{ "id": 8525316, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. OBADIAH JAY STAFFORD", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Stafford", "decision_date": "1984-02-07", "docket_number": "No. 8321SC726", "first_page": "440", "last_page": "444", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "66 N.C. App. 440" } ], "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": "210 S.E. 2d 59", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 339", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566243, 8566276, 8566310, 8566348, 8566382 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0339-01", "/nc/286/0339-02", "/nc/286/0339-03", "/nc/286/0339-04", "/nc/286/0339-05" ] }, { "cite": "208 S.E. 2d 206", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "210" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "23 N.C. App. 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8547675 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "57" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/23/0052-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 S.Ct. 1481", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "18 L.Ed. 2d 593", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "386 U.S. 1032", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6375843, 6376489, 6376329, 6376846, 6377008, 6375988 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/386/1032-01", "/us/386/1032-04", "/us/386/1032-03", "/us/386/1032-05", "/us/386/1032-06", "/us/386/1032-02" ] }, { "cite": "151 S.E. 2d 596", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "598" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "268 N.C. 659", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564638 ], "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "662" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/268/0659-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 S.E. 2d 461", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "464" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 475", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626914 ], "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "479" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/254/0475-01" ] }, { "cite": "247 S.E. 2d 905", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "915", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "916" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "295 N.C. 559", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566309 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "577", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/295/0559-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 523, "char_count": 8203, "ocr_confidence": 0.788, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20555078693777126 }, "sha256": "1ebb4490eca98c02cdaf74cca276e4687a41304524ac8911cc2205abbdf29417", "simhash": "1:9773c2ae8b420468", "word_count": 1401 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:15:19.573584+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges HILL and EAGLES concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. OBADIAH JAY STAFFORD" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s Assignment of Error Nos. 1 and 3-5 raise the question whether the evidence was sufficient to require submission of the case to the jury and to support the verdict of second degree murder. The evidence adduced at trial by the State tended to show the following:\nOn 2 September 1982 the defendant, known as \u201cBuddy\u201d Stafford, and the deceased, David Willard, went to the home of Andy Holcomb. Mr. Holcomb, testifying for the State, stated that the deceased became angry at the defendant, \u201csort of slapped Buddy around,\u201d and \u201ctold him if you\u2019re lying to me, I\u2019m going to kill you.\u201d The defendant persuaded Mr. Holcomb to accompany him to the deceased\u2019s house, claiming to be afraid of the deceased. When the trio left Mr. Holcomb\u2019s house, the witness put a pistol in the car, \u201cbecause after I saw him slap Buddy around ... I figured he was a dangerous fellow.\u201d He informed the defendant of the location of the gun.\nWhen they arrived at the victim\u2019s house, according to the witness, the deceased took the keys to the ignition and refused to return them. Following an altercation, the deceased put a knife to the witness\u2019s throat and threatened to kill him. The witness testified to what followed:\n[A]t that time Buddy pulled the gun out from the floorboard and told David to drop the knife and throw us the keys and David made out like he was trying to be friendly with Buddy and everything and he threw the knife toward Buddy and he said I don\u2019t want the knife, I want the keys because I want to leave and he picked up the knife and he was walking toward Buddy and Buddy kept backing up the whole time and he told David to stop and throw him the keys and David said just stay here, we\u2019ll go off tonight and then Buddy fired a shot in the air and David was still walking toward him and he said Buddy, put the gun up and Buddy said I want the keys and we\u2019ll leave and then he took another step and that\u2019s when Buddy shot over David\u2019s head again and at that point, he sort of run or lunged or whatever you want to call it, at Buddy and when he was about six feet away from Buddy, Buddy shot him and I guess after that, David hit the ground, he fell back behind the car we was in and Buddy had cocked it again and pulled the trigger and he got up beside his foot so that made four shots fired in all. . . .\nThe defendant then dragged the body of the deceased \u201cten or fifteen feet\u201d \u201cout of the way,\u201d and left the crime scene. Both made formal statements that, while generally consistent with Mr. Holcomb\u2019s testimony, contained several discrepancies.\nOther evidence presented by the State was to the effect that Mr. Willard \u201cwas violent and very mean\u201d \u201cwhen he was drinking,\u201d and that he had been drinking heavily on the night of the shooting. The testimony of several witnesses suggested that the victim did not possess the knife later found at the scene of the crime. A pathologist who performed an autopsy on the victim testified \u201cthat the bullet came from behind . . . and from a little above the head . . . and went forward.\u201d He also testified that if the victim had \u201cbeen on his knees at the time he was shot,\u201d that would have been \u201cconsistent with the wound that he received\u201d and \u201cwith the path of the bullet.\u201d\n\u201cMurder in the second degree is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice but without premeditation and deliberation.\u201d State v. Wilkerson, 295 N.C. 559, 577, 247 S.E. 2d 905, 915 (1978) (citations omitted). \u201c[M]alice is not restricted to spite or enmity toward a particular person. It also denotes a wrongful act intentionally done without just cause or excuse. . . .\u201d Id. at 578, 247 S.E. 2d at 916.\nDefendant contends that \u201cthe State\u2019s evidence in the case at issue negated the existence of an unlawful killing\u201d because \u201c[a]ll the evidence tends to show\u201d that the defendant acted in self-defense. It is true, as defendant asserts, that a motion to dismiss should be granted \u201cwhen the State\u2019s evidence and that of the defendant is to the same effect, and tend only to exculpate the defendant.\u201d State v. Carter, 254 N.C. 475, 479, 119 S.E. 2d 461, 464 (1961). Such are not the facts of this case, however. While there was evidence tending to show that defendant acted in self-defense, there was also substantial circumstantial evidence tending to show an intentional shooting done without legal excuse. \u201cThe credibility and sufficiency of defendant\u2019s evidence to establish his plea of self-defense were for the jury to evaluate in the light of the court\u2019s instructions.\u201d State v. Smith, 268 N.C. 659, 662, 151 S.E. 2d 596, 598 (1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1032, 18 L.Ed. 2d 593, 87 S.Ct. 1481 (1967). Accordingly, we find no error in the refusal of the trial court to dismiss the charge against the defendant.\nDefendant next contends that the court \u201ccommitted prejudicial error by admitting into evidence a tape recorded conversation between defendant and investigating officer.\u201d Defendant attacks admission of the recording on two grounds: he first argues that the State \u201cfailed to establish a proper chain of custody,\u201d and, second, that the recording impermissibly repeated in the rebuttal phase of the trial evidence brought out during the State\u2019s case in chief.\nThe record discloses that the tape recording in question contained the formal statement made by defendant to arresting officers after he was taken into custody. A transcript of the recording was admitted into evidence without objection during the State\u2019s case in chief. The contents of the statement are generally consistent with defendant\u2019s claim that he acted in self-defense.\nWe do not believe the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting the recording into evidence. In regard to defendant\u2019s first asserted ground for exclusion of the recording, we note defendant\u2019s objection at trial: \u201c[h]e\u2019s already read the statement that\u2019s made from this tape.\u201d No mention of \u201cchain of custody\u201d was made at that time. \u201cA specific objection, if overruled, will be effective only to the extent of the grounds specified.\u201d 1 Brandis on North Carolina Evidence Sec. 27 (2d rev. ed. 1982). Nor do we find merit in defendant\u2019s argument that the repetition of testimony might have caused the jury to give \u201cundue weight ... to that evidence.\u201d As defendant concedes, \u201cthe question of rebuttal testimony is generally subject to the sound discretion of the trial court,\u201d and \u201cwill not be interfered with unless it is abused.\u201d State v. Johnson, 23 N.C. App. 52, 57, 208 S.E. 2d 206, 210, cert. denied, 286 N.C. 339, 210 S.E. 2d 59 (1974). Under these circumstances, where the evidence admitted was largely exculpatory, we think it quite clear that there was no such abuse of discretion.\nNo error.\nJudges HILL and EAGLES concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HEDRICK, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Thomas H. Davis, Jr., for the State.", "White and Crumpler, by Fred G. Crumpler, Jr., and David R. Crawford, for defendant, appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. OBADIAH JAY STAFFORD\nNo. 8321SC726\n(Filed 7 February 1984)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 21.7\u2014 second degree murder \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThere was substantial circumstantial evidence tending to show an intentional shooting done without legal excuse so as to support submission of an issue of second degree murder to the jury, although there was also evidence tending to show that defendant acted in self-defense.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 39\u2014 admission of tape on rebuttal \u2014 transcript admitted during case in chief \u2014 no abuse of discretion\nAlthough a transcript of a tape recording of a conversation between defendant and the investigating officer was admitted into evidence during the State\u2019s case in chief, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the tape recording into evidence in the rebuttal phase of the trial where the tape recording was largely exculpatory.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Mills, Judge. Judgment entered 2 February 1983 in Superior Court, FORSYTH County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 January 1984.\nDefendant was charged in a proper bill of indictment with second degree murder and found guilty as charged. From a judgment entered on the verdict imposing the presumptive prison sentence of fifteen years, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Thomas H. Davis, Jr., for the State.\nWhite and Crumpler, by Fred G. Crumpler, Jr., and David R. Crawford, for defendant, appellant." }, "file_name": "0440-01", "first_page_order": 472, "last_page_order": 476 }