{
  "id": 8527632,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JO ANN G. BURGESS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Burgess",
  "decision_date": "1985-09-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 847SC1141",
  "first_page": "534",
  "last_page": "536",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "76 N.C. App. 534"
    }
  ],
  "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": "296 S.E. 2d 261",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 N.C. 79",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560661
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/307/0079-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 280,
    "char_count": 4705,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.832,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.46765605076141e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2801101531402024
    },
    "sha256": "2e63792c9e648dfa7a65d0444fd66eedbe7250d5dcb349811cddd97c28985854",
    "simhash": "1:1774b63ebe24b1ee",
    "word_count": 779
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:57.071049+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Hedrick and Judge Cozort concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JO ANN G. BURGESS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nThe defendant contends the trial court committed prejudicial error by allowing the District Attorney in his closing argument to bring to the jury\u2019s attention the fact that there was no evidence that the deceased had a criminal record. We agree, and award defendant a new trial.\nAt trial the defendant offered substantial evidence tending to show that the deceased had a reputation of being mean and violent. In his closing argument the District Attorney, over timely objection of defense counsel, was allowed to argue to the jury that no evidence had been introduced to show that the deceased had ever been convicted of any crime which would show that he was a mean and violent person.\nEvidence of prior conviction of a deceased person is not admissible to show that a deceased has a reputation for violence. State v. Corn, 307 N.C. 79, 296 S.E. 2d 261 (1982). It was, therefore, improper to permit the District Attorney to argue to the jury regarding the lack of evidence of the deceased\u2019s criminal record.\nHaving determined that it was error to allow the District Attorney to make the complained of argument, we now must determine whether such error was prejudicial. G.S. 15A-1443 provides in part that \u201c[a] defendant is prejudiced by errors relating to rights arising other than under the Constitution of the United States when there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial out of which the appeal arises.\u201d The appellant\u2019s only defense was that she acted in self-defense, and she attempted to prove this by showing that she was afraid of him because he was a violent and mean person. The District Attorney\u2019s method of attacking this theory of defense was to raise the question of why the deceased\u2019s record was not introduced to prove deceased\u2019s violent character. There is a reasonable possibility that this improper argument convinced the jury to discount defendant\u2019s self-defense contentions. Therefore, we hold the error to be prejudicial and award defendant a\nNew trial.\nChief Judge Hedrick and Judge Cozort concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Associate Attorney J. Mark Payne, for the State.",
      "Farris and Farris, by Robert A. Farris, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JO ANN G. BURGESS\nNo. 847SC1141\n(Filed 3 September 1985)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 102.6; Homicide \u00a7 19.1\u2014 murder \u2014self-defense\u2014jury argument concerning record of decedent improper\nIn a prosecution in which defendant relied on self-defense and was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, the trial court erred by allowing the district attorney in his closing argument to bring to the jury\u2019s attention the fact that there was no evidence that the deceased had a criminal record. Evidence of prior convictions of a deceased person is not admissible to show that a deceased has a reputation for violence and it was therefore improper to argue to the jury regarding the lack of evidence of the deceased\u2019s criminal record. Moreover, the error was prejudicial because defendant\u2019s only defense was that she acted in self-defense and she attempted to prove this by showing that she was afraid of decedent because he was a violent and mean person. There is a reasonable possibility that the State\u2019s improper argument convinced the jury to discount defendant\u2019s self-defense contentions. G.S. 15A-1443.\nAppeal by defendant from Tillery, Judge. Judgment entered 6 June 1984 in Superior Court, WILSON County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 August 1985.\nDefendant was charged in a proper bill of indictment with s\u00e9cond degree murder. At trial the State offered evidence which tended to show the following: On 27 November 1983, the defendant and the victim, her estranged husband, met at the Strawberry Lounge to discuss their son. At some point in the evening the couple quarreled and the defendant left the club. Later the defendant returned to the club and told the doorman that she had shot her husband. The deceased\u2019s body was found beside the defendant\u2019s vehicle. Cause of death was determined to be a gunshot wound.\nThe defendant offered evidence which tended to show that as she was leaving the nightclub the deceased followed her to the car, leaned inside and began to choke her. She struggled with him and during the struggle she retrieved a pistol from her purse and shot him. She also offered evidence that the deceased had beaten her in the past, had threatened to kill her and that he had a reputation as being a mean and violent person.\nThe jury convicted the defendant of voluntary manslaughter, and from a judgment sentencing her to the presumptive term of six years imprisonment, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Associate Attorney J. Mark Payne, for the State.\nFarris and Farris, by Robert A. Farris, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0534-01",
  "first_page_order": 568,
  "last_page_order": 570
}
