{ "id": 8572379, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LANDON JOHNSON, ROBERT LEE HOLLINGSWORTH and KING DAVID PURCELL", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Johnson", "decision_date": "1967-12-13", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "239", "last_page": "243", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "272 N.C. 239" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "124 S.E. 2d 169", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "256 N.C. 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573113 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/256/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 S.E. 2d 353", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "238 N.C. 110", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8600306 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/238/0110-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 S.E. 2d 657", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "219 N.C. 589", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625476 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/219/0589-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 623, "char_count": 10611, "ocr_confidence": 0.558, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.943323174248282e-07, "percentile": 0.8482886453997898 }, "sha256": "bb08090b7ddbc1d0490a6a0410acb0d0587bfe081b4eaa8d8c5a3034c562b6ab", "simhash": "1:2da3f4aaf8a709be", "word_count": 1783 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:31:35.058336+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LANDON JOHNSON, ROBERT LEE HOLLINGSWORTH and KING DAVID PURCELL." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Pless, J.\nThe three appealing defendants have filed one case on appeal and one brief. The errors assigned in behalf of Hollings-worth and Purcell deal with \u201cleading questions\u201d which the defendants alleged were permitted by the Court. These questions are not brought forth in the brief, and we are required to go upon a voyage of discovery to locate them. Having done so, we find that-they refer largely to the testimony of McCoy and that they are merely directing his attention to the feature of the case about which he was then being examined.\nThe defendants have several exceptions to the \u201cleading questions\u201d asked by the Solicitor, but in each instance we find them to be harmless and timesaving. Many objections are made to the use of leading questions, but a leading question is not incompetent per se. In describing the scene of an event, for instance, where there is no reasonable ground for dispute, leading questions are hot only not objectionable but are actually desirable in preliminary descriptions that are necessary to an understanding of the locus in quo. A skilled attorney can, in one full descriptive question, paint a picture for the benefit of the Court and jury that could well take a substantial and wasteful length of time to evoke if an unlettered or poorly educated witness is left to describe a scene without suggestion or \u201cleading.\u201d The competence of the question should be decided upon whether it is harmful and is likely to result in an answer that could not be otherwise obtained. And so, our courts have wisely and almost invariably held that the presiding judge has wide discretion in permitting or restricting \u201cleading questions.\u201d 2 Strong, N. C. Index, Evidence \u00a7 57; McKay v. Bullard, 219 N.C. 589, 14 S.E. 2d 657; State v. Cranfield, 238 N.C. 110, 76 S.E. 2d 353. These exceptions are without merit. Consideration of the objections show that the evidence elicited could have been \u201cotherwise obtained\u201d but at considerable waste of time and that the defendants were not prejudiced by them.\nThe evidence of the State is to the effect that McCoy hit McCormick with an ax handle eight or ten times and knocked him down, after which Purcell said he was going to \u201cfinish him off\u201d, and he then stomped him in the ribs several times with his feet. McCormick was dead when they left there. This is quite sufficient to withstand the exceptions of Hollingsworth and Purcell to the refusal of the Court to dismiss the case as to them or to set aside the verdict. This evidence was uncontradicted except by the defendants\u2019 formal plea of not guilty.\nThe appeal of Johnson presents additional exceptions. The defendant Johnson was a sixteen-year-old colored boy of less than average intelligence at the time of his involvement in this murder.\nTo state the facts of the case, which are practically undisputed, immediately causes unbelief that people in a civilized society could possibly do what the defendants did. The horror and callousness of the murder cause a normal person to doubt that it \u201ccould happen here\u201d \u2014 but it did. To buy a twelve-year-old car, the participants\u2019 cold bloodedly took a human life.\nThe defendant Johnson did not strike a blow and received no benefit from the stolen money. And yet, upon all the evidence, it was unquestionably sufficient to support the verdict of guilty. \u201cIt is thoroughly established law in this State that, without regard to any previous confederation or design, when two or more persons aid and abet each other in the commission of a crime, all being present, all are principals and equally guilty.\u201d State v. Taft, 256 N.C. 441, 124 S.E. 2d 169.\nThe defendant Johnson\u2019s written admission was, if anything, favorable to him. It was not admitted until the able trial judge had heard from at least four witnesses that the defendant\u2019s rights had been fully and completely respected. The judge also heard the testimony of the defendant upon voir dire, in which the voluntariness of his statement was substantially admitted. The Court\u2019s ruling that the defendant\u2019s statement was voluntary and competent was amply supported by the evidence. Johnson admitted his association with his co-defendants and his presence, outside the house, at the time McCormick was struck and stomped by the others.\nHis court-appointed counsel emphasizes the youth and lack of intelligence of the defendant. The evidence of the specialist who examined and observed the defendant for thirty days was that he was \u201cretarded to some extent\u201d but that he \u201ccould relate his circumstances around the time ... in a logical and coherent manner\u201d and that he knew right from wrong.\nThere is a tendency to excuse and absolve the most cold-blooded and hard-hearted murderers on the theory that normal persons would not commit their inexcusable crimes. We cannot accept this philosophy. To do so would result in leaving society helpless and defenseless against the most inexcusable crimes of horror and violence.\nThe defendant Johnson is legally responsible for his participation in a calculated robbery resulting in the death of the victim. Ilis rights have been more than fully protected, and he must pay his debt to society. And yet his inactive involvement was such that because of his youth and retarded mentality, he may have hope for consideration by the parole authorities at the appropriate time.\nA careful consideration of all the defendants\u2019 exceptions reveals them to be without substantial merit.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Pless, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Hair & Ruppe by Lacy S. Hair; Hostetler, McNeill & Willcox by R. Palmer Willcox; Moses & Moses by William L. Moses, Attorneys for defendant appellants.", "T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, by Bernard A. Harrell, Assistant Attorney General, for the State." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LANDON JOHNSON, ROBERT LEE HOLLINGSWORTH and KING DAVID PURCELL.\n(Filed 13 December, 1967.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 87\u2014\nIt will not be held for error that the court permits the solicitor to ask leading questions which bring forth testimony that could have been otherwise obtained and the testimony brought forth is not objectionable or the import of the testimony is not subject to reasonable dispute but has only the effect of saving time, the matter being in the wide discretion of the trial court.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 9; Homicide \u00a7 20\u2014\nEvidence tending to show that four defendants agreed to assault a particular person and get his money, that three of them went into such person\u2019s house, and that the defendant turning State\u2019s evidence hit the deceased in the back of the head with an ax handle a number of times, inflicting mortal injury, that another of defendants stated he was going to finish defendant off and stomped him in the ribs four or five times, and that the three defendants took deceased\u2019s billfold containing a sum of money, is held sufficient to sustain a conviction of the two defendants pleading not guilty.\n3. Same\u2014\nEvidence that the four defendants agreed to assault a designated person and take his money, that one of the defendants stayed outside as a lookout while the other defendants went into the house and committed the robbery and murder, held sufficient to sustain the conviction of the lookout as an aider and abettor, notwithstanding he received no benefit from the stolen money, and such defendant\u2019s youth and retarded mentality are matters to be considered by the parole authorities at the proper time.\n4. Criminal Iiaw \u00a7. 74\u2014\nWhere the court hears testimony on the voir Hire and finds that defend