{ "id": 8526591, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES GORDON PARKS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Parks", "decision_date": "1988-12-06", "docket_number": "No. 8821SC634", "first_page": "181", "last_page": "187", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "92 N.C. App. 181" } ], "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": "259 S.E. 2d 297", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 N.C. 699", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573944, 8573889, 8573908, 8573927 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/297/0699-04", "/nc/297/0699-01", "/nc/297/0699-02", "/nc/297/0699-03" ] }, { "cite": "254 S.E. 2d 649", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "653" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "41 N.C. App. 287", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548979 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "291" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/41/0287-01" ] }, { "cite": "337 S.E. 2d 786", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4715685 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/315/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "227 S.E. 2d 390", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "303 N.C. 112", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571552 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/303/0112-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 588, "char_count": 11484, "ocr_confidence": 0.832, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.279034880960449e-07, "percentile": 0.7847621618094337 }, "sha256": "ffd5fcac24f812b0f1c40f2fa3012dfd0b0f18ff6cf0ae11558e6e46ba27fb4f", "simhash": "1:546cc728f6361236", "word_count": 1908 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:55:11.858082+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judge Phillips concurs.", "Judge COZORT concurs in part and dissents in part." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES GORDON PARKS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BECTON, Judge.\nFrom the imposition of a 15-year prison sentence following his conviction of second degree murder, defendant appeals. For the reasons that follow, we grant a new trial.\nI\nAfter meeting Gloria Wherry in a lounge in Kernersville, the defendant, James Gordon Parks, agreed to take Ms. Wherry and her two children to Welcome, North Carolina. When defendant and Ms. Wherry arrived at her apartment, defendant was introduced to Robert Graham, who, although he was introduced as Ms. Wherry\u2019s brother, was actually her former husband and current boyfriend. After Ms. Wherry, Mr. Graham, and the two minor children got into defendant\u2019s automobile, a dispute arose as to where they were going. At some point, according to defendant, defendant drove to his own home and asked the passengers to leave. Defendant went inside his house, and then came out with a .22 rifle. As Ms. Wherry, Mr. Graham, and the children walked down the road in front of defendant\u2019s house, defendant fired the rifle. A shot hit Ms. Wherry in the head. She later died.\nMr. Graham testified that, although it was dark outside, defendant could be seen plainly because an outside light was on at the time. Defendant testified, however, that he could not see Ms. Wherry or Graham, and that he fired a warning shot into the ground at a 40 degree angle from where he heard voices.\nII\nIn defendant\u2019s first two assignments of error, he contends the trial judge erred by not allowing certain questions to be asked of jurors during voir dire. Defendant\u2019s first assignment of error relates to the following colloquy.\nMr. POWELL: My question is: Is there anyone on the jury who feels that because the defendant had a gun in his hand, no matter what the circumstances might be, that if that \u2014 if he pulled the trigger to that gun and that person met their death as a result of that, that simply on those facts alone that he must be guilty of something?\nCOURT: All right. Sustain to that.\nMr. POWELL: I\u2019d like the record to show that even though the Court sustained the objection, that I believe Mr. Doomy raised his hand and said that would affect him.\nMr. BARRETT: Objection, Your Honor.\nCOURT: Well, I sustained the question. I don\u2019t know what Mr. Barrett said or somebody else said.\nDefendant\u2019s second assignment of error relates to the question contained in the following colloquy:\nMr. POWELL: Let me ask this question of all jurors. Well, let me stick with Ms. Hinton with one more question. Ms. Hinton, as a juror, do you feel that you would have upheld your service as a juror equally as well by returning a verdict of not guilty if you had a reasonable doubt as you would of returning a verdict of guilty if you were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt?\nMr. BARRETT: Objection.\nCOURT: Sustained. Mr. POWELL: Ms. Hinton, do you have any question [sic]? You said that from what you\u2019d seen and what you\u2019d heard you\u2019d tend to favor the enforcement of the law. . . .\nThe judge sustained the State\u2019s objections to these questions. Defendant contends that the judge, by so doing, prevented him from ascertaining whether a challenge for cause existed, prevented him from exercising his peremptory challenges intelligently, prevented him from selecting an impartial jury, and was an abuse of discretion. We agree.\nThe purpose of voir dire is to secure an impartial jury. State v. Bracey, 303 N.C. 112, 227 S.E. 2d 390 (1981). Although the trial judge has broad discretion in regulating jury voir dire, State v. Avery, 315 N.C. 1, 337 S.E. 2d 786 (1985), we hold, in the case sub judice, that harmful error occurred. The trial judge, in sustaining objections to the proffered questions, operated under a misapprehension of the law. We specifically reject the State\u2019s argument: (1) that defense counsel impermissibly sought to \u201cstake out\u201d jurors as to what their decision would be under a given set of facts, State v. Williams, 41 N.C. App. 287, 291, 254 S.E. 2d 649, 653 (1974), disc. rev. denied, 297 N.C. 699, 259 S.E. 2d 297 (1979); (2) that the proffered questions had no bearing on the juror\u2019s ability to sit and hear the evidence since \u201cthe jurors could only speculate\u201d; and (3) that defense counsel impermissibly sought answers to legal questions before the trial judge had instructed the jurors on the applicable legal principles.\nVoir dire is a time for lawyers to evaluate jurors. It is not necessarily the time for jurors to evaluate themselves. One way lawyers evaluate jurors is to delve into their attitudes. This can best be accomplished by inquiries into beliefs, feelings, and actions. \u201cHow\u201d and \u201cwhy\u201d questions elicit information so that lawyers are in a position to evaluate jurors. Asking jurors \u201cDo you feel\u201d questions is qualitatively different from asking jurors \u201cWhat would you do\u201d questions. Questions dealing with feelings neither stake out, call for speculations, nor require answers to legal questions.\nSignificantly, the critical inquiry of the first question proffered by defense counsel was whether any of the jurors felt defendant had to be guilty of some offense simply because he fired a gun which resulted in the death of another person. This question seems indistinguishable from questions generally allowed on voir dire \u2014 e.g., \u201cDo you think the defendant must be guilty simply because he is charged with a crime?\u201d or, \u201cDo you feel that a driver is at fault simply because his car strikes a pedestrian?\u201d In our view, the excluded question could have elicited responses from jurors which would tend to show which jurors would be more or less inclined to fairly consider defenses such as accident. Indeed, as the quoted colloquy suggests, one juror may have felt that a person who fires a gun which results in the death of another person has to be guilty of something. In our view, the disal-lowance of the proper voir dire question prevented counsel from inquiring further into the attitudes of jurors and from exercising intelligently peremptory challenges allowed by law.\nThe critical import of the second question proffered by defense counsel was whether the juror\u2019s attitude about conviction or acquittal would adversely affect her in the deliberation process. Had Ms. Hinton answered, \u201cNo, I do not feel I would have upheld my service as a juror equally as well by returning a verdict of not guilty if I had a reasonable doubt, as I would of returning a verdict of guilty if I were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt,\u201d defense counsel could have inquired whether a greater quantum of truth was necessary for her to acquit than to convict or whether she thought the defendant had some burden of proving his innocence. After all, as the colloquy above suggests, Ms. Hinton had already indicated to defense counsel that she would \u201ctend to favor the enforcement of law.\u201d\nFinally, with regard to jury selection issues, we do not deem it fatal to defendant\u2019s argument that the record does not reflect whether defendant successfully challenged jurors for cause or whether defendant exercised all of his peremptory challenges. By disallowing the excepted-to voir dire questions, the trial judge prevented defendant from ascertaining whether a challenge for cause existed and further prevented defendant from intelligently exercising his peremptory challenges.\nIll\nIn his final assignment of error, defendant contends the trial court\u2019s factual summary during instruction to the jury, that defendant fired into the darkness, constitutes reversible error. Defendant argues the trial court violated N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 15A-1232 by giving unequal stress to the State\u2019s contentions in summarizing the evidence.\nIn instructing the jury, the trial judge must not express an opinion as to whether a fact has been proven. N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1232. The trial judge need only summarize the evidence to the extent necessary to explain the application of the law to the evidence. Id. In this case, the trial judge was explaining the law of involuntary manslaughter and applying the evidence to that law when he stated, \u201cthat it was dark . . .; and that the defendant fired a .22 rifle into the darkness . ...\u201d We have reviewed the record and find that this is a fair summary of the evidence. Defendant himself contended it was too dark for him to see when he fired his gun. The State actually presented evidence that there was enough light for defendant to see what he was doing. Even if the summary was not. a fair assessment of the evidence, defendant has not shown how he was unduly prejudiced since this summary applied to the involuntary manslaughter instruction only. This assignment of error is without merit.\nBased on errors committed during the jury voir dire, defendant is entitled to a\nNew trial.\nJudge Phillips concurs.\nJudge COZORT concurs in part and dissents in part.", "type": "majority", "author": "BECTON, Judge." }, { "text": "Judge COZORT\ndissenting in part.\nI concur with the majority\u2019s holding that the trial court\u2019s instructions to the jury did not constitute error. As to the majority\u2019s holding that the defendant is entitled to a new trial because the trial court sustained the State\u2019s objections to two of defendant\u2019s proposed questions during jury selection, I dissent.\nAs I read the transcript, it was apparent that the two questions under review were designed to enable defense counsel to evaluate whether the jurors completely understood the law and their obligations in terms of: (1) the State\u2019s burden of proof as to the specific offense charged, and (2) the element of reasonable doubt. My reading of the transcript convinces me that these areas were sufficiently explored by other questions asked of the potential jurors. For that reason, I do not believe the trial court erred in sustaining objections to the two specific questions at issue on this appeal. I believe the defendant\u2019s trial was free of prejudicial error.", "type": "concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part", "author": "Judge COZORT" } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Debbie K. Wright, for the State.", "Harrell Powell, Jr. and Garry Whitaker for the defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES GORDON PARKS\nNo. 8821SC634\n(Filed 6 December 1988)\n1. Jury \u00a7 6.3\u2014 prospective jurors \u2014 questions concerning feelings \u2014 erroneous dis-allowance\nThe trial court in a murder prosecution abused its discretion in refusing to permit defense counsel to ask prospective jurors during voir dire whether any of them \u201cfelt\u201d defendant had to be guilty of some offense simply because he fired a gun which resulted in the death of another person, and to ask one prospective juror whether she \u201cfelt\u201d that she would uphold her service as a juror equally well by returning a verdict of not guilty if she had a reasonable doubt as she would by returning a verdict of guilty if she were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. The questions did not stake out the jurors, call for speculation, or seek answers to legal questions, and the trial court\u2019s disallowance of the questions prevented defendant from ascertaining whether a challenge for cause existed and from intelligently exercising his peremptory challenges.\n2. Criminal Law 8 114.2\u2014 statement of evidence \u2014 no expression of opinion\nThe trial court\u2019s statement while applying the law of involuntary manslaughter to the evidence that defendant fired a .22 rifle into the darkness was a fair summary of the evidence and did not constitute an expression of opinion on the evidence.\nJudge Cozort concurs in part and dissents in part.\nAppeal by defendant from Julius A. Rousseau, Judge. Judgment entered 15 January 1988 in Superior Court, FORSYTH County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 November 1988.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Debbie K. Wright, for the State.\nHarrell Powell, Jr. and Garry Whitaker for the defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0181-01", "first_page_order": 211, "last_page_order": 217 }