{ "id": 8358185, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARLOUS R. ROBINSON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Robinson", "decision_date": "1986-10-21", "docket_number": "No. 864SC390", "first_page": "146", "last_page": "149", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "83 N.C. App. 146" } ], "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": "336 S.E. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "77 N.C. App. 622", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524699 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/77/0622-01" ] }, { "cite": "255 S.E. 2d 390", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 N.C. 349", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570297 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/297/0349-01" ] }, { "cite": "235 S.E. 2d 274", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "33 N.C. App. 317", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549514 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/33/0317-01" ] }, { "cite": "295 S.E. 2d 416", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 712", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573565 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0712-01" ] }, { "cite": "321 S.E. 2d 880", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 322", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4754958 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0322-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 404, "char_count": 6821, "ocr_confidence": 0.798, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.0147556491286856e-07, "percentile": 0.7446586654279844 }, "sha256": "226185b9c60bb97652ca940578bb632365bc1ba51ec6d37eca35a48237cfd55d", "simhash": "1:8fed08e2746214d8", "word_count": 1125 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:07:52.921422+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge Hedrick and Judge Orr concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARLOUS R. ROBINSON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendant contends the trial court erred in denying his request for a transcript of his sister\u2019s trial. We disagree.\nIt is established that all defendants, including indigent parties, are entitled to transcripts when appealing to a higher court or upon retrial when necessary for an effective defense. See State v. Reid, 312 N.C. 322, 321 S.E. 2d 880 (1984); State v. Rankin, 306 N.C. 712, 295 S.E. 2d 416 (1982); State v. McNeill, 33 N.C. App. 317, 235 S.E. 2d 274 (1977). Defendant, however, is asking for the transcript of another. There is no statute or precedent which requires that a defendant be given a transcript of another\u2019s trial, regardless of the fact that the other party is a codefendant. We decline to establish such a rule.\nDefendant next contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on acting in concert. Before the court can instruct the jury on the doctrine of acting in concert, the State must present evidence tending to show two factors: (1) that defendant was present at the scene of the crime, and (2) that he acted together with another who did acts necessary to constitute the crime pursuant to a common plan or purpose to commit the crime. State v. Joyner, 297 N.C. 349, 255 S.E. 2d 390 (1979); State v. Woods, 77 N.C. App. 622, 336 S.E. 2d 1 (1985). Defendant was with the deceased from the beginning of the \u201cceremony\u201d until he was declared dead by the rescue squad. Therefore, the first requirement is satisfied.\nDefendant argues that the second requirement is not met because there can be no common plan or scheme to commit a culpably negligent act. We disagree.\nThere was evidence that defendant and his sister choked Dennis James Taylor, Jr. until he was crying out and vomiting. These acts constitute culpable negligence. Defendant and his sister committed these culpably negligent acts pursuant to the common purpose of ridding the child of demons. The second requirement is satisfied. Because both requirements were met in the case sub judice, the trial court properly instructed the jury on acting in concert.\nDefendant next argues that the trial court erred in denying his request that the jury be instructed that Dennis James Taylor, Sr. was an interested witness. We disagree.\nThe trial court instructed the jury in the following manner:\nYou may find that a witness is interested in the outcome of this trial. In deciding whether or not to believe such a witness, you may take the interest of the witness into account. If after doing so you believe the testimony of the witness in whole or in part, you will treat that which you believe the same as any other believable evidence.\nWe find no error in the judge\u2019s instruction on this matter.\nDefendant lastly contends that the trial court erred in not allowing defendant\u2019s motion for judgment as of nonsuit or to dismiss the charges at the close of the State\u2019s evidence and at the close of all evidence and by denying defendant\u2019s motion to set aside the verdict. We have reviewed the contentions above and find them to be without merit.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Hedrick and Judge Orr concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ARNOLD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Special Deputy Attorney General Guy A. Hamlin, for the State.", "Billy G. Sandlin for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARLOUS R. ROBINSON\nNo. 864SC390\n(Filed 21 October 1986)\n1. Constitutional Law \u00a7 31\u2014 trial of defendant\u2019s sister \u2014 no right to transcript\nDefendant was not entitled to a transcript of his sister\u2019s trial, though they were charged with the same offense arising out of the same incident.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 113.7\u2014 acting in concert \u2014 instructions proper\nIn a prosecution of defendant for manslaughter which occurred during an exorcism, the trial court properly instructed the jury on acting in concert where the evidence tended to show that defendant was with deceased from the beginning of the \u201cceremony\" until he was declared dead by the rescue squad; defendant and his sister choked deceased until he was crying out and vomiting; and defendant and his sister committed these culpably negligent acts pursuant to the common purpose of ridding the child of demons.\n3. Criminal Law 8 117.2\u2014 interested witnesses \u2014 instructions proper\nIn a prosecution for manslaughter there was no merit to defendant\u2019s contention that the trial court erred in denying his request that the jury be instructed that the father of the victim was an interested witness, since the court properly instructed the jury on interested witnesses.\nAppeal by defendant from Stevens, Judge. Judgment entered 20 November 1985 in Superior Court, Onslow County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 September 1986.\nDefendant was charged in a proper bill of indictment with manslaughter concerning the death of four-and-a-half-year-old Dennis James Taylor, Jr. on 22 August 1985 in Jacksonville, North Carolina. The State presented evidence at trial which tended to show the following facts. Defendant, a sixteen-year-old self-proclaimed preacher and his twenty-one-year-old sister took the decedent and his mother at approximately nine o\u2019clock p.m. to a building which they were planning to use for a church. Defendant and his sister believed that the child was possessed by demons and that he was in need of an exorcism. After the boy\u2019s father arrived at the \u201cchurch,\u201d defendant and his sister performed a \u201cceremony\u201d which lasted until three o\u2019clock in the morning. During this ceremony, both the defendant and his sister grabbed the child by the neck and throat and shook him. The ceremony ended when the boy appeared limp and lifeless.\nAfterwards, everyone went to the Taylor home where the boy was bathed and there was more praying. Upon the father\u2019s announcement that he intended to call the rescue squad, defendant objected and instead suggested they call a minister who was a mutual friend. When the minister arrived he noticed the boy\u2019s lifeless appearance and he advised that the rescue squad be summoned.\nThe rescue squad determined the child to be dead. The authorities immediately were summoned. Later it was concluded that Dennis James Taylor, Jr. died of asphyxia brought about by manual strangulation.\nDefendant and his sister were both charged with involuntary manslaughter. Defendant\u2019s sister was tried earlier and convicted. On 13 November 1985, defendant filed a motion asking for a transcript of his sister\u2019s trial. Defendant also requested a continuance until the transcript could be obtained. The trial court denied this motion.\nAt the close of the State\u2019s evidence and again at the close of all evidence, defendant moved to dismiss the charges against him. The trial court denied these motions. Defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to five years imprisonment, to be served as a youthful offender. From this judgment, defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Special Deputy Attorney General Guy A. Hamlin, for the State.\nBilly G. Sandlin for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0146-01", "first_page_order": 174, "last_page_order": 177 }