{ "id": 8566197, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KATHERINE BELL", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bell", "decision_date": "1971-06-10", "docket_number": "No. 106", "first_page": "173", "last_page": "177", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "279 N.C. 173" } ], "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": "69 S.E. 419", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "153 N.C. 638", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273632 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/153/0638-01" ] }, { "cite": "159 S.E. 2d 305", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 N.C. 51", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574394 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/273/0051-01" ] }, { "cite": "179 S.E. 2d 410", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 168", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559899 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0168-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 S.E. 2d 37", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 N.C. 308", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561047 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/276/0308-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "268 N.C. 69", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560152 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/268/0069-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 S.E. 2d 344", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "264 N.C. 517", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574164 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/264/0517-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S. Ct. 1602", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "case_ids": [ 12046400 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "394 U.S. 436", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "160 S.E. 2d 469", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 N.C. 509", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575701 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/273/0509-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 548, "char_count": 10029, "ocr_confidence": 0.555, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.922967157518402e-08, "percentile": 0.4616328982886647 }, "sha256": "7106814c7bd83c9ca4b595e0b527b7694566d6cac399561a3f757e485e8bfb63", "simhash": "1:e10333939b431203", "word_count": 1695 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:36:58.436463+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KATHERINE BELL" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HIGGINS, Justice.\nThe defendant\u2019s assignments of error involve: (1) The refusal of the court to strike the reply of the State\u2019s witness Cly-burn to defense counsel\u2019s question on cross-examination as to the position of the deceased at the time the fatal shot was fired (Exceptions Nos. 1 and 2) ; (2) The court\u2019s finding and conclusion that defendant\u2019s admissions to the officer were freely, voluntarily and understandingly made (Exceptions Nos. 3, 4 and 5) ; (3) The refusal of the court to direct a verdict of not guilty at the close of the evidence (Exceptions Nos. 6 and 7).\nMary Clyburn, a witness for the State, testified she heard a shot from the defendant\u2019s apartment above hers and thereafter she saw Clara Mae Morgan lying in the doorway to the apartment across the yard, approximately 100-150 feet away. The defendant testified the deceased was attempting to enter her apartment at the time the gun went off. Hence the question became material whether the deceased was across the yard by the post or whether she was attempting to enter the defendant\u2019s upstairs apartment. Defense counsel sought to have the State\u2019s witness say that the witness did not know whether the deceased crossed the yard before or after the shot was fired. In reply to the questions, the witness gave the answer heretofore quoted. The fresh pellet holes in the post which were not there before the shooting, was the answer the witness gave to a question which opened the door for that answer. The answer of the witness was in explanation of and giving her reason for refusing to say that she did not know whether the deceased crossed the yard before or after the shot.\n\u201cAn observer may testify to common appearances, facts and conditions in language which is descriptive of facts observed so as to enable one not an eyewitness to form an accurate judgment in regard thereto.\u201d State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509, 160 S.E. 2d 469. The defendant\u2019s Assignment of Error No. 1 based on Exceptions Nos. 1 and 2 is not sustained.\nThe evidence discloses that within thirty minutes after the investigating officer placed the wounded woman in the ambulance, the defendant and her husband appeared at police headquarters. Before they were permitted to discuss the shooting, proper and suitable warnings were given. The defendant made oral admissions the gun in her hands \u201cwent off.\u201d She and her husband entered a private room. When they returned they delivered the written statement which her husband drafted and the defendant signed. When the defendant challenged the State\u2019s right to introduce the admissions, the court conducted a thorough inquiry in the absence of the jury. The defendant elected not to offer evidence on the voir dire. The court concluded the admissions were freely, voluntarily and understandingly made and were admissible in evidence. In conducting the voir dire and in hearing evidence and making the findings, the court was extremely careful that all of the defendant\u2019s rights were properly accorded her. The defendant and her husband voluntarily went to police headquarters for the purpose of stating the defendant\u2019s side of the controversy. Her signed statement, written by her husband, was her voluntary account. Sometimes overlooked, is the following from Miranda v. Arizona:\n\u201cThere is no requirement that police stop a person who enters a police station and states that he wishes to confess to a crime, or a person who calls the police to offer a confession or any other statement he desires to make. Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by our holding today.\u201d Miranda v. Arizona, 394 U.S. 436, 16 L. ed. 2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R. 3rd 974. See also State v. Barnes, 264 N.C. 517, 142 S.E. 2d 344; State v. Gray, 268 N.C. 69, 150 S.E. 2d 1; State v. McRae, 276 N.C. 308, 172 S.E. 2d 37; State v. Atkinson, 278 N.C. 168, 179 S.E. 2d 410.\nDefendant\u2019s Assignments of Error Nos. 2 and 3 based on Exceptions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are not sustained.\nThe evidence in the record was ample to go to the jury and sustain the verdict. State v. Cooper, 273 N.C. 51, 159 S.E. 2d 305; State v. Cox, 153 N.C. 638, 69 S.E. 419. Assignment of Error No. 3 based on Exceptions Nos. 5 and 6 is not sustained.\nIn the trial, judgment and sentence, we find\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "HIGGINS, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert L. Morgan, Attorney General, by Ralph Moody, Deputy Attornel General, for the State.", "Robert L. Harrell for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KATHERINE BELL\nNo. 106\n(Filed 10 June 1971)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 15\u2014 homicide prosecution \u2014 testimony relating to position of defendant and deceased\nWitness\u2019 testimony on cross-examination relating to the location of defendant and deceased at the time of the homicide held admissible as testimony of common appearances, facts, and conditions; also admissible was the witness\u2019 testimony that the defendant\u2019s position could be determined by the presence of bullet holes in a porch post.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 75\u2014 admission of incriminating statements\nIncriminating statements made by a defendant who voluntarily went to police headquarters for the purpose of stating her side of the shooting held admissible.\nAppeal by defendant from Hasty, J., June 3, 1970 Session, Buncombe Superior Court. The appeal was docketed in the Court of Appeals and transferred to the Supreme Court for appellate review under the referral order of July 31, 1970.\nIn this criminal prosecution the defendant, Katherine Bell, was indicted for the murder of Clara Mae Morgan. The indictment charged the offense occurred on April 13, 1970. Upon th\u00a7 proper showing of indigency, the court appointed Robert L. Harrell attorney for the defendant.\nAt the trial, the State\u2019s witness, Mary Clyburn, testified that she and the deceased, Clara Mae Morgan, shared the same ground floor apartment at No. 141 Weaver Street in Asheville. The defendant, Katherine Bell, occupied a second story apartment, No. 144, immediately above Apartment No. 141. A daughter of the deceased occupied an apartment across the \u201cyard\u201d about 100-150 feet from the two apartments on Weaver Street.\nMary Clyburn further testified that on April 6, 1970, at about 11 o\u2019clock, she was in her apartment, that she heard a gunshot, saw smoke and smelled gunpowder. The smoke drifted over the defendant\u2019s bannister into the apartment of the witness.\nOfficer Hensley of the police department arrived on the scene shortly after 11 o\u2019clock. He found Clara Mae Morgan lying in the doorway of a small house near the apartment on Weaver Street. She was alive. Her clothing was bloody. He helped her into the ambulance which carried her to the hospital. An immediate operation diclosed extensive and small pellet holes in her right lower rib cage and 18 holes in the small bowels. The following Wednesday, she started showing evidence of delirium trem-ens. She was never conscious thereafter. \u201cOf course, (her death) was precipitated by the gunshot injury that made her sick in the first place.\u201d\nAfter Officer Hensley assisted the deceased into the ambulance, he returned to police headquarters. In about thirty minutes the defendant and her husband appeared at police headquarters. Before permitting any disclosure, the officers gave the defendant the customary warnings. The defendant then made both an oral and a written statement. When the prosecution undertook to offer in evidence the defendant\u2019s admissions, defense counsel objected. Whereupon the court conducted a voir dire and heard the State's witnesses. The defendant waived her right to be heard or to offer evidence on the voir dire.\nThe court made detailed findings of fact and concluded that the defendant\u2019s oral and written statements were properly admissible against her as having been freely, understandingly and voluntarily made. Whereupon the oral evidence of the officer and the written statement of the defendant were offered in evidence before the jury. The written statement corresponds in substance with the oral statement. Material parts of the written statement, which was prepared by the defendant\u2019s husband, are here quoted:\n\u201cMy name is Katherine Bell and I live at 144 Weaver Street and Cara Mae Morgan lives in the basement apartment. The whole thing started on the preceding Saturday when Clara Mae\u2019s boyfriend and Mary Clyburn jumped on me and stabbed me in the side. I took out a warrant for him and went to police court on the sixth for trial and Clara Mae\u2019s boyfriend got six months. When I got back home Clara Mae started cursing me and said she was going to get me for causing her boyfriend to get that time. I was afraid of her and when she came up on my porch, I stepped in the door and picked up my husband\u2019s shotgun and it went off. I had never fired a gun before.\u201d\nDefense counsel on cross-examination, asked the State\u2019s witness Clyburn this question: \u201cNow you don\u2019t know whether she (deceased) went over there after she was shot or before she was shot, do you ?\u201d The witness gave this answer: \u201cAll right she had to be shot over there because the bullet holes were right there against the post where she shot at her.\u201d Motion to strike the answer was overruled. Defendant\u2019s Exception No. 1.\nThe State introduced a section of the post taken from the house across the yard described by the witness Clyburn. The post contained lead pellets. The witness stated: \u201cThey never had been there before.\u201d The foregoing is the subject of Exception No. 2.\nThe defendant testified as a witness in her own defense, repeating in substance the contents of the written statement and in addition stated that she did not remember firing the gun, but did remember reaching behind the door for it. She said: \u201c. . . (T)hat woman . . . had beat me up. They broke into my house and tore the screen door down .... When she came on my porch and said I\u2019m coming to get you, that\u2019s when the gun went off. I don\u2019t know how far I was from her when the gun went off.\u201d\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter. From that judgment imposed the defendant appealed.\nRobert L. Morgan, Attorney General, by Ralph Moody, Deputy Attornel General, for the State.\nRobert L. Harrell for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0173-01", "first_page_order": 201, "last_page_order": 205 }