{ "id": 8569998, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEVEN MICHAEL BURLESON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Burleson", "decision_date": "1971-12-15", "docket_number": "No. 141", "first_page": "112", "last_page": "116", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "280 N.C. 112" } ], "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": "169 S.E. 2d 846", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "851" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 584", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559259 ], "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "592" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0584-01" ] }, { "cite": "179 S.E. 2d 433", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "437" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560097 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "264" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0259-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 589, "char_count": 10755, "ocr_confidence": 0.532, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.938296520568534e-08, "percentile": 0.4206596600805684 }, "sha256": "fc004bcc8c54bfd466272c685dc326e6154905b101480af6e5d2ecb82fde8ea3", "simhash": "1:d5fbd68c03c3d430", "word_count": 1810 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:17:02.302234+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEVEN MICHAEL BURLESON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BOBBITT, Chief Justice.\nNo question is presented as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The State\u2019s evidence that defendant was guilty as charged in the bill of indictment was positive and plenary.\nUnder the heading, \u201cAssignments of Error,\u201d defendant asserts the court erroneously failed to charge the jury in the three respects discussed below.\nSince no exception appears in the case on appeal, there is no basis in the record for consideration of the assertions denominated \u201cAssignments of Error.\u201d \u201cAn assignment of error not supported by an exception is ineffectual and will not be considered on appeal.\u201d State v. Jones, 278 N.C. 259, 264, 179 S.E. 2d 433, 437 (1971), and cases cited. Notwithstanding his failure to comply with established procedural requirements, the seriousness of the crime and the age of the defendant impel us to examine and consider defendant\u2019s purported \u201cAssignments of Error.\u201d\nThere is no merit in defendant\u2019s first assertion, that the court erroneously failed to submit \u201cthe lesser included offense of assault with intent to commit rape.\u201d The following statement from State v. Rhodes, 275 N.C. 584, 592, 169 S.E. 2d 846, 851 (1969), applies with equal force to the present case: \u201cAll the evidence tended to show an accomplished rape and to prove defendant\u2019s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither the State nor defendant offered any evidence upon which a verdict of guilty of the lesser and included offense of assault with intent to commit rape could have been based. The judge was not required to submit that issue to the jury, and a request to do so would have been properly refused.\u201d\nThere is no merit in defendant\u2019s second assertion, that the court erroneously failed to charge the jury \u201cthat an affirmative defense must be proved to the satisfaction of the jury instead of beyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d We find no basis in the record for this assertion. On the contrary, it appears that the court placed no burden of proof on defendant in respect of an affirmative defense. The following excerpt from the charge indicates the court\u2019s instructions pertinent to that aspect of the case: \u201c[T]he court . . . instructs you that if you should find that on the occasion of which the State complains that the defendant, by reason of sniffing glue or drinking beer, or both, did not have the mental capacity sufficient to form a criminal intent, and that he had not previously formed a criminal intent to rape Marguerite Patterson, and had thereafter participated in sniffing glue or drinking beer, that it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.\u201d Obviously, this instruction was not prejudicial to defendant.\nThere is no merit in defendant\u2019s third assertion, that the court had erroneously failed to charge the jury \u201cthat they should disregard the testimony of the mother and grandmother in regard to their being assaulted, except in that it shows force used in the alleged rape, the assault charges being a matter for another court.\u201d Nothing in the record suggests that defendant was on trial for assaults on Mrs. Patterson and Mrs. Bryant. The evidence as to what defendant did to them was incidental and preliminary to his rape of Marguerite. All that occurred in the Patterson residence from the time of defendant\u2019s violent entry until the consummation of the rape was competent and relevant as part of the res gestae. Testimony as to defendant\u2019s assaults upon Mrs. Patterson and upon Mrs. Bryant was competent inter alia to explain their removal from the scene and consequent inability to interfere when Marguerite was raped.\nFinding no error of law, the verdict and judgment will not be disturbed.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "BOBBITT, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Morgan and Assistant Attorneys General Eatman and League for the State.", "Morgan, Byerly, Post & Herring, by James F. Morgan, for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEVEN MICHAEL BURLESON\nNo. 141\n(Filed 15 December 1971)\n1. Rape \u00a7 6\u2014 rape prosecution \u2014 submission of issue of lesser offense\nWhere all the evidence tends to show an accomplished rape, and neither the State nor defendant offered any evidence to support a guilty verdict of assault with intent to commit rape, the trial judge is not required to submit to the jury the issue of guilt of the lesser offense.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 112\u2014 instruction on affirmative defense \u2014 burden of proof\nDefendant\u2019s contention in a rape case that the trial court erroneously failed to charge the jury \u201cthat an affirmative defense must be proved to the satisfaction of the jury instead of beyond a reasonable doubt,\u201d held without merit.\n3. Rape \u00a7 4\u2014 evidence of res gestae \u2014 assaults on victim\u2019s relatives\nTestimony by a rape victim\u2019s mother and grandmother as to the events that occurred in the home from the time of defendant\u2019s violent entry until the consummation of the rape was competent and relevant as part of the res gestae, including their testimony that they had been assaulted by the defendant.\nAppeal by defendant under G.S. 7A-27 (a) from Johnston, J., June 7, 1971 Criminal Session of Guilford Superior Court (High Point Division).\nDefendant was indicted for the rape of Marguerite Patterson.\nThe evidence offered by the State tends to show the facts narrated below.\nOn the night of November 27, 1970, about eleven o\u2019clock, defendant, aged 15, knocked on the front door of the Patterson residence. The three occupants, Marguerite Patterson, aged 18, and Mrs. Euby Patterson, Marguerite\u2019s mother, and Mrs. Kate Bryant, Euby\u2019s mother, had gone to bed. Mrs. Bryant, who occupied one of the bedrooms, was asleep. Marguerite and her mother were in twin beds in another bedroom watching television when they heard the knock on the front door. Mrs. Patterson got out of bed and went to the front door.\nUpon opening the front door, Mrs. Patterson noticed that the person at her door was the boy she had previously seen walking across the yard. Although they did not know defendant, the Pattersons understood he had been living next door with his grandmother. Defendant asked if Mrs. Patterson knew who he was. She observed that he acted like he was frightened and could not talk, and she saw \u201cred blotches\u201d on his neck. Apprehensive that something was wrong at the neighbor\u2019s house, Mrs. Patterson opened the screen door to find out \u201cwhat had happened\u201d next door. Thereupon, defendant jumped into the house, holding his knife on Mrs. Patterson, and said, \u201cLet\u2019s get back inside.\u201d\nDefendant backed Mrs. Patterson at knife point through the living room to the hall door and then backed Mrs. Patterson and Mrs. Bryant, who had been aroused, into the room where Marguerite was in bed. There defendant took off his clothes and at knife point demanded that the three women take off their clothes. The only light then in this room was provided by the television. Mrs. Bryant managed to pull the television cord from the socket and extinguish this light. When this occurred Mrs. Patterson moved toward a window and jerked the drapes apart, intending to try to raise the window and jump. However, defendant quickly found the switch to the room light, turned on the light and threatened to kill Mrs. Bryant if Mrs. Patterson did not move away from the window \u2014 grabbing the knife and putting it on Mrs. Bryant. When Mrs. Bryant opened the door, defendant \u201clunged for her and knocked her down in the hall and hit her back on the molding.\u201d Defendant dragged Mrs. Bryant across the floor and got her oh her bed. Soon thereafter Mrs. Bryant got up, slammed the door to her room, knocked the screen out of the window and jumped from the window to the ground six feet below. Mrs. Patterson and Marguerite tried to close the door to Marguerite\u2019s bedroom but could not close it completely on account of defendant\u2019s shoes and clothes. Mrs. Patterson fled from the house and went to the home of a neighbor.\nWhile defendant was involved with Mrs. Patterson and Mrs. Bryant, Marguerite had gotten out of bed. She went to the phone and called the police. When defendant returned to Marguerite\u2019s room, pushing his way through the door, he \u201cturned around and picked up the phone and listened for a minute and then put it down.\u201d Defendant then gave his undivided attention to Marguerite. He stuck the knife at her throat, took her clothes off, backed her onto the bed and there had complete sexual intercourse with her, without her consent and against her will, notwithstanding her protests and pleading. (The words spoken by defendant and the details of the rape and unnatural indignities to which Marguerite was subjected are not germane to decision and therefore are omitted.)\nWhen Police Sergeant Wood arrived, he found Marguerite and defendant, both naked. Defendant had a knife at her throat. She broke loose, ran behind the officer to her mother, saying, \u201cDon\u2019t let him get at me anymore.\u201d When defendant started toward the officer, he took out his revolver and said: \u201cSon, don\u2019t come any closer or I will have to kill you.\u201d Thereupon, defendant dropped the knife. The knife was offered in evidence.\nOfficers Whitaker and Wood testified in detail as to statements by Marguerite made shortly after their arrival at the Patterson residence. These statements were in accord with and corroborative of Marguerite\u2019s testimony.\nEvidence offered by defendant consisted of his testimony and that of Mrs. Anita Green, defendant\u2019s mother.\nDefendant testified that he and some friends had been at his grandmother\u2019s house next door to the Patterson house; that during that day he had consumed \u201cbetween fifteen and twenty-four beers, sniffed two or three tubes of glue,\u201d and had taken one of his grandmother\u2019s nerve pills; that \u201cthe last thing he remember [ed] on this night was that he left for Five Points walking to get some paper bags to sniff glue in\u201d; and that he remembered nothing else until he was in the Juvenile Detention Home of Guilford County.\nMrs. Green testified that defendant had been living with his grandmother; that she saw defendant in the early morning of November 28, 1970, at the police station; that he was in a \u201cstupor state\u201d and \u201chad some white substance around his mouth which she assumed was glue\u201d; and that \u201c [s] he felt that he was not himself and did not know where he was that night or what he was doing.\u201d\nThe court instructed the jury they could return one of three ' verdicts: (1) Guilty of rape as charged in the bill of indictment; (2) guilty of rape with recommendation that the punishment be imprisonment for life; and (3) not guilty.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty of rape as charged with recommendation that defendant\u2019s punishment be imprisonment for life. In accordance with the mandate of G.S. 14-21, a judgment of life imprisonment was pronounced. Defendant excepted and appealed.\nAttorney General Morgan and Assistant Attorneys General Eatman and League for the State.\nMorgan, Byerly, Post & Herring, by James F. Morgan, for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0112-01", "first_page_order": 132, "last_page_order": 136 }