{ "id": 8525701, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LLOYD NEILL STRICKLAND", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Strickland", "decision_date": "1990-06-05", "docket_number": "No. 8913SC677", "first_page": "693", "last_page": "696", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "98 N.C. App. 693" } ], "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": "81 S.E.2d 364", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 171", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8596105 ], "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0171-01" ] }, { "cite": "115 S.E. 176", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1922, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "184 N.C. 730", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272207 ], "year": 1922, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/184/0730-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 S.Ct. 1590", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "99 L.Ed.2d 912", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "485 U.S. 1036", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 13312, 13445, 13287, 13545, 13740, 13965, 13233, 14131, 13397, 13238, 13399, 13750, 13849, 13725 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/485/1036-05", "/us/485/1036-12", "/us/485/1036-11", "/us/485/1036-04", "/us/485/1036-06", "/us/485/1036-14", "/us/485/1036-08", "/us/485/1036-10", "/us/485/1036-01", "/us/485/1036-02", "/us/485/1036-13", "/us/485/1036-03", "/us/485/1036-09", "/us/485/1036-07" ] }, { "cite": "362 S.E.2d 244", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 201", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2569839 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0201-01" ] }, { "cite": "184 S.E. 836", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1936, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "209 N.C. 772", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2221494 ], "year": 1936, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/209/0772-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 S.Ct. 3212", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "49 L.Ed.2d 1211", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "428 U.S. 904", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6184738, 6185094, 6184392, 6185357, 6183598, 6183984, 6185553, 6184594, 6184179, 6183446, 6184922, 6183803 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/428/0904-08", "/us/428/0904-10", "/us/428/0904-06", "/us/428/0904-11", "/us/428/0904-02", "/us/428/0904-04", "/us/428/0904-12", "/us/428/0904-07", "/us/428/0904-05", "/us/428/0904-01", "/us/428/0904-09", "/us/428/0904-03" ] }, { "cite": "220 S.E.2d 313", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "289 N.C. 35", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566510 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/289/0035-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 S.Ct. 868", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "47 L.Ed.2d 91", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "423 U.S. 1080", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6507644, 6507564 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/423/1080-02", "/us/423/1080-01" ] }, { "cite": "214 S.E.2d 434", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "287 N.C. 261", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562016, 8561954, 8561926, 8561903, 8561981 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/287/0261-05", "/nc/287/0261-03", "/nc/287/0261-02", "/nc/287/0261-01", "/nc/287/0261-04" ] }, { "cite": "210 S.E.2d 555", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "24 N.C. App. 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549700 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/24/0148-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 404, "char_count": 6090, "ocr_confidence": 0.768, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.1826573799543386e-07, "percentile": 0.7728383006113484 }, "sha256": "0265ee926b8a6ad641b5310ae5b4e7a6fada853905b063254a3812add2985fa5", "simhash": "1:13e6f46254324a32", "word_count": 1005 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:26:07.401162+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge HEDRICK and Judge JOHNSON concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LLOYD NEILL STRICKLAND" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PHILLIPS, Judge.\nDefendant was convicted of common law solicitation to commit the murder of his wife, Barbara Strickland, upon evidence which tends to show that: While incarcerated in the Brunswick County jail in early 1988, defendant asked a fellow inmate, Billy Owens, to kill his wife before the trial of their divorce case in December, 1988. Defendant agreed to pay Owens $10,000 and give him his 1976 truck as down payment. He drew diagrams of their house where she was living, suggested that he kill her when she went to the kennels behind the house to feed the dogs, and showed him how best to reach the kennels without being seen. He also gave Owens a note to give to his mother who had power of attorney over his property. The note directed her to give Owens the truck and title certificate. Defendant also promised to send Owens a picture of his wife. Upon being released from prison Owens contacted the police and accompanied by a detective he went to Strickland\u2019s mother\u2019s house where he delivered the note and received title to and possession of the truck. When Owens received the picture of Mrs. Strickland through the mail a detective was present and Strickland\u2019s fingerprints were on the picture. Strickland sent Owens a letter which referred to a fictitious agreement to buy a boat and stated that he needed to close the transaction soon.\nOne contention defendant makes \u2014 that because of a previous prosecution which was voluntarily dismissed this one is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the state and federal Constitutions \u2014 can be summarily disposed of because the record shows that the prior prosecution was dismissed before the jury was empaneled, and it has been held in many cases that jeopardy does not attach in a jury trial until the jury is empaneled and sworn. State v. Chavis, 24 N.C. App. 148, 210 S.E.2d 555 (1974), cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 287 N.C. 261, 214 S.E.2d 434 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1080, 47 L.Ed.2d 91, 96 S.Ct. 868 (1976). Defendant does not argue that the rule is otherwise. His argument is that in granting the State recesses which delayed the empanelment of the jury for some four and a half hours altogether after the selection process was completed, the court exceeded its authority. The argument has no legal basis. Continuances, postponements and recesses are within the sound discretion of the trial judge, State v. Carter, 289 N.C. 35, 220 S.E.2d 313 (1975), vacated in part, modified on other grounds, 428 U.S. 904, 49 L.Ed.2d 1211, 96 S.Ct. 3212 (1976), and nothing in the record, which does not contain a transcript of the prior proceeding, suggests that the court abused its discretion in granting the recesses involved.\nDefendant\u2019s other two contentions concern the court refusing to suppress the testimony of undercover SBI agent Ray Freeman about defendant soliciting him to murder his wife, District Attorney Mike Easley and two law enforcement officers. The alleged solicitation occurred when the agent was posing as a hit man named \u201cGreg Becton.\u201d The basis for the suppression motion was that defense counsel was not informed pursuant to discovery before trial of the statements made to Freeman. In determining the motion the court found upon competent evidence that the District Attorney did not learn of defendant\u2019s statements to Freeman until trial began and concluded therefrom that the discovery process had not been abused. In this ruling we \u201csee no error. His final contention, that the evidence of the latter solicitation, which occurred eleven months after the one he was being tried for, was inadmissible is also overruled. Evidence of that solicitation was admissible on many grounds: It was admissible to show knowledge, Rule 404(b), N.C. Rules of Evidence, State v. Ray, 209 N.C. 772, 184 S.E. 836 (1936); to show modus operandi or common plan or scheme, State v. Bagley, 321 N.C. 201, 362 S.E.2d 244 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1036, 99 L.Ed.2d 912, 108 S.Ct. 1590 (1988), State v. Beam, 184 N.C. 730, 115 S.E. 176 (1922); and to show a continuing offense. State v. McClain, 240 N.C. 171, 81 S.E.2d 364 (1954).\nNo error.\nChief Judge HEDRICK and Judge JOHNSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PHILLIPS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Associate Attorney General Jane R. Garvey, for the State.", "Powell and Gore, by W. James Payne, for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LLOYD NEILL STRICKLAND\nNo. 8913SC677\n(Filed 5 June 1990)\n1. Constitutional Law \u00a7 34 (NCI3d)\u2014 double jeopardy \u2014recesses between jury selection and empanelment \u2014prosecution dismissed \u2014jeopardy not attached\nThe prosecution of defendant for solicitation to commit the murder of his wife was not barred by double jeopardy where a previous prosecution was voluntarily dismissed before the jury was empaneled. There was nothing in the record to suggest that the court abused its discretion in granting the State recesses which delayed the empanelment of the jury for some four and a half hours after the selection process was completed.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 260, 261.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 113 (NCI4th)\u2014 solicitation to murder \u2014defense counsel not informed of statements \u2014discovery not abused\nThe testimony of an undercover SBI agent concerning defendant\u2019s solicitation of him to murder his wife and others was admissible despite defense counsel not being informed before trial of the statements pursuant to discovery where the court found upon competent evidence that the District Attorney did not learn of the statements until the trial began.\nAm Jur 2d, Depositions and Discovery \u00a7\u00a7 455, 457.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 34.4 (NCI3d)\u2014 solicitation to commit murder\u2014 subsequent solicitation \u2014 admissible\nEvidence of a subsequent solicitation to commit murder was admissible in defendant\u2019s trial for solicitation to murder to show knowledge, modus operandi or common plan or scheme, and to show a continuing offense. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 404(b).\nAm Jur 2d, Evidence \u00a7\u00a7 323-326, 329.\nAPPEAL by defendant from judgment entered 3 February 1989 by Strickland, Judge, in BRUNSWICK County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 February 1990.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Associate Attorney General Jane R. Garvey, for the State.\nPowell and Gore, by W. James Payne, for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0693-01", "first_page_order": 721, "last_page_order": 724 }