERSON\nNo. 8029SC1005\n(Filed 19 May 1981)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 35\u2014 offense committed by another \u2014 evidence properly excluded\nThe trial court did not err in refusing to admit into evidence testimony presumably showing that a person other than defendant had committed the crime in question, where no evidence had been introduced which linked the third person with the crime in any way; counsel asked a question of defendant\u2019s mother in hopes of presenting evidence that the third person had a motive to commit the crime; absent any other evidence that the third person might have committed the crime, the existence or non-existence of his motive was inadmissible; and such an inquiry was too speculative and remote to permit it into evidence.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 62\u2014 polygraph test \u2014voice stress test \u2014 willingness of defendant to take \u2014 inadmissibility of evidence\nSince the results of a polygraph test and a voice stress test would not be admissible in this case, the fact that defendant took the stress test and was willing to take the polygraph test was not competent evidence and was therefore properly excluded by the trial judge.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Collier, Judge. Judgment entered 31 July 1980 in Superior Court, Rutherford County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 March 1981.\nDefendant was properly indicted on the charge of first degree murder. At the start of trial, the State announced its intention to seek a conviction for second degree murder or manslaughter. The jury returned a verdict of voluntary manslaughter, and the defendant was subsequently sentenced by the judge to a term in prison of not less than ten (10) nor more than fifteen (15) years.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that the defendant, Renee Makerson, and the deceased, Jobie Miller, had been drinking together from noon until midnight on 4 April 1980. Shortly after midnight, the two returned to Robert Thomas\u2019 house where Miller was staying. Thomas was already in bed when they arrived but overheard an argument between Miller and defendant. Defendant wanted three dollars from Miller in order to pay for a ride home, but Miller refused to give her any money. Thomas heard the defendant say to Miller, \u201cIf you don\u2019t give me $3.00, I\u2019m going to kill you.\u201d Defendant then tore Miller\u2019s shirt. Miller and defendant left Thomas\u2019 house and walked next door to the home of Lula Wilkins. Once at the Wilkins\u2019 house, Miller knocked on the door and said, \u201clet me in, Renee [Makerson] stabbed me.\u201d Inside the Wilkins\u2019 house, Miller lay down on the floor and died from a stab wound in the base of his throat. A subsequent police investigation revealed blood stains of the deceased running from the Thomas house porch, across the yard, to the Wilkins\u2019 house. A knife was found in the yard with blood stains matching the deceased\u2019s blood.\nDefendant\u2019s evidence tended to show, however, that she never threatened the deceased; that she waited for Miller outside Thomas\u2019 house for about a minute before they began walking over to Wilkins\u2019 house; that Miller did not appear stabbed prior to leaving the Thomas house; and that someone ran by them in the dark as they walked from Thomas\u2019 house to Wilkins\u2019 house. Defendant was not able to identify the person who ran by them in the yard because she did not have on her glasses, and it was dark. Defendant told the police that the stabbing must have occurred as they walked to the Wilkins\u2019 house, but that she did not stab the deceased.\nDefendant appeals from a verdict of guilty of voluntary manslaughter.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney General William R. Shenton, for the State.\nRobert G. Summey for the defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0149-01", "first_page_order": 177, "last_page_order": 181 }