{
  "id": 8527107,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARROLL DEAN BROOKS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Brooks",
  "decision_date": "1984-05-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 8327SC1065",
  "first_page": "298",
  "last_page": "300",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "68 N.C. App. 298"
    }
  ],
  "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": "301 S.E. 2d 421",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 N.C. App. 572",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522623
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/61/0572-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 220,
    "char_count": 3401,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.801,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2055841865684061
    },
    "sha256": "b1adb42bc15377cad36a7e52bfdc24bd96f3e1686f630fb0b0aaac6c8d692051",
    "simhash": "1:55f7a43a2f632ce5",
    "word_count": 536
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:24:21.303361+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WEBB and Becton concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARROLL DEAN BROOKS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nDefendant assigns as error the trial judge\u2019s failure to find mitigating factors at the resentencing hearing. Defendant contends that the sentencing judge improperly refused to consider the existence of two mitigating factors because he felt that defendant\u2019s plea of not guilty prohibited his receiving evidence in support of the mitigating factors. We agree that this was error.\nAt the resentencing hearing, defendant\u2019s attorney asked the judge to consider as a mitigating factor, pursuant to G.S. 15A-1340.4(a)(2)(i), that defendant acted under strong provocation or the relationship between the victim and defendant was extenuating. The judge responded: \u201cHow can you have a mitigating factor that he acted under strong provocation when he says he didn\u2019t even do it?\u201d Then, defendant\u2019s attorney requested that the judge consider, pursuant to G.S. 15A-1340.4(a)(2)(b), that defendant committed the offense under duress, coercion, threat or compulsion, which was insufficient to constitute a defense but significantly reduced his culpability. The judge replied:\nI just can\u2019t assimilate a situation where a person says he\u2019s not guilty \u2014 that he was somewhere else \u2014 that he didn\u2019t do it \u2014 and then say, well, give me credit for a mitigating factor because even though I didn\u2019t do it, I was under duress, coercion, threat or compulsion.\nWe hold that the sentencing judge was operating under a misapprehension of the law in foreclosing consideration of evidence in support of these statutory mitigating factors because he felt that defendant\u2019s plea of not guilty prohibited such consideration. The sentencing judge cannot, as a matter of law, refuse to consider mitigating factors after a jury has determined that defendant committed the crime, even though defendant presented an alibi defense at the guilt determination stage of the trial.\nRemand for resentencing.\nJudges WEBB and Becton concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EAGLES, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General James E. Magner, Jr., for the State.",
      "Appellate Defender Adam Stein, by Assistant Appellate Defender Lorinzo L. Joyner, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARROLL DEAN BROOKS\nNo. 8327SC1065\n(Filed 1 May 1984)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 138\u2014 mitigating factors \u2014 refusal to consider because of not guilty plea\nThe trial judge could not, as a matter of law, refuse to consider evidence of the mitigating factors that defendant acted under strong provocation and that he committed the offense under duress or coercion because defendant pled not guilty and presented an alibi defense. G.S. 15A-1340.4(a)(2)(b)(i).\nAPPEAL by defendant from Grist, Judge. Judgment entered 16 May 1983 in Superior Court, LINCOLN County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 March 1984.\nIn 1982, defendant was tried on charges of discharging a firearm into occupied property. Defendant presented an alibi defense, but he was found guilty and sentenced to a 5 year prison term. Defendant appealed, and this court found error in defendant\u2019s sentencing and remanded the case for resentencing. State v. Brooks, 61 N.C. App. 572, 301 S.E. 2d 421 (1983).\nOn 16 May 1983, the resentencing hearing was held, and arguments of counsel in support of aggravating and mitigating factors were heard. The judge found one aggravating factor and no mitigating factors and sentenced defendant to a 5 year prison term, two years more than the presumptive term. Defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General James E. Magner, Jr., for the State.\nAppellate Defender Adam Stein, by Assistant Appellate Defender Lorinzo L. Joyner, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0298-01",
  "first_page_order": 330,
  "last_page_order": 332
}