{ "id": 8520382, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KEITH DALE WALKER", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Walker", "decision_date": "1982-03-02", "docket_number": "No. 8125SC867", "first_page": "237", "last_page": "240", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "56 N.C. App. 237" } ], "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": "237 S.E. 2d 822", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "826" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.C. 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564024 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "326" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/293/0321-01" ] }, { "cite": "260 S.E. 2d 567", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 N.C. 604", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573800 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/298/0604-01" ] }, { "cite": "252 S.E. 2d 745", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "754" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 607", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569806 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "620" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0607-01" ] }, { "cite": "245 S.E. 2d 686", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "691" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "295 N.C. 427", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563410 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "433" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/295/0427-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 25", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "31" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 160", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571742 ], "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "168" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0160-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 S.E. 71", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1921, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "72" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "182 N.C. 844", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659240 ], "year": 1921, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "905" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/182/0844-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 L.Ed. 2d 1210", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 S.Ct. 3210", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "428 U.S. 904", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6184738, 6185094, 6184392, 6185357, 6183598, 6183984, 6185553, 6184594, 6184179, 6183446, 6184922, 6183803 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/428/0904-08", "/us/428/0904-10", "/us/428/0904-06", "/us/428/0904-11", "/us/428/0904-02", "/us/428/0904-04", "/us/428/0904-12", "/us/428/0904-07", "/us/428/0904-05", "/us/428/0904-01", "/us/428/0904-09", "/us/428/0904-03" ] }, { "cite": "219 S.E. 2d 178", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "187" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "288 N.C. 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569503 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "411" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/288/0397-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 512, "char_count": 7081, "ocr_confidence": 0.83, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20548572522954042 }, "sha256": "0fc2191f89828873466164db955ca614b96af11d6f337ae937a167a3ecac6916", "simhash": "1:833fc02660170dfe", "word_count": 1195 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:44:21.707745+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Hedrick and Becton concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KEITH DALE WALKER" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HILL, Judge.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that on 21 June 1980, Randy Norman and his wife had a beer keg party at their house. Defendant was invited and arrived around noon. Robert Taylor Dickerson, the decedent, arrived around 4:30 or 5:00 p.m. Various witnesses testified that they saw or heard decedent arguing with Junior Sprouse and fighting with Jerry Morgan. Decedent was asked to leave the party since he had been causing fights all night. Terry Fleming escorted decedent to his car around 9:30 p.m. As they approached the cars, decedent swung his fist at Fleming but missed. Fleming, in turn, knocked decedent down. As Fleming was turning to go back to the party, defendant came by him. \u201cI heard a blast. I turned around and looked. . . . Dickerson was lying on the ground. Keith was standing there. Keith had a long gun in his hands.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s evidence tended to show that he talked to decedent\u2019s girlfriend and decedent told him, \u201c \u2018well, by God she\u2019s with me, you leave her alone or I\u2019ll stomp your ass.\u2019 \u201d Defendant did not encounter decedent again until he saw decedent fighting with Jerry Morgan. Defendant then decided to get his father\u2019s gun, which he had stored in Tony Fleming\u2019s truck, and go home. Upon looking for a ride, defendant saw Terry Fleming and another person \u201carguing, fighting like.\u201d Defendant testified that\nTerry was knocking him down then, and everything, and Terry started backing off from him, and turned to walk off. As Terry turned to walk off, the boy came up off the ground and started going toward his pocket, going into his pocket, and I shot him. I thought he was coming out with a gun or something to shoot me or Terry.\nIn his first argument, defendant contends that the trial judge erred in allowing certain testimony by Dr. John C. Reese, a pathologist, concerning his examination of decedent\u2019s wound. Over defendant\u2019s objection, Dr. Reese testified that in the wound he found \u201csmall fragments of metal and bone and fibra (phoneticaly) disks and bits of casing-like material,\u201d which he described as \u201cportions that we call the gun wadding and shell casing.\u201d Again, over defendant\u2019s objection, Dr. Reese stated, \u201cMy opinion is these are small shot that would be the type, a shotgun shell.\u201d Defendant argues that this testimony is opinion evidence \u201cmade by an expert witness upon matters that are not within the general scope or realm of his particular knowledge of his discipline,\u201d and therefore was erroneously admitted. We do not agree.\nIt is well established that \u201ca witness may state the \u2018instantaneous conclusions of the mind as to the appearance, condition, or mental or physical state of persons, animals, and things, derived from observation of a variety of facts presented to the senses at one and the same time.\u2019 Such statements are usually referred to as shorthand statements of facts.\u201d State v. Spaulding, 288 N.C. 397, 411, 219 S.E. 2d 178, 187 (1975), modified as to death sentence, 428 U.S. 904, 96 S.Ct. 3210, 49 L.Ed. 2d 1210 (1976), quoting State v. Skeen, 182 N.C. 844, 905, 109 S.E. 71, 72 (1921). See 1 Stansbury\u2019s N.C. Evidence (Brandis rev. 1973) \u00a7 125, p. 389; 4 Strong\u2019s N.C. Index 3d, Criminal Law \u00a7 71, p. 283. Under this rule, our Supreme Court has allowed a police officer\u2019s testimony that an article he saw in plain view \u201c \u2018is a burglary lock pick. I am not a locksmith and therefore I couldn\u2019t go into details on how it is used but I do recognize it as a burglary lock pick.\u2019 \u201d State v. Craddock, 272 N.C. 160, 168, 158 S.E. 2d 25, 31 (1967). We find that Dr. Reese\u2019s testimony is analagous to that in Craddock; it is an admissible shorthand statement of fact. Even so, Dr. Reese \u201cmay testify to facts which are within his own personal knowledge, and particularly so with regard to what [he] may have actually seen.\u201d State v. Hudson, 295 N.C. 427, 433, 245 S.E. 2d 686, 691 (1978). This argument is without merit.\nDefendant\u2019s second argument alleges that the trial judge erred in allowing testimony by witnesses for the State concerning statements made by defendant when the State had not disclosed the contents of such statements in defendant\u2019s discovery motion. G.S. 15A-903(a)(2) requires the prosecutor upon defendant\u2019s motion, \u201c[t]o divulge, in written or recorded form, the substance of any oral statement made by the defendant which the State intends to offer in evidence at the trial.\u201d In State v. Crews, 296 N.C. 607, 620, 252 S.E. 2d 745, 754 (1979), our Supreme Court interpreted this statute only \u201cto restrict a defendant\u2019s discovery of his oral statements to those made by him to persons acting on behalf of the State.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Defendant\u2019s statements to the State\u2019s witnesses in the case sub judice therefore are not included under G.S. 15A-903(a)(2). See State v. Detter, 298 N.C. 604, 260 S.E. 2d 567 (1979); see generally State v. Crews, supra.\nIn his final argument, defendant contends that the trial judge erred in denying his motions to dismiss. On a motion to dismiss,\nall of the evidence favorable to the State, whether competent or incompetent, must be considered, such evidence must be deemed true and considered in the light most favorable to the State, discrepancies and contradictions therein are disregarded and the State is entitled to every inference of fact which may be reasonably deduced therefrom.\nState v. Witherspoon, 293 N.C. 321, 326, 237 S.E. 2d 822, 826 (1977). See also 4 Strong\u2019s N.C. Index 3d, Criminal Law \u00a7 104, p. 541.\nOur review of the evidence, including that which is not detailed here, reveals that each element of second degree murder is evident in the State\u2019s case. Defendant\u2019s claim of self-defense is not supported by sufficient evidence to compel a dismissal of the charge.\nFor these reasons, in defendant\u2019s trial, we find\nNo error.\nJudges Hedrick and Becton concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HILL, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General William R. Shenton, for the State.", "Byrd, Triggs, Mull & Ledford, by Joe K. Byrd Jr., for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KEITH DALE WALKER\nNo. 8125SC867\n(Filed 2 March 1982)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 50.1\u2014 admissibility of opinion testimony by pathologist\nThe trial court did not err in allowing a pathologist to testify that fragments found in decedent\u2019s body were \u201csmall shot that would be the type, a shotgun shell.\u201d The testimony was admissible as a shorthand statement of fact.\n2. Constitutional Law \u00a7 30\u2014 defendant\u2019s statement to witnesses \u2014 pretrial discovery\nThe trial judge did not err in allowing testimony by witnesses for the State concerning statements made by defendants when the State had not disclosed contents of such statements in defendant\u2019s discovery motion as G.S. 15A-903(a)(2) only requires the prosecutor to divulge statements made by defendant to persons acting on behalf of the State.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Kirby, Judge. Judgment entered 12 September 1980 in Superior Court, BURKE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 February 1982.\nDefendant was indicted for first degree murder and was convicted of second degree murder. He appeals from a judgment of imprisonment.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General William R. Shenton, for the State.\nByrd, Triggs, Mull & Ledford, by Joe K. Byrd Jr., for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0237-01", "first_page_order": 269, "last_page_order": 272 }