{ "id": 8522213, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEPHEN D. HARRIS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Harris", "decision_date": "1983-04-05", "docket_number": "No. 8212SC1021", "first_page": "527", "last_page": "530", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "61 N.C. App. 527" } ], "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": "206 S.E. 2d 866", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 595", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566817, 8566858, 8566746, 8566716, 8566782 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0595-04", "/nc/285/0595-05", "/nc/285/0595-02", "/nc/285/0595-01", "/nc/285/0595-03" ] }, { "cite": "204 S.E. 2d 537", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "540" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "21 N.C. App. 374", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8556114 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "379" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/21/0374-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 S.E. 2d 232", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1943, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "238" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 697", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616001 ], "year": 1943, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "704" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0697-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 S.Ct. 2283", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 L.Ed. 2d 859", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "403 U.S. 948", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12043280, 12043226 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/403/0948-02", "/us/403/0948-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 S.E. 2d 241", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "256" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 288", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558608 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0288-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 502, "char_count": 8842, "ocr_confidence": 0.83, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20550503137441603 }, "sha256": "0783eb6d6b2b75dbad0d4b14c918f0f3b70c9e089cb15d20429712bbfc3c4886", "simhash": "1:c1bda1766b43e0a9", "word_count": 1466 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:13:54.976609+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Arnold and Phillips concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEPHEN D. HARRIS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BECTON, Judge.\nThe record and transcripts before this Court reveal that defendant was indicted for a number of armed robberies that occurred during December 1980 and January 1981. The matter on appeal involves the armed robbery of $250 from a Taco Bell in Fayetteville on 8 January 1981. Prior to trials on this offense and on three of the other robberies, defendant filed a paperwriting entitled \u201cMotion for Dismissal of Charges by Reason of Insanity.\u201d He alleged therein that during 1980 he began to display \u201can apparent psychological change.\u201d Defendant alleged that in August 1980 he suffered a nervous breakdown apparently because of his relationship with one Song Sun Barnett. Soon after his breakdown, he attempted to kill himself, Ms. Barnett and a third person by detonating an explosive device. The attempt was unsuccessful when a wire connecting the device to the detonator was severed. Defendant alleged that he then began writing worthless checks and spending his off-duty time on Hay Street in Fayette-ville. He had learned that his former girlfriend was a topless dancer, and he began contemplating killing her and himself.\nThe trial court accepted this motion as a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. Thereafter, during the week of 29 March 1982, defendant was found guilty on three counts of armed robbery. The next week, the trial for armed robbery of the Taco Bell began. The State presented evidence that on the evening of 8 January 1981 defendant entered a Taco Bell on Raeford Road in Fayetteville. The cashier observed a gun in defendant\u2019s pants. Defendant told the cashier to turn around, to tell the other employees to lie on the floor and to place the money in a bag. After the cashier carried out these instructions, defendant fled from the restaurant with approximately $250.\nThe sole evidence for the defense consisted of defendant\u2019s testimony. He admitted that on 29 December 1980 he and a friend robbed Baldino\u2019s Sub Shop in Fayetteville; and that over the next 20 days they robbed 13 other Fayetteville establishments. Defendant then informed the jury that he had pleaded the defense of insanity at his earlier trial. A statement, that was allegedly given to his public defender in March 1981, was marked as an exhibit. The following exchange took place:\nMr. HARRIS: There are four pages to this statement. There were, I believe, ten when I originally wrote this statement. The first part of the statement spoke of an alleged attempted bombing and nervous breakdown and series of\u2014\nMr. DeSilva (Assistant District Attorney): Your Honor, I \u2014 it doesn\u2019t go to the issue of the robbery of the Taco Bell on January the 8th, 1981.\nCOURT: Sustained. Exception No. 3\nThe defendant now contends that the court erroneously sustained the State\u2019s objection to this testimony and thereby denied him his constitutional right to present evidence relevant to his insanity defense. We find no error here.\nIn North Carolina, when a defendant pleads insanity as a defense, the test is his capacity to distinguish between right and wrong at the time of and with respect to the matter under investigation. State v. Atkinson, 275 N.C. 288, 167 S.E. 2d 241 (1969), death penalty vacated, 403 U.S. 948, 29 L.Ed. 2d 859, 91 S.Ct. 2283 (1971). \u201cEvidence tending to show the mental condition of the accused, both before and after the commission of the act, is competent provided it bears such relation to the defendant\u2019s condition of mind at the time of the alleged crime as to be worthy of consideration in respect thereto.\u201d Id. at 314, 167 S.E. 2d at 256.\nIn the case sub judice, the trial court properly sustained the State\u2019s objection to defendant\u2019s testimony regarding a statement he gave to his public defender, because at that time defendant had not shown any relation between that evidence and his mental condition on 8 January 1981. The court\u2019s ruling did not bar defendant from presenting evidence which would establish such a relationship, and the record reveals that defendant never made this showing. Defendant argues that since the court was already familiar with the relevancy of his excluded testimony no showing was necessary. He stresses that the relevancy of the attempted bombing and breakdown was reflected in the allegations of his motion to dismiss by reason of insanity. This argument fails on two grounds. First, the motion shows on its face that it was filed in cases against defendant, other than the one at issue. The case number for the Taco Bell robbery occurring on 8 January 1981 is not among those typed on the motion. Secondly, assuming arguen-do that the motion applies to the present case, the allegations therein do not show that defendant\u2019s mental condition on the evening of 8 January 1981 was such that he could not distinguish between right or wrong. \u201cOne who would shelter himself under a plea of insanity must satisfy the jury of his inability to distinguish between right and wrong at the time of and in relation to the alleged criminal act.\u201d State v. Harris, 223 N.C. 697, 704, 28 S.E. 2d 232, 238 (1943). Defendant has not met this burden.\nDefendant also assigns error to the court allowing him to represent himself, on the basis that he did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive his right to counsel. At the arraignment hearing, defendant informed the court that he wished to dismiss his court-appointed counsel and represent himself. The court granted his request, and defendant then signed a sworn waiver of his right to have assigned counsel. Pursuant to this waiver, defendant represented to the court the following: \u201cThat he has been informed of the charges against him, the nature thereof, and the statutory punishment therefor, or the nature of the proceeding, of the right to assignment of counsel, and the consequences of a waiver, all of which he fully understands.\u201d The trial judge then executed a certificate indicating that defendant had been fully informed of these matters. Defendant now argues, notwithstanding the signed waiver, that the transcript of the arraignment hearing shows that he was never made aware of the permissible sentences for armed robbery or the consequences of waiving counsel.\nIn State v. Watson, 21 N.C. App. 374, 379, 204 S.E. 2d 537, 540, cert. denied, 285 N.C. 595, 206 S.E. 2d 866 (1974), this Court held that \u201c[t]he waiver in writing once given was good and sufficient until the proceeding finally terminated, unless the defendant himself makes known to the court that he desires to withdraw the waiver and have counsel assigned to him.\u201d Defendant never indicated that he desired to withdraw this waiver. Furthermore, in light of the facts (i) that the week before this trial defendant represented himself, was found guilty of three counts of armed robbery, and received three sentences of eighty years to life; and (ii) that his court-appointed attorney was dismissed but retained as standby counsel during both the earlier trial and the trial on which this appeal is based, we find no merit in defendant\u2019s argument.\nNo error.\nJudges Arnold and Phillips concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "BECTON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Robert G. Webb, for the State.", "Appellate Defender Adam Stein, by Assistant Appellate Defender Marc D. Towler, for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEPHEN D. HARRIS\nNo. 8212SC1021\n(Filed 5 April 1983)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 63\u2014 evidence concerning sanity of defendant \u2014 not pertinent to capacity of defendant at time of crime\nThe trial court did not err in failing to allow the defendant to testify concerning his mental condition where his testimony did not concern his mental condition on the evening of the crime in question.\n2. Constitutional Law \u00a7 49\u2014 waiver of right to counsel \u2014 informed of consequences\nWhere defendant signed a sworn waiver of his right to assigned counsel and where pursuant to this waiver, defendant represented to the court \u201cThat he had been informed of the charges against him, the nature thereof, and the statutory punishment therefor, or the nature of the proceeding, of the right to assignment of counsel, and the consequences of a waiver, all of which he fully [understood],\u201d and where the defendant never indicated that he desired to withdraw the waiver, there was no merit to defendant\u2019s argument that he did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive his right to counsel.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Bowen, Judge. Judgment entered 6 April 1982 in Superior Court, Cumberland County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 March 1983.\nDefendant was found guilty of armed robbery and sentenced to a minimum term of 80 years and maximum term of life imprisonment. On appeal he assigns error to the court\u2019s exclusion of his testimony regarding his mental condition during the months preceding the robbery and the court\u2019s acceptance of his waiver of assigned counsel.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Robert G. Webb, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Adam Stein, by Assistant Appellate Defender Marc D. Towler, for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0527-01", "first_page_order": 559, "last_page_order": 562 }