{ "id": 8521056, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LARRY DARNELL ERBY", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Erby", "decision_date": "1982-03-16", "docket_number": "No. 8127SC1012", "first_page": "358", "last_page": "363", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "56 N.C. App. 358" } ], "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": "155 S.E. 2d 545", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562687 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "138 S.E. 2d 33", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "262 N.C. 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569321 ], "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/262/0534-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 S.E. 2d 198", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "270 N.C. 622", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569811 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/270/0622-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 L.Ed. 2d 761", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "408 U.S. 939", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1782720, 1782785, 1782912, 1782723, 1782762, 1782831, 1782832, 1782961, 1782833, 1782865, 1782868, 1782933, 1782941, 1782835, 1782936, 1782777, 1782813 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/408/0939-13", "/us/408/0939-10", "/us/408/0939-06", "/us/408/0939-16", "/us/408/0939-01", "/us/408/0939-05", "/us/408/0939-02", "/us/408/0939-08", "/us/408/0939-07", "/us/408/0939-17", "/us/408/0939-14", "/us/408/0939-15", "/us/408/0939-03", "/us/408/0939-12", "/us/408/0939-04", "/us/408/0939-11", "/us/408/0939-09" ] }, { "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 572", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 18", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565554 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "153 S.E. 2d 362", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "269 N.C. 679", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565618 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/269/0679-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 S.E. 2d 715", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1939, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "216 N.C. 538", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607852 ], "year": 1939, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/216/0538-01" ] }, { "cite": "257 S.E. 2d 391", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 N.C. 149", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568697 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/298/0149-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 604, "char_count": 11382, "ocr_confidence": 0.777, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.612448938495102e-07, "percentile": 0.8205708132018508 }, "sha256": "9674a27ccf4c94c912b24a36b07ea81d52d9f58a00518c92f31ab63e3b4328bb", "simhash": "1:4b2fce6f79722c27", "word_count": 1850 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:44:21.707745+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges MARTIN (Robert M.) and WHICHARD concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LARRY DARNELL ERBY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN (Harry C.), Judge.\nDefendant is entitled to a new trial. Of numerous assignments of error raised on appeal, all of which have merit, we will limit our discussion to those evidencing obvious error and prejudice to the defendant.\nOn direct examination of the defendant, he was asked the following question in an effort to offer an explanation as to why he was carrying a gun on the night of the shooting:\nQ. All right, and how did it [the gun] come to be in your right front pocket?\nA. The night before, we had some trouble down there. Some guys was shooting\u2014\nDistrict Attorney: Objection.\nCOURT: Sustained. Members of the jury, you will not consider the last statement made by the defendant about anything that may have happened the night before.\nOn cross-examination defendant was asked why he was carrying a gun on that night and he stated, \u201cBecause we had some trouble down there where I live.\u201d The testimony was allowed. The district attorney, however, chose not to pursue this line of questioning.\nDefendant, on redirect examination, again attempted to explain the circumstances that led him to carry the gun:\nQ. The district attorney also asked you why you came to have the gun in your pocket on that Friday night, September 27th.\nA. Yes.\nQ. All right, and you told him because there had been some trouble in front of your house?\nA. Yeah.\nQ. Well, explain that to the jury.\nDistrict Attorney: Objection.\nCOURT: Sustained.\nOn the state\u2019s cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned the defendant extensively concerning the fact that he entered the Uganda Club carrying a loaded gun. The implication was that the defendant was \u201clooking for trouble.\u201d (In the words of Judge Davis during a voir dire examination: \u201cA man leaves his house armed with a gun goes out looking for trouble. ... He just cold-bloodedly killed a man . . ..\u201d)\nContrary to the state\u2019s contention that the testimony would be irrelevant, we find the excluded evidence would have shed light on defendant\u2019s self-defense claim. The state opened the door to this line of questioning on cross-examination and argued that the self-defense claim was not credible because defendant was carrying a loaded gun. Defendant was entitled to rebut this argument and to fully present his defenses within reasonable limits. See State v. Spaulding, 298 N.C. 149, 257 S.E. 2d 391 (1979).\nOn cross-examination of the state\u2019s witness Doretha Coles, Judge Davis sustained the prosecutor\u2019s objection when defense counsel asked Miss Coles if she was in love with the decedent. Miss Coles\u2019s testimony was damaging to defendant\u2019s defense of self-defense and in direct conflict with defendant\u2019s version of the events. The purpose of the question was to impeach the witness for bias, a circumstance to be considered in determining the weight given to her testimony. The existence of bias may be shown by the intimate relationship of the witness to the decedent. 1 Stansbury\u2019s N.C. Evidence \u00a7 45 (Brandis rev. 1973); State v. Spaulding, 216 N.C. 538, 5 S.E. 2d 715 (1939). The exclusion of this testimony was error and defendant was prejudiced thereby.\nOn cross-examination of defense witness Wallace, the prosecutor sought to impeach his testimony by questioning him concerning a prior inconsistent statement he made to police on the night of the shooting. Defense attorney objected and requested a limiting instruction. The objection was overruled and the request denied. The court also failed to so instruct during its charge to the jury.\nIn North Carolina it is established law that prior inconsistent statements are not admissible as substantive evidence, but may be introduced for the jury\u2019s consideration in determining the witness\u2019s credibility. 1 Stansbury, supra, \u00a7 46. Defendant was entitled, upon request, to have the evidence limited to the purpose for which it was competent. Id. \u00a7 79; State v. Norkett, 269 N.C. 679, 153 S.E. 2d 362 (1967). The court\u2019s complete failure to give the requested limiting instruction constitutes reversible error.\nJudge Davis sustained the state\u2019s objections to the testimony of defense witness Patrolman Bess with respect to defendant\u2019s prior consistent statements which were offered to corroborate his trial testimony. Patrolman Bess overheard statements made by the defendant while he was talking to his mother-in-law over the telephone at the police station. These statements included: \u201cHe start [sic] raising sand and went in his pocket\u201d; \u201cWhat am I suppose to do \u2014 get cut?\u201d; \u201cHe didn\u2019t have no business going in his pocket on me.\u201d The statements were consistent with defendant\u2019s trial testimony that he acted in self-defense \u2014 he believed that he was going to be attacked with a weapon when he saw the deceased reach into his pocket. Where the testimony offered to corroborate a witness does so substantially, it is not rendered incompetent because there is some variation. State v. Westbrook, 279 N.C. 18, 181 S.E. 2d 572 (1971), death sentence vacated, 408 U.S. 939, 33 L.Ed. 2d 761 (1972). The court, after conducting voir dire, concluded that the statements did not materially corroborate defendant\u2019s testimony. This was error.\nThe admissibility of prior consistent statements has been reaffirmed by our courts on numerous occasions. See 1 Stansbury, supra, \u00a7 51. The fact that defendant never testified as to the substance of the telephone call is not a relevant factor. State v. McLawhorn, 270 N.C. 622, 155 S.E. 2d 198 (1967). In Walker v. Baking Co., 262 N.C. 534, 138 S.E. 2d 33 (1964), it was held reversible error to exclude the testimony of a highway patrolman as to prior consistent statements of a party witness. Likewise, we so hold.\nFinally, defendant assigns as error Judge Davis\u2019s denial of his right to present closing arguments to the jury. Defendant contends that he was given less than two hours to argue, in violation of N.C.G.S. 84-14; that he was denied two addresses to the jury, in violation of N.C.G.S. 84-14; that Judge Davis denied his motion to recess for the day at 4:20 p.m. and begin closing arguments in the morning, as well as his motion for a ten-minute recess to prepare his argument.\nBoth sides rested their cases at approximately 4:15 on the afternoon in question. The record discloses that neither party was prepared to begin closing arguments at this time. The district attorney waived his opening argument, and the record essentially substantiates defendant\u2019s contentions. Defendant alleged in his motion to be permitted to make a jury argument the next morning that he began his argument at 4:45 p.m. and argued until approximately 5:45 p.m., and that throughout his argument there was evidence that the jury was extremely fatigued. Judge Davis found that \u201cboth these allegations [were] false and erroneous.\u201d The record contains no notation of what time defendant did, in fact, conclude his argument. The only evidence in the record that defendant argued past 5:00 p.m. was Judge Davis\u2019s statement that \u201c[w]e would not have [gone past 5:00] had your argument not lasted past that time.\u201d Although it seems highly unlikely, considering the late hour of the day, that defendant argued for a full two hours, we are reluctant to find a violation of N.C.G.S. 84-14 in the absence of recorded proof.\nFinally, we hold that it appears from the record that the trial court considered irrelevant and improper matters in the sentencing hearing and in imposing sentence. See State v. Swinney, 271 N.C. 130, 155 S.E. 2d 545 (1967).\nTaken separately as well as cumulatively, these errors require a\nNew trial.\nJudges MARTIN (Robert M.) and WHICHARD concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN (Harry C.), Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General T. Buie Costen, for the State.", "Assistant Appellate Defender James H. Gold for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LARRY DARNELL ERBY\nNo. 8127SC1012\n(Filed 16 March 1982)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 33, 87.4; Homicide \u00a7 19\u2014 self-defense \u2014 relevancy of carrying loaded gun \u2014 questions on redirect improperly excluded\nIn a prosecution concerning a homicide where the defendant alleged self-defense, the trial court erred in failing to allow defendant, on redirect examination, to explain the circumstances that led him to carry a gun on the night he shot decedent since (1) the prosecution had cross-examined him extensively concerning the fact he carried a loaded gun, and (2) the excluded evidence would have shed light on defendant\u2019s self-defense claim.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 89.6\u2014 impeachment \u2014 intimate relationship of witness to decedent\nThe trial court erred in a prosecution concerning a homicide when it failed to allow defense counsel to ask a witness if she was in love with decedent as the existence of bias may be shown by the intimate relationship of the witness to the decedent.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 89.4\u2014 inconsistent statement of witness \u2014 failure to give limiting instruction\nThe court\u2019s failure to give a requested limiting instruction concerning a prior inconsistent statement a witness made to police constituted reversible error.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 86.6\u2014 prior consistent statement of defendant \u2014 exclusion reversible error\nThe trial court erred in sustaining objections to testimony of a defense witness who had heard defendant talk to his mother-in-law over the telephone at the police station. The statements were consistent with defendant\u2019s trial testimony that he acted in self-defense, and they should have been admitted as corroborating his testimony.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 102\u2014 denial of opportunity to give two hour closing argument \u2014 only one address to jury\nDefendant failed to show a violation of G.S. 84-14 where he argued that the trial judge denied his motion to recess for the day at 4:20 p.m. and begin closing arguments in the morning, as well as his motion for a ten-minute recess to prepare his argument, where the record contained no notation of what time defendant did, in fact, conclude his argument.\nAppeal by defendant from Davis, Judge. Judgment entered 19 February 1981 in Superior Court, GASTON County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 March 1982.\nDefendant appeals from his conviction of voluntary manslaughter and from a sentence of imprisonment for a maximum term of twenty years and a minimum term of eighteen years.\nThis case involves the shooting death of James Ernest Walls on 27 September 1980. The incident occurred at the Uganda Club in Gaston County and was the result of an argument between the defendant and the deceased. The defendant claimed self-defense.\nNumerous witnesses testified at trial, including the defendant and the deceased\u2019s girlfriend, Doretha Coles, whose differing versions of the events leading up to the shooting represent the essential conflict in the testimony. Both versions are corroborated by testimony of other witnesses.\nMiss Coles testified that the defendant threatened to kill the deceased and the deceased replied, \u201cKill me.\u201d Almost immediately the defendant shot the deceased. The deceased never threatened the defendant, never went into his pocket, and never approached the defendant before he was shot.\nDefendant testified that the deceased began walking toward him with his right hand in his pocket, threatening to kill him. The defendant took several steps back, then reached into his pocket for the gun and shot the deceased.\nAfter the shooting, the police found a knife in the deceased\u2019s right front pants pocket. The blade was locked in an open position.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General T. Buie Costen, for the State.\nAssistant Appellate Defender James H. Gold for defendant." }, "file_name": "0358-01", "first_page_order": 390, "last_page_order": 395 }