{ "id": 8560417, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SAMUEL NICK MOORE", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Moore", "decision_date": "1970-01-06", "docket_number": "No. 29", "first_page": "142", "last_page": "150", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "276 N.C. 142" } ], "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": "166 S.E. 2d 652", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558305 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 S.E. 2d 243", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "239 N.C. 446", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627279 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/239/0446-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 S.E. 2d 232", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "235" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 697", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616001 ], "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "700" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0697-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 A. L. R. 2d 782", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "year": 1959, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "791-793" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "123 S.E. 66", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "187 N.C. 798", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655144 ], "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/187/0798-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 216", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "268 N.C. 174", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560791 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/268/0174-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 S.E. 629", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "120 N.C. 94", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656377 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/120/0094-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 S.E. 482", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "484" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "212 N.C. 725", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8619002 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "729" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/212/0725-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 S.E. 2d 59", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "61" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "270 N.C. 270", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567155 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/270/0270-01" ] }, { "cite": "153 S.E. 2d 70", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "269 N.C. 483", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564324 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/269/0483-01" ] }, { "cite": "153 S.E. 2d 10", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "269 N.C. 329", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563543 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/269/0329-01" ] }, { "cite": "153 S.E. 2d 864", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "270 N.C. 122", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565805 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/270/0122-01" ] }, { "cite": "168 S.E. 2d 329", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 439", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573271 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0439-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 S.E. 886", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "186 N.C. 485", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653976 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/186/0485-01" ] }, { "cite": "135 S.E. 456", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 N.C. 580", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625212 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/192/0580-01" ] }, { "cite": "168 S.E. 532", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N.C. 392", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8619398 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0392-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 S.E. 567", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "156 N.C. 643", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272506 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "647" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/156/0643-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 S.E. 158", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "143 N.C. 641", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658653 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/143/0641-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 S.E. 612", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 N.C. 709", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658527 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/183/0709-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 S.E. 2d 362", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 N.C. 770", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625532 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/226/0770-01" ] }, { "cite": "166 S.E. 2d 652", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "654-657" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558305 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "201-205" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0198-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 940, "char_count": 22399, "ocr_confidence": 0.599, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.723288078419393e-07, "percentile": 0.8939528906897661 }, "sha256": "abaf80972275c98590140493eb141b3f89c9db49289002b575aa9c2baee1cce4", "simhash": "1:a749f2f0d39407ca", "word_count": 3848 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:14:31.974326+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Mooee, J. did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SAMUEL NICK MOORE" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "SHARP, J.\nThe evidence introduced at the first trial is summarized in our former opinion. State v. Moore, 275 N.C. 198, 201-205, 166 S.E. 2d 652, 654-657. At the second trial, defendant added to his testimony some details which he had formerly omitted, but the evidence for both State and defendant was substantially the same as that previously offered. Defendant concedes that his wife was killed by a blast from a shotgun he was carrying. It is his contention that the gun was discharged accidentally.\nIn brief summary, the State\u2019s evidence tended to show: For approximately three and one-half years prior to her death, on various occasions, defendant had beaten his wife into unconsciousness, intentionally inflicted personal injuries upon her, and had otherwise abused her. He had threatened to kill her if she ever left him. At the time of her death her face was still bruised and swollen from a beating he had given her several days earlier. On the morning of her death he telephoned his mother-in-law, Mrs. Woolard, and told her to come over and get the baby; that he was going to kill himself and Joanne. About twenty minutes later, defendant arrived at Mrs. Woolard\u2019s home with the baby. Although the day was cold and windy, the child was without wraps. Defendant\u2019s hands were trembling, and he appeared nervous and upset. He told Mrs. Woolard that he was going back to talk to Joanne; that every time he tried to talk to her the baby cried. He left, and Mrs. Woolard tried to telephone her daughter. Receiving no answer, she went to the trailer. There she found her daughter\u2019s body lying in a pool of blood. The right side of her face and head had been blown away.\nDefendant\u2019s evidence tended to show: He had never abused or injured his wife. On 7 March 1968 her face was bruised and swollen, but these injuries had occurred when she fell out of bed the preceding Sunday. Before breakfast, on the morning of her death, she had told him that she had talked to a lawyer; that her mother wanted her to divorce him and had taken pictures of her face to be used as evidence; that she was supposed to tell her mother that day what she intended to do about the divorce, but she did not then know what her decision would be. Defendant told her to make up her mind and let him know, that in the meantime he would be at his mother\u2019s. Joanne, who was then preparing breakfast, asked him whether he wanted sausage or bacon, and he specified sausage. He then collected some clothes, his rifle and shotgun, and started with them to his truck. On the way out he shifted the gun and rifle from one arm to the other in order to reach for a pack of cigarettes on a table, and the gun \u2014 which he did not know was loaded \u2014 accidentally discharged. When he saw Joanne lying on the floor \u201cwith her head half blown off,\u201d he called Mrs. Woolard to come for the baby; he did not tell her that he had shot Joanne. When Mrs. Woolard did not come he carried the child to her home. She asked him if he had beaten Joanne, and he said NO. When she asked him where he was going he said, \u201cWell, I guess I\u2019m going to the penitentiary, if I don\u2019t kill myself.\u201d He then borrowed some money from his brother and drove to West Virginia, but the next day returned to Beaufort County and surrendered to the police.\nThe decision on the first appeal was that defendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit was properly overruled. Since the second-trial evidence did not differ materially from that of the first trial, the same ruling upon the motion for nonsuit was required. State v. Peterson, 226 N.C. 770, 40 S.E. 2d 362.\nThirteen of defendant\u2019s assignments of error relate to the admission of testimony tending to show defendant\u2019s conduct and attitude toward his wife on numerous occasions prior to her death. The competency of this evidence was established by our opinion in the former appeal, and no further discussion of it is required. State v. Moore, supra at 206-207; State v. Kincaid, 183 N.C. 709, 110 S.E. 612; State v. Turner, 143 N.C. 641, 57 S.E. 158.\nAssignments of error 1, 19-22, 29, and 30 are directed (1) to Clarence Bullock\u2019s testimony that Joanne\u2019s failure to say anything to defendant on an occasion about three months before her death-made him mad, and that he kept hitting her until she fell to the floor unconscious; (2) to Patrolman Boykin\u2019s statement that in October 1965 at the Beaufort County Fair he had seen defendant standing about twenty-five feet from Joanne, who was lying unconscious on the ground, her blouse torn and her body saturated with water from the waist down; and (3) to Mrs. Woolard\u2019s statement that defendant appeared nervous, like he was emotionally upset, when he brought his child to her home on the morning of the homicide. All this evidence was competent. The rule is stated in State v. Leak, 156 N.C. 643, 647, 72 S.E. 567, 568:\n\u201cThe instantaneous conclusions of the mind as to the appearance, condition, or mental or physical state of persons, animals, and things, derived from observation of a variety of facts presented to the senses at one and the same time, are, legally speaking, matters of fact, and are admissible in evidence.\n\u201cA witness may say that a man appeared intoxicated or angry or pleased. In one sense the statement is a conclusion or opinion of the witness, but in a legal sense, and within the meaning of the phrase, \u2018matter of fact/ as used in the law of evidence, it is not opinion, but is one of the class of things above mentioned, which are better regarded as matters of fact. The appearance of a man, his actions, his expression, his conversation \u2014 a series of things \u2014 go to make up the mental picture in the mind of the witness which leads to a knowledge which is as certain, and as much a matter of fact, as if he testified, from evidence presented to his eyes, to the color of a person\u2019s hair, or any other physical fact of like nature. . . .\u201d Accord, State v. Brown, 204 N.C. 392, 168 S.E. 532; Moore v. Insurance Co., 192 N.C. 580, 135 S.E. 456; State v. Walton, 186 N.C. 485, 119 S.E. 886; Stansbury, N. C. Evidence \u00a7 129 (2d ed., 1963); 32A C. J. S. Evidence \u00a7\u00a7 546(12), (23); 31 Am. Jur. 2d Expert and Opinion Evidence \u00a7\u00a7 96, 162 (1967).\nAssignments of error 3 and 4 relate to Mrs. Woolard\u2019s testimony that on the night of 23 December 1967 she went to defendant\u2019s trailer and found her daughter, Joanne, in bed, her face and arms swollen and bruised; that defendant told her it was none of her g - - d-business and she didn\u2019t have any g - - d-business being there; that she was nothing and Joanne was nothing; and that she should get out of the g - - d-trailer. Defendant contends that these statements, made \u201con another occasion,\u201d were unrelated to the case and prejudicial to him. This contention will not withstand scrutiny. The statements (according to the State\u2019s evidence) were made by defendant to his mother-in-law, who had come to the trailer to see about her daughter shortly after defendant had beaten her. The statements were not unrelated utterances evidencing only defendant\u2019s ill will toward his mother-in-law. On the contrary they were directly related to defendant\u2019s abuse of his wife. In a prosecution for homicide \u201c[e]vidence of previous difficulties between the accused and a third person is admissible where properly connected with the victim and offense. . . . [E]vidence of prior difficulties between accused and a third person is admissible to show malice, premeditation, or general state of mind, as is evidence of accused\u2019s ill will toward a member of the family, of deceased. . . .\u201d 40 C. J. S. Homicide \u00a7 209 (1944) (Emphasis added.)\nAssignments of error 10, 11, and 23-27 are based upon exceptions to the admission of properly identified photographs showing the body of the deceased and its location in the trailer. These photographs were offered and admitted to illustrate the testimony of the witnesses who saw the body before it was moved. At the time of the introduction of the pictures, and again in his charge, the judge carefully instructed the jury that the photographs were not substantive evidence, that they had been admitted solely for the purpose of illustrating the testimony. The competency of these photographs for that purpose is well established. State v. Hill, 272 N.C. 439, 168 S.E. 2d 329; State v. Lentz, 270 N.C. 122, 153 S.E. 2d 864; State v. Porth, 269 N.C. 329, 153 S.E. 2d 10; State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 483, 153 S.E. 2d 70.\nDefendant argues strenuously that he is entitled to a new trial because the court failed to declare a mistrial on account of \u201cthe situation that occurred\u201d during the direct examination of Mr. and Mrs. Clarence Bullock, witnesses for the State. This \u201csituation\u201d is the subject of assignments of error 31-35. The circumstances which created it were as follows:\nWhen Bullock was asked if he had ever had a conversation with defendant with reference to what defendant would do if his wife ever left him, Bullock replied, \u201cNick had said he had killed one person. . . .\u201d Defendant\u2019s counsel interrupted this statement with an objection which the court promptly sustained. In addition, the court instructed the jury to disregard the witness\u2019 answer and not to consider it for any purpose whatsoever. After instructing Bullock not to \u201cgo into that\u201d the solicitor again asked him whether defendant had made any statement concerning his wife. Again Bullock replied, \u201cHe stated he had killed one person and he . . . .\u201d Defendant\u2019s motion to strike was allowed, and Judge Fountain repeated his instruction that the jury disregard the witness\u2019 answer. He then explained the solicitor\u2019s question to the witness, telling him to answer that question and to say no more. Once again Bullock said, \u201cHe made the statement that he had killed one person . . . .\u201d Judge Fountain immediately reinstructed the jury to disregard the statement, reminded Bullock that he had twice previously stricken that assertion from the record, and asked him if he understood the ruling. Bullock replied that he did. The solicitor then said: \u201cMr. Bullock, don\u2019t reply and make any statement concerning any other person other than defendant and his wife, Joanne. Leave out any reference to anything else. Did the defendant, Samuel Nick Moore, make a statement to you concerning what he would do to his wife if she left him?\u201d The witness answered YES. The next question, \u201cWhat did he say?\u201d, for the fourth time brought the reply, \u201cHe said he had killed one person and . . . .\u201d\nFor the fourth time Judge Fountain instructed the jury to disregard the witness\u2019 answer. He then told Bullock that disciplinary action would be required if he persisted in violating the court\u2019s ruling. Judge Fountain also informed the solicitor that, \u201cif it happened again,\u201d he would require Bullock to leave the stand. Thereupon the solicitor asked Bullock if he could leave out the first part of any statement which defendant had made to him and report only what defendant said concerning his wife. The reply was, \u201cI don\u2019t know how to explain it Sir.\u201d The matter was not pursued further with Bullock.\nAs the State\u2019s next and last witness, Mrs. Clarence Bullock, who had not been in the courtroom when her husband was testifying, was called to the stand. She testified that a day or two before Mrs. Moore\u2019s death she and her husband had had a conversation with defendant about his wife. Asked to repeat the conversation, she \u2014 as her husband had done \u2014 began with the statement, \u201cHe said that he had killed one person . . .\u201d The judge himself interrupted her and instructed the jury to disregard the statement completely and not to consider it for any purpose whatsoever. When the solicitor asked her if she could omit everything defendant had said about what he had done to anybody else and confine her testimony to what he had said about his wife, Mrs. Bullock\u2019s reply was, \u201cI just know only what he said. I don\u2019t know how to put it unless I say it.\u201d She was not examined further.\nIn support of his contention that the prejudicial effect of the Bullocks\u2019 repetitive statement was not subject to correction, counsel for defendant cite State v. Aycoth, 270 N.C. 270, 154 S.E. 2d 59. Aycoth appealed from a conviction of armed robbery. At his trial, a deputy sheriff was asked if he knew who owned the automobile which was in the defendant\u2019s possession at the time of his arrest. The reply was that at the time the defendant had been arrested on another charge he had said it was his car. The officer then added, \u201cHis wife asked me to go search the car and see if I could find some article that was left in the car sitting in the yard when he was indicted for murder.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Defendant\u2019s objection and motion to strike were allowed, and the court instructed the jury not to consider what defendant\u2019s wife had said. Thereafter defendant moved for a mistrial, and this motion was denied. In awarding a new trial this Court said: \u201cThe unresponsive statement of Fowler informed the jury that Aycoth had been indicted for murder. . . . Subsequent incidents tend to emphasize rather than dispel the prejudicial effect of Fowler\u2019s testimony. . . . Being of the opinion the incompetent evidence to the effect Aycoth had been or was under indictment for murder was of such serious nature that its prejudicial effect was not erased by the court\u2019s quoted instruction, we are constrained to hold that Aycoth\u2019s motion for a mistrial should have been granted.\u201d Id. at 272-273, 154 S.E. 2d at 61. (Emphasis added.)\nMaterial differences distinguish this case from Aycoth\u2019s. In the latter, the unresponsive statement was that the defendant had been indicted for murder. Here the statement was only that defendant had \u201ckilled one person.\u201d Was the killing accidental, in self-defense, or felonious? The statement contained no suggestion that the homicide was the result of a criminal act or that defendant had been prosecuted for it. Furthermore, no subsequent events tended to emphasize this inconclusive testimony that defendant \u201chad killed one man.\u201d We do not, therefore, deem this evidence so inherently prejudicial that its initial impact \u2014 whatever it was \u2014 could not have been erased by the judge\u2019s prompt and emphatic instructions that the jury should not consider the testimony for any purpose whatsoever. As Devin, J. (later C.J.), said in State v. Ray, 212 N.C. 725, 729, 194 S.E. 482, 484, \u201c[0]ur system for the administration of justice through trial by jury is based upon the assumption that the trial jurors are men of character and of sufficient intelligence to fully understand and comply with the instructions of the court, and are presumed to have done so. Wilson v. Mfg. Co., 120 N.C. 94, 26 S.E. 629.\u201d Accord, State v. Bruce, 268 N.C. 174, 150 S.E. 2d 216; 2 Strong, N. C. Index 2d Criminal Law \u00a7 96 (1967).\nAt his trial defendant was represented by competent counsel of his own choosing. They evidently thought that any prejudice to defendant from the Bullocks\u2019 statement had been removed by the action of the judge in striking their unsolicited statements and by his instructions to the jury to disregard them. Unlike defense counsel in Aycoth, defendant\u2019s attorneys made no motion for a mistrial. Defendant elected to proceed with the trial and to take his chances with the jury then impaneled. Under the circumstances here disclosed he may not successfully contend that the court, of its own motion, should have declared a mistrial. Allen v. Garibaldi, 187 N.C. 798, 123 S.E. 66. Indeed, without defendant\u2019s consent or a motion by him, had the court declared a mistrial, ex mero motu, at the onset of the next trial the judge would most certainly have been confronted with defendant\u2019s plea of former jeopardy. Annot., 63 A. L. R. 2d 782, 791-793 (1959); 22 C. J. S. Criminal Law \u00a7 261 (1961). \u201cIt is only in cases of necessity in attaining the ends of justice that a mistrial may be ordered in a capital case without the consent of the accused.\u201d State v. Harris, 223 N.C. 697, 700, 28 S.E. 2d 232, 235; accord, State v. Crocker, 239 N.C. 446, 80 S.E. 2d 243; 3 Strong, N. C. Index 2d Criminal Law \u00a7 128 (1967).\nA careful examination of the record and of all defendant\u2019s assignments of error, including those to the charge, discloses no reason to disturb the verdict. In the trial we find\nNo error.\nMooee, J. did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.", "type": "majority", "author": "SHARP, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert Morgan, Attorney General, and Ralph Moody, Deputy Attorney General, for the State.", "Leroy Scott and Carter & Ross for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SAMUEL NICK MOORE\nNo. 29\n(Filed 6 January 1970)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 178\u2014 homicide \u2014 motion for nonsuit \u2014 decision on former appeal \u2014 law of the case\nDefendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit in his second trial for first degree murder must be denied where the Supreme Court determined on appeal from defendant\u2019s first trial for the same crime that his motion for non-suit was properly denied and the evidence at the second trial did not differ materially from that of the first trial.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 34; Homicide \u00a7 15\u2014 prior conduct and attitude toward deceased\nIn this prosecution of defendant for first degree murder of his wife, the trial court properly admitted testimony tending to show defendant\u2019s conduct and attitude toward his wife on numerous occasions prior to her death.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 50, 65, 71; Homicide \u00a7 15\u2014 testimony that person was angry, unconscious, or nervous\nIn this prosecution of defendant for first degree murder of his wife, the trial court did not err in the admission of testimony (1) that failure of defendant\u2019s wife to say anything to defendant on an occasion about three months before her death \u201cmade him mad.\u201d and that he kept hitting her until she fell to the floor \u201cunconscious,\u201d (2) that a witness saw defendant at a county fair standing about twenty-five feet from his wife, who was lying \u201cunconscious\u201d on the ground, her blouse torn and her body saturated with water from the waist down, and (3) that defendant appeared \u201cnervous, like he was emotionally upset\u201d when he brought his child to the home of his mother-in-law on the morning of the homicide, instantaneous conclusions of the mind as to the appearance, condition or mental or physical state of persons being matters of fact which are admissible in evidence.\n4. Homicide \u00a7\u00a7 17, 18\u2014 evidence of ill will toward member of deceased\u2019s family\nIn this prosecution of defendant for first degree murder of his wife, the trial court did not err in the admission of testimony by defendant\u2019s mother-in-law that when she went to defendant\u2019s trailer to see about her daughter shortly after defendant had beaten her a few months before the homicide occurred, defendant told her it was none of her business, that she was nothing and deceased was nothing, and that she should get out of the trailer, defendant\u2019s statements being directly related to defendant\u2019s abuse of his wife, and evidence of defendant\u2019s ill will toward a member of the family of deceased being admissible to show malice, premeditation or general state of mind.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 43; Homicide \u00a7 20\u2014 photographs of body of deceased and place where found\nIn this prosecution of defendant for first degree murder of his wife, the trial court did not err in the admission of properly identified photographs showing the body of deceased and its location in defendant\u2019s trailer for the purpose of illustrating the testimony of witnesses who saw the body before it was moved.\n6. Criminal Law \u00a7 188\u2014 mistrial \u2014 unsolicited testimony by State\u2019s witness \u2014 other crimes \u2014 prejudice removed by court\u2019s instructions\nIn this prosecution of defendant for first degree murder of his wife, the trial court did not err in failing, on its own motion, to declare a mistrial when, in response to questions by the solicitor as to whether defendant had made a statement to two State\u2019s witnesses concerning what he would do to his wife if she left him, one witness stated on four occasions and another on one occasion that defendant said that \u201che had killed one person,\u201d where the trial judge on each occasion struck the witness\u2019 unresponsive answer from the record and instructed the jury to disregard the answer and not consider it for any purpose, the statement containing no suggestion that the homicide was the result of a criminal act or that defendant had been prosecuted for it, there being no subsequent events which tended to emphasize such inconclusive testimony, and defense counsel having made no motion for mistrial.\n7. Criminal Law \u00a7 128\u2014 mistrial on court\u2019s own motion \u2014 failure of defendant to move for mistrial\nIn this prosecution for the capital offense of first degree 'murder wherein the trial court, upon objections by defendant, struck unresponsive answers given by two State\u2019s witnesses from the record and instructed the jury not to consider them for any purpose, and defendant made no motion for mistrial but elected to proceed with the trial and take his chances with the jury then empaneled, defendant may not successfully contend that the court, on its own motion, should have declared a mistrial.\n8. Criminal Law \u00a7 128\u2014 mistrial in capital case \u2014 consent of accused\nIt is only in cases of necessity in attaining the ends of justice that a mistrial may be ordered in a capital case without the consent of the accused.\nMooke, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by defendant under G.S. 7A-27(a) from Fountain, J., May 1969 Session of Beaufort.\nDefendant\u2019s wife, Joanne Woolard Moore, was killed on 7 March 1968 by the discharge from a shotgun in his hands, and he was indicted for her murder. At the August 1968 Session, the jury convicted defendant of murder in the first degree and recommended a sentence of life imprisonment. From judgment pronounced upon that verdict he appealed, and we ordered a new trial for errors in the judge\u2019s charge. State v. Moore, 275 N.C. 198, 166 S.E. 2d 652. Defendant was retried at the May 1969 Session. Again the verdict was guilty of murder in the first degree with the recommendation that the punishment be imprisonment for life. Now, for the second time, defendant appeals from a mandatory life sentence. He assigns as error, inter alia, the overruling of his motion for nonsuit, the admission of certain evidence, and the failure of the court, ex mero motu, to declare a mistrial because of unsolicited statements made by two State\u2019s witnesses.\nRobert Morgan, Attorney General, and Ralph Moody, Deputy Attorney General, for the State.\nLeroy Scott and Carter & Ross for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0142-01", "first_page_order": 168, "last_page_order": 176 }