{ "id": 8522183, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES A. WATKINS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Watkins", "decision_date": "1985-10-15", "docket_number": "No. 8512SC38", "first_page": "325", "last_page": "332", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "77 N.C. App. 325" } ], "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": "139 S.E. 232", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1927, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 N.C. 670", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2217725 ], "year": 1927, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/193/0670-01" ] }, { "cite": "389 U.S. 865", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11374915, 11375246, 11375058, 11375123, 11375411, 11374868, 11374995, 11375186, 11375325 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/389/0865-02", "/us/389/0865-07", "/us/389/0865-04", "/us/389/0865-05", "/us/389/0865-09", "/us/389/0865-01", "/us/389/0865-03", "/us/389/0865-06", "/us/389/0865-08" ] }, { "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 4", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 576", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565553 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0576-01" ] }, { "cite": "298 S.E. 2d 631", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562282 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0321-01" ] }, { "cite": "272 S.E. 2d 842", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 N.C. 607", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569847 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/301/0607-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 604, "char_count": 14007, "ocr_confidence": 0.821, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.2055048383129673 }, "sha256": "d33d9744b4e15e7da344a5114fabe8f2cb48dc403270da05f42104c72133150b", "simhash": "1:cf281a02e21a8e5a", "word_count": 2371 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:01.691260+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Johnson and Parker concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES A. WATKINS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nI\nThe defendant first contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting Susan Moss\u2019 testimony that she had been in defendant\u2019s home before this incident. We disagree.\nThe defendant complains about the following exchange during the State\u2019s examination of the social worker, Susan Moss.\nQ. Did you know Mr. Watkins prior to March 9?\nA. Yes. I did.\nQ. How long have you known Mr. Watkins?\nA. For about a month, several weeks.\nQ. Had you had occasion to be in his household before?\nMr. Hughes: Objection.\nCourt: Overruled.\nA. Yes. I did.\nMr. Hughes: Move to strike.\nCourt: Denied.\nQ. When was that?\nA. In February.\nMr. Hughes: Objection. Move to strike.\nCourt: Overruled and denied.\nDefendant contends that the question of whether the social worker had been in defendant\u2019s home before the date of Rhonda Monroe\u2019s injuries was totally irrelevant to any material issue of fact in the trial and was highly prejudicial. Evidence that has no logical tendency to prove a fact in issue is inadmissible. Its admission, however, will not be reversible error unless it misleads the jury or prejudices the opponent. H. Brandis, Brandis on North Carolina Evidence, Section 77 (rev. 2d ed. 1982). The defendant is entitled to a new trial only if the trial errors were material and prejudicial. State v. Billups, 301 N.C. 607, 272 S.E. 2d 842 (1981). The defendant has the burden of proving prejudice and in order to show prejudice the defendant must meet the requirements of G.S. 15A-1443(a). State v. Alston, 307 N.C. 321, 298 S.E. 2d 631 (1983). G.S. 15A-1443(a) provides:\nA 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. The burden of showing such prejudice under this subsection is upon the defendant. Prejudice also exists in any instance in which it is deemed to exist as a matter of law or error is deemed reversible per se.\nIn this case the defendant failed to carry his burden of showing prejudice by the admission of the social worker\u2019s statements. There is no reasonable possibility that the outcome of the trial would have been different had these statements not been allowed in evidence.\nThe record on appeal and the transcript contain sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant\u2019s conviction while disregarding the statements of the witness complained of here. The defendant stated that he was home alone with the child when she received her injuries. The defendant\u2019s explanation that he found the child holding onto the faucet with both hands is completely inconsistent with her injuries. The child\u2019s palms were burned and covered with blisters that evidenced no tears in the skin. The medical expert testified that she would not have been able to hold onto the faucet with such severe burns and that, had she in fact done so, the gripping action would have ripped the burned skin from her palms. The injuries were consistent with the hands being immersed into hot liquid. The expert stated that in his medical opinion the burns were caused by someone holding the child\u2019s hands in hot liquid. Further, the defendant made inconsistent statements concerning his familiarity with the location of the water heater. Footprints matching his were on the ground next to the water heater. Scratches on the screwheads holding the panel covering the water heater indicated that the panel had been removed at some time before Detective Harris visited the defendant\u2019s residence. Fragments of insulation identical to the insulation covering the walls around the water heater were found lying on the ground near the panel.\nWe believe the evidence is sufficient to sustain the defendant\u2019s conviction notwithstanding the admission into evidence of the irrelevant statements by the social worker. We do not believe that a different verdict would have resulted if the complained of testimony had been excluded. Defendant\u2019s first assignment of error is overruled.\nII\nDefendant\u2019s second and third assignments of error allege error in the admission of certain testimony of State\u2019s witness Nurse Nancy Payne. Defendant contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error by overruling his objection to Nurse Payne\u2019s statement that she \u201cgot sick\u201d during the child\u2019s treatment and in denying his motion to strike her testimony that she had to hold the child down during treatment. We disagree.\nThe defendant complains about the following exchange during the State\u2019s examination of Nurse Payne.\nQ. Did you have occasion to participate in the treatment of Rhonda Monroe during the time she was in the hospital?\nA. Yes. I did.\nQ. Can you describe what course of treatment or treatments were followed during the time she was in the hospital?\nA. After all the dead tissue was removed, she was taken to the physical therapy department. And her hands were put in the whirlpool to help remove all the dead tissue.\nQ. When you say the dead tissue was removed, can you tell the jury how that was done?\nA. It was done by a surgeon and I holding her down and him chipping away skin and pulling it off.\nQ. Was there any pain involved in that?\nA. Yes. There was.\nQ. Were you yourself involved in that procedure?\nA. Yes. I was.\nQ. What did you do?\nA. I got sick.\nMr. Hughes: Objection.\nCourt: Overruled.\nA. I had to hold her down.\nMr. Hughes: Move to strike the answer.\nCourt: Denied.\nThe defendant argues that the witness\u2019 response that she \u201cgot sick\u201d was irrelevant, unresponsive and highly prejudicial. He also argues that the response \u201cI had to hold her [Rhonda] down\u201d was repetitive and highly prejudicial. The defendant has not demonstrated any prejudice except to assert that it existed.\nThe transcript of this exchange makes it clear that the answer \u201cI got sick\u201d was not responsive to the State\u2019s question. Defendant argues that the response \u201cI got sick\u201d leaves the impression that the witness was coached to give that answer. While the response is irrelevant to the issues at trial, it appears to have been an honest statement by the witness as to what she did during the child\u2019s treatment.\nThe second statement \u201cI had to hold her down\u201d immediately followed defense counsel\u2019s objection and the court\u2019s ruling on the objection and motion to strike. There was no new question asked of the witness at that time. The same testimony as to the nurse\u2019s role in holding the child down while the doctor chipped away skin and pulled it off was previously admitted without objection. State v. Jarrett, 271 N.C. 576, 157 S.E. 2d 4, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 865 (1967); Shelton v. Southern Railway Co., 193 N.C. 670, 139 S.E. 232 (1927). While the answer was repetitive, its repetition did not prejudice the defendant. Accordingly, these assignments of error are overruled.\nFrom a review of the record we conclude that the defendant received a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Johnson and Parker concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "EAGLES, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Robert E. Cansler, for the State.", "Assistant Public Defender Staples Hughes, for the defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES A. WATKINS\nNo. 8512SC38\n(Filed 15 October 1985)\n1. Parent and Child \u00a7 2.2; Criminal Law \u00a7 169.5\u2014 felonious child abuse \u2014evidence that social worker previously in defendant\u2019s home \u2014 no prejudicial error\nThere was no prejudice in an action for felonious child abuse in the admission of testimony that a social worker had previously had occasion to be in defendant\u2019s household where there was evidence that defendant was home alone with the child when she received her injuries, defendant\u2019s explanation that he found the child holding onto the faucet with both hands was completely inconsistent with her injuries, the injuries were consistent with the hands being immersed into hot liquid, expert medical testimony was that the burns were caused by someone holding the child\u2019s hands in hot liquid, and defendant made inconsistent statements concerning his familiarity with the location of the water heater. There was sufficient evidence to sustain defendant\u2019s conviction while disregarding the statements of the witness complained of here. G.S. 15A-1443(a).\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 169.5\u2014 felonious child abuse \u2014 unresponsive answer by nurse \u2014 no prejudicial error\nThere was no prejudicial error in an action for felonious child abuse where a nurse treating the victim stated that she got sick when asked what she did during the child\u2019s treatment for burns, then stated that she had to hold the child down immediately after defense counsel objected and the court ruled on the objection. The witness\u2019s response that she got sick was not responsive to the State\u2019s question and was irrelevant to the issues at trial, but was an honest statement by the witness as to what she did during the child\u2019s treatment, and the testimony as to the nurse\u2019s role in holding the child down while the doctor chipped away skin and pulled it off was previously admitted without objection.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Herring, Judge. Judgment entered 19 September 1984 in Superior Court, HOKE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 September 1985.\nDefendant was convicted of felonious child abuse in violation of G.S. 14-318.4.\nThe essential facts are:\nOn 9 March 1984 Susan Moss, a social worker supervisor with the Hoke County Department of Social Services, received a report of child abuse involving Rhonda Monroe. Rhonda Monroe was the three-year-old daughter of Bernice Monroe. She lived part time with her mother and the defendant at the Meadow Wood Mobile Home Park. Upon receiving this report Ms. Moss visited Rhonda\u2019s home accompanied by Detective Harris of the Hoke County Sheriffs Department. Ms. Moss\u2019 duties as a social worker involved investigating complaints of child abuse and neglect. The defendant was home alone at the residence when visited by Ms. Moss and Detective Harris.\nMs. Moss told the defendant that she was investigating a report of child abuse. She asked him to tell her how the child was burned. The defendant explained that the child\u2019s mother had gone to work and that he and the child were at home alone. He stated that the child was sitting at the table eating and that she asked to wash her hands. He got up to go to the bathroom. When he was coming out of the bathroom, he heard her cry out \u201cHot!\u201d and then heard a chair fall to the floor. He stated that the child had pulled her chair up to the sink to wash her hands and that when he got into the kitchen she was gripping the faucet with both hands to prevent herself from falling. The sink was approximately one-half full of hot water. The defendant went to a neighbor\u2019s house to call the child\u2019s mother at work. Ms. Monroe came home and took the child to see a doctor. The doctor told Ms. Monroe to take her to the hospital and she took her to Cape Fear Valley Medical Center.\nMs. Moss asked the defendant\u2019s permission to check the hot water temperature and asked him to show her the hot water heater. He stated that he did not know where it was but he thought it was in the bathroom. Ms. Moss, Detective Harris and the defendant went into the bathroom but the hot water heater was not there. They walked outside the mobile home to an area outside the bathroom that appeared to contain the heater. Detective Harris noticed fresh shoe prints in the ground around the area underneath the water heater. The shoe prints matched the soles of the shoes the defendant was wearing that day. There were pieces of fiberglass insulation lying on the ground. The water heater was found behind a panel on the outside of the mobile home. The panel was secured to the structure by several screws. Detective Harris testified that there were scratches around the screwheads that were consistent with them having been removed and replaced. The hot water heater was surrounded by fiberglass insulation in the wall. When asked about the footprints, the defendant stated that he had been working on a water leak. The hot water temperature was set at 165 degrees.\nNurse Payne of the Cape Fear Valley Medical Center testified that Rhonda Monroe was treated for second and third degree burns of the hands. Ms. Payne described the burns as glove type burns that covered both hands with a \u201cvery even\u201d line around each wrist. There were no splash marks on the child\u2019s skin. The child was hospitalized for approximately one month.\nWhen Rhonda was released from the hospital, Ms. Moss took her to see Dr. Townsend, the pediatric medical examiner of Hoke County. Based on his seven years experience as pediatric medical examiner and his having examined twenty or thirty cases of suspected child abuse, the court permitted Dr. Townsend to testify at trial as an expert in the area of child medical examination. Dr. Townsend examined Rhonda and the photographs taken of her hands while she was under treatment at the hospital. Dr. Townsend characterized the burns as \u201cemergent type burns,\u201d the kind received when some part of the body is \u201cstuck down into hot liquid.\u201d He described the burns as \u201cclean burns\u201d of \u201cglove type distribution\u201d as if the hands were \u201cstuck down into the water down to the wrist\u201d with \u201cno splash or uneven burns up above.\u201d Dr. Townsend stated that the injuries were not consistent with falling in the water because of the lack of splash marks. Further, Dr. Townsend stated that the burns were not consistent with the child holding onto the kitchen faucet because the severity of the burns was such that if the child had done that the skin would have been torn off of her palms. The photographs showed large blisters on the child\u2019s palms with no tears in the skin. Dr. Townsend stated that in his opinion the burns were typical of someone holding the child\u2019s hands in hot liquid.\nThe defendant offered no evidence. From a judgment imposing a sentence of five years, the defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Robert E. Cansler, for the State.\nAssistant Public Defender Staples Hughes, for the defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0325-01", "first_page_order": 357, "last_page_order": 364 }