{ "id": 12167448, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES RAY KIMBRELL", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Kimbrell", "decision_date": "1987-01-20", "docket_number": "No. 8622SC545", "first_page": "59", "last_page": "67", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "84 N.C. App. 59" } ], "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": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-258.1", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-17", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "300 S.E. 2d 689", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 584", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565300 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0584-01" ] }, { "cite": "310 S.E. 2d 123", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 N.C. App. 751", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525785 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/65/0751-01" ] }, { "cite": "431 U.S. 916", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1729, 1731, 2025, 1737, 1995, 2155, 1943, 1978, 2171, 1661, 1983 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/431/0916-03", "/us/431/0916-04", "/us/431/0916-08", "/us/431/0916-01", "/us/431/0916-10", "/us/431/0916-02", "/us/431/0916-06", "/us/431/0916-09", "/us/431/0916-05", "/us/431/0916-11", "/us/431/0916-07" ] }, { "cite": "230 S.E. 2d 390", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "291 N.C. 253", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8557872 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/291/0253-01" ] }, { "cite": "224 S.E. 2d 702", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 N.C. App. 457", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8556272 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/29/0457-01" ] }, { "cite": "272 S.E. 2d 128", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 N.C. 407", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567847 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/301/0407-01" ] }, { "cite": "340 S.E. 2d 84", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 N.C. 626", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4714364 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/315/0626-01" ] }, { "cite": "347 S.E. 2d 414", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "318 N.C. 237", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4734405 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/318/0237-01" ] }, { "cite": "340 S.E. 2d 350", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 N.C. 762", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4714140 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/315/0762-01" ] }, { "cite": "329 S.E. 2d 381", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "313 N.C. 499", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4723698 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/313/0499-01" ] }, { "cite": "321 S.E. 2d 564", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "71 N.C. App. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523647 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/71/0001-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 765, "char_count": 15423, "ocr_confidence": 0.882, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08, "percentile": 0.43788942907482253 }, "sha256": "161a1115f9c3d3aafd801216003c6d50e3ce3c8cc72884afd3e6794478da81ef", "simhash": "1:82add06bf2779c32", "word_count": 2543 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T23:00:23.119892+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES RAY KIMBRELL" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nDefendant contends the court erred in allowing the State to cross-examine him about his knowledge and participation in \u201cdevil worshipping.\u201d Defendant also contends that the court erred in allowing the State to cross-examine him about his son\u2019s attempt to \u201csneak\u201d or \u201csmuggle\u201d marijuana to him while defendant was being held in custody. For the reasons below, we hold that the court erred in both instances by permitting such questioning, but that these errors were not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial in light of the substantial evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt.\nAfter defendant\u2019s arrest, he made a statement while in custody in which he referred to his knowledge of and participation in \u201cblack magic\u201d with a group that included Ricky Norman and others. The State\u2019s cross-examination of defendant was based, in part, on this prior statement. Defendant\u2019s cross-examination proceeded, in pertinent part, as follows:\nQ. Have you done any devil worshipping?\nA. No, sir.\nMR. KLASS: Object.\nThe COURT: Overruled.\nMR. ZIMMERMAN: Thank you.\nQ. Have you ever been to any ceremonies?\nA. No, sir.\nQ. Have you seen things at night?\nA. No, sir.\nQ. Birds, hawks, dogs, a number of things?\nA. No, sir.\nQ. You don\u2019t recall telling Special Agent Leggett of the SBI that you saw those things?\nA. No, sir.\nQ. \u201cI saw a goat head made out of brass in the vision\u201d?\nMR. LOHR: Objection.\nThe COURT: Overruled.\nQ. And you and Luther on Friday the 13th \u2014April, Friday the 13th, you-all were supposed to go to a seance, isn\u2019t that right?\nA. That\u2019s what Bobby Tucker said.\nQ. Huh?\nA. That\u2019s what Curtis Robert Tucker said.\nQ. Well, you were supposed to go, weren\u2019t you?\nMR. LOHR: Objection.\nTHE COURT: Overruled.\nA. I was invited.\nTHE COURT: You may answer the question.\nA. (continuing) I was invited to it, and when I got up on Main Street to go down toward Luther\u2019s house I seen some police officers going down towards Luther\u2019s, and I kept going straight.\nQ. A police officer?\nA. I seen two carloads going down towards Luther\u2019s.\nQ. And of course that scared you?\nA. Yes, sir.\nQ. Did you tell them you wanted to show them something that Bob and Luther gave you about some little swords \u2014 some little bitty swords, something about they had power?\nA. That\u2019s what they told me.\nMR. LOHR: Objection.\nThe COURT: Overruled.\nQ. Go ahead. What? Answer the question. You\u2019ve got to answer the question.\nA. I told them about the swords, yes, sir. I wasn\u2019t talking about myself, I was explaining about Luther Flynn at the time, if you\u2019ll remember.\nQ. You had one of these black magic bibles, too, didn\u2019t you?\nA. No, sir.\nMr. LOHR: Objection.\nTHE COURT: Overruled.\nQ. Who had the bible? Who had the bible?\nA. Luther Flynn had the bible.\nQ. Had he ever read any of it to you?\nA. Yes, sir.\nMR. LOHR: Objection. Objection.\nThe COURT: Overruled.\nQ. Were Ricky and Pam Norman involved in this black magic stuff?\nA. I don\u2019t know, sir.\nQ. What did that consist of? Worshipping the devil?\nMR. LOHR: Objection.\nTHE COURT: Overruled.\nA. I don\u2019t know, sir.\nQ. What did that black bible Luther had have to say about it?\nMR. LOHR: Objection.\nTHE COURT: Overruled.\nQ. You can answer.\nA. It\u2019s just a bunch of words. I don\u2019t know. I didn\u2019t pay any attention to it.\nThe State contends that this evidence was admissible under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 608(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, which provides that:\n(b) Specific instances of conduct. \u2014 Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting his credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided in Rule 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1) concerning his character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or (2) concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness being cross-examined has testified.\nThe State argues that \u201cdefendant\u2019s involvement and belief in \u2018devil-worshipping\u2019 is conduct directly related to the issue of his truthfulness since \u2018devil-worship\u2019 is by definition, glorification of the archetypal embodiment of evil and deceit.\u201d However, Rule 610 expressly provides that:\nEvidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature his credibility is impaired or enhanced; provided, however, such evidence may be admitted for the purpose of showing interest or bias.\nAccordingly, even assuming that this evidence was probative of defendant\u2019s veracity as the State contends, it was nevertheless inadmissible under Rule 610 for that purpose. Cf. State v. Reilly, 71 N.C. App. 1, 321 S.E. 2d 564 (1984), aff'd on other grounds, 313 N.C. 499, 329 S.E. 2d 381 (1985) and 1 Brandis, North Carolina Evidence \u00a7 55 (1983 Supp.).\nThe commentary to Rule 610 provides that \u201c[e]vidence probative of something other than veracity is not prohibited by the rule.\u201d In this regard the State contends that this evidence was admissible to show motive and identity under Rule 404(b). Specifically, the State contends that this evidence supported its theory that defendant and the Normans \u201cwere involved in a group tied together by drug dealings, black magic and other illicit activities, and that defendant was motivated to have the Normans killed after he was \u2018cast out\u2019 of the group and the Normans interfered] with [his] drug business.\u201d\nHowever, even assuming that this evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b) to show motive, \u201cthe determination must be made whether the danger of undue prejudice outweighs the probative value of the evidence in view of the availability of other means of proof and other factors appropriate for making decisions of this kind under Rule 403.\u201d State v. DeLeonardo, 315 N.C. 762, 340 S.E. 2d 350 (1986).\nWe hold that this evidence was inadmissible to show motive under Rule 403 in that its potential for undue prejudice to defendant clearly outweighed its nominal probative value. Prior to defendant\u2019s cross-examination, the State presented substantial evidence of defendant\u2019s primary motivation for having the Normans killed: that Ricky Norman owed defendant money for drugs and was interfering with his drug business. The fact that defendant and the Normans all belonged to a group in which the members participated in \u201cblack magic\u201d and from which defendant felt \u201ccast out\u201d does not support defendant\u2019s primary motivation for having the Normans killed according to the State\u2019s theory in its case in chief. Rather, this evidence, if anything, merely furnished the State with an additional possible motive for defendant\u2019s actions.\nAt the same time, as defendant stresses, accusations or insinuations of participation in \u201cdevil worship\u201d clearly carry with them a great potential for prejudicial impact on defendant\u2019s credibility. This potential for prejudice is evidenced, in part, by the prohibitions established by Rule 610.\nThe State essentially concedes that evidence of defendant\u2019s son\u2019s attempt to smuggle marijuana to him was inadmissible under Rule 608(b) but argues that defendant has failed to show prejudicial error. The impermissible cross-examination in this instance and regarding the references to \u201cdevil worship\u201d would constitute reversible error if it could be shown that \u201ca reasonable possibility that, had the error[s] in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached. . . .\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1443(a); State v. Scott, 318 N.C. 237, 347 S.E. 2d 414 (1986).\nWe hold, however, that there is no reasonable possibility that had these errors not been committed, a different result would have been reached at trial and that the error was harmless in the light of the other evidence properly admitted at the trial. State v. Morgan, 315 N.C. 626, 340 S.E. 2d 84 (1986). The State, through the testimony of James and Donna Hunt, presented substantial evidence that defendant was an accessory before the fact in that he was absent from the scene when the killings were committed but he participated in the planning or contemplation of the killings in such a way as to counsel, procure or command the Hunts to commit them. See State v. Small, 301 N.C. 407, 272 S.E. 2d 128 (1980).\nDefendant contends that the court erred in finding as a non-statutory aggravating factor in sentencing defendant for each conviction that defendant\ndispensed cocaine to the principals, James Clay and Donna Hunt, in substantial quantity while inducing them to kill and murder the two (2) victims; he likewise promised to forgive a debt of approximately $1,200.00 from Clay Hunt and a debt of approximately $600.00 from Donna Hunt; the defendant furnished a knife and a pistol, \u201c.357 Magnum,\u201d to the principals to use in the crime; and finally, the principals who were solicited and procured by the defendant committed murder in the act of robbery and without any legal provocation.\nDefendant contends that use of this factor to aggravate his sentences for being an accessory before the fact to the murders of Ricky Norman and Pamela Norman is prohibited by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.4(a)(l), which provides that \u201c[ejvidence necessary to prove an element of the offense may not be used to prove any factor in aggravation. . . .\u201d We agree. This evidence clearly was necessary to show that defendant \u201cparticipated in the planning or contemplation of the crime in such a way as to \u2018counsel, procure, or command\u2019 the principals] to commit it.\u201d Small, supra. See also State v. Sauls, 29 N.C. App. 457, 224 S.E. 2d 702, rev\u2019d on other grounds, 291 N.C. 253, 230 S.E. 2d 390 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 916 (1977). (An accessory before the fact is one who furnishes the means to carry on the crime through the agency of or in connection with the perpetrator, who is a confederate, who instigates a crime.)\nWe have stated previously:\nBasic to the letter and spirit of the Fair Sentencing Act is that circumstances that are inherent in the crime convicted of may not be used as aggravating factors in order to increase the punishment beyond what the Legislature has set for the offense involved. ... If these sentences could be enlarged because of the same facts that caused them to be established in the first place, the Legislature\u2019s judgment in the matter would be of no effect.\nState v. Coffey, 65 N.C. App. 751, 310 S.E. 2d 123 (1984).\nFor the foregoing reasons, we hold that use of this evidence as an aggravating factor to enhance defendant\u2019s sentences was improper under G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.4(a)(l). Both cases thus must be remanded for new sentencing hearings. State v. Ahearn, 307 N.C. 584, 300 S.E. 2d 689 (1983).\nIn Nos. 85CRS151 and 85CRS152, no error in the trial, remanded for resentencing.\nJudge ORR concurs.\nJudge BECTON dissents.\nJudge BECTON dissenting.\nBelieving the evidence connecting defendant with a sect of devil worshippers, who practiced \u201cblack magic,\u201d cast spells and used satanic bibles, was irremediably prejudicial, I dissent.\nIn this case, the relative veracity of the State\u2019s two accomplice witnesses and the defendant was critical. Both the two co-defendants turned state\u2019s evidence confessed to murdering and robbing the Normans. Both were admitted drug addicts with prior criminal records. I cannot confidently assume that they would have been more worthy of belief that defendant absent the overreaching by the District Attorney whose questions were designed to arouse the passion and prejudice of the jury. I, therefore, believe the error was harmful, not harmless.", "type": "majority", "author": "WELLS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Luden Capone III, for the State.", "Appellate Defender Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., by Assistant Appellate Defender David W. Dorey, for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES RAY KIMBRELL\nNo. 8622SC545\n(Filed 20 January 1987)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 34.2\u2014 improper questions about other misconduct \u2014 error not prejudicial\nIn a prosecution of defendant for being an accessory before the fact to second degree murder, the trial court erred in allowing the State to cross-examine defendant about his knowledge and participation in \u201cdevil wor-shipping\u201d and about his son\u2019s attempt to smuggle marijuana to him while defendant was being held in custody, but such errors were not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial in light of the substantial evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt. N.C.G.S. 8C-1, Rules 403, 608(b) and 610.\n2. Homicide \u00a7 31.7\u2014 accessory before the fact to second degree murder \u2014evidence to prove offense improperly used to prove aggravating factor\nIn a prosecution of defendant for being an accessory before the fact to second degree murder, the trial court erred in finding as an aggravating factor that defendant dispensed cocaine to the principals, promised to forgive their drug debts, and furnished them with murder weapons, since this same evidence was necessary to prove the offense itself and could not also be used to prove a factor in aggravation.\nJudge Becton dissenting.\nAppeal by defendant from Washington, Judge. Judgments entered 14 November 1985 in DAVIDSON County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 November 1986.\nDefendant was charged and tried on two counts of being an accessory before the fact to second degree murder under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-17. The State\u2019s evidence tended to show, in pertinent part, that:\nFrom early 1983 through May 1984, James Hunt had been selling cocaine and dilaudids which defendant supplied to him. On five or six occasions defendant asked Hunt if he would like to make some more money by killing someone for him. Defendant explained that he wanted James to kill Ricky Norman because Ricky owed him a lot of money for drugs.\nOn 18 May 1984, Hunt and his sister, Donna Hunt, visited defendant\u2019s residence to \u201cshoot dope.\u201d Defendant was \u201cmad\u201d at James because James owed him approximately $1,200. Defendant nevertheless supplied the Hunts with free narcotics, and the three \u201cshot dope\u201d late into the evening, at which time defendant again raised the subject of killing Ricky Norman. Defendant offered to forgive James\u2019 debt of $1,200 if James would kill Norman. Defendant indicated that James should also kill Norman\u2019s wife, Pam, if she were present, \u201cbecause she\u2019d be a witness.\u201d\nAt defendant\u2019s behest, James Hunt and his sister went to the Norman residence, armed with a knife supplied by defendant, but they found no one at home. The Hunts returned to defendant\u2019s house, where defendant gave James a handgun. The Hunts again went to the Norman residence. The Normans were home this time, and James shot and killed them both. James also took Ricky Norman\u2019s wallet, which contained approximately $1,500.\nThe Hunts were subsequently arrested and agreed to testify against defendant pursuant to plea agreements.\nDefendant testified on his own behalf at trial. On cross-examination the State was permitted to question defendant about his knowledge and participation in \u201cdevil worship.\u201d The State was also permitted to cross-examine defendant about an attempt by defendant\u2019s son to sneak marijuana to him in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-258.1(a) while defendant was being held in custody.\nThe jury returned verdicts of guilty of two counts of accessory before the fact to second degree murder. From judgments of imprisonment, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Luden Capone III, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., by Assistant Appellate Defender David W. Dorey, for defendant." }, "file_name": "0059-01", "first_page_order": 87, "last_page_order": 95 }