{ "id": 8575271, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM HARRISON BOLIN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bolin", "decision_date": "1972-06-16", "docket_number": "No. 114", "first_page": "415", "last_page": "429", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "281 N.C. 415" } ], "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": "197 S.E. 573", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1938, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "576" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "213 N.C. 719", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630362 ], "year": 1938, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "723-24" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/213/0719-01" ] }, { "cite": "159 S.E. 2d 305", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "309" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 N.C. 51", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574394 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "57" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/273/0051-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 S.E. 2d 169", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "176" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "264 N.C. 488", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574116 ], "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "499" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/264/0488-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 S.E. 2d 485", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "487" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "260 N.C. 228", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574035 ], "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "232" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/260/0228-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 S.E. 2d 461", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "464" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 475", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626914 ], "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "479" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/254/0475-01" ] }, { "cite": "184 S.E. 2d 845", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "849" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569578 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "7" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 135", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "139" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 513", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560822 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "519" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0513-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 393", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "398" }, { "page": "398" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 73", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565707 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "81-2" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0073-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 S.E. 2d 65", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "71" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "277 N.C. 391", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565528 ], "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "401-02" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/277/0391-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1049, "char_count": 33529, "ocr_confidence": 0.53, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.047766339541395e-07, "percentile": 0.9662242856629866 }, "sha256": "8a95185daacb11de70468d99c81cf5f23d8bad84b1d836d7d0ba32dc55570c46", "simhash": "1:a3da52fad37940b8", "word_count": 5901 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:41.611741+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM HARRISON BOLIN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BOBBITT, Chief Justice.\nDefendant assigns as error (1) the court\u2019s denial of his motion under G.S. 15-173 for judgment as in case of nonsuit, (2) the court\u2019s denial of his motion as in case of nonsuit in respect of the charge of murder in the first degree, and (3) portions of the court\u2019s charge to the jury.\nThe applicable substantive law is well settled and need not be restated. For the elements of murder in the first degree, see State v. Reams, 277 N.C. 391, 401-02, 178 S.E. 2d 65, 71 (1970), and cases cited. For the elements of murder in the second degree and of voluntary manslaughter, see State v. Duboise, 279 N.C. 73, 81-2, 181 S.E. 2d 393, 398 (1971), and cases cited. For the legal principles applicable to the right of self-defense, see State v. Wynn, 278 N.C. 513, 519, 180 S.E. 2d 135, 139 (1971), and cases cited. Consideration of the charge shows that Judge Long instructed the jury in substantial accord with our decisions.\nThe evidence, inclusive of the stipulation and of portions of defendant\u2019s written statement of September 12th, was sufficient to support a finding that defendant intentionally shot Wiles and thereby inflicted bullet wounds which proximately caused Wiles\u2019s death. If so, nothing else appearing, defendant would be guilty of murder in the second degree. State v. Duboise, supra at 81-2, 181 S.E. 2d at 398, and cases there cited. Defendant contends that this statement of September 12th discloses that he acted within his legal right of self-defense; and, having offered the statement in evidence, the State is bound by the portions thereof which are favorable to defendant.\nOn a motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the State. Contradictions and discrepancies, even in the State\u2019s evidence, are matters for the jury and do not warrant nonsuit. State v. Murphy, 280 N.C. 1, 7, 184 S.E. 2d 845, 849 (1971), and cases cited.\n\u201cWhen the State introduces in evidence exculpatory statements of the defendant which are not contradicted or shown to be false by any other facts or circumstances in evidence, the State is bound by these statements.\u201d State v. Carter, 254 N.C. 475, 479, 119 S.E. 2d 461, 464 (1961), and cases cited. Accord: State v. Gaines, 260 N.C. 228, 232, 132 S.E. 2d 485, 487 (1963); State v. Bruton, 264 N.C. 488, 499, 142 S.E. 2d 169, 176 (1965). The introduction in evidence by the State of a statement made by defendant which may tend to exculpate him, does not prevent the State from showing that the facts concerning the homicide were different from what the defendant said about them. State v. Cooper, 273 N.C. 51, 57, 159 S.E. 2d 305, 309 (1968), and cases cited.\nIf and when the jury found that defendant intentionally shot Wiles and thereby inflicted bullet wounds which proximately caused his death, it was incumbent on defendant to show to the satisfaction of the jury that he acted in self-defense and that in doing so he used no more force than was or reasonably appeared necessary under the circumstances to protect himself from death or great bodily harm. Standing alone, the facts stated in defendant\u2019s statement of September 12th are insufficient to show as a matter of law that defendant was entitled to complete exoneration on the ground of self-defense. Considered in the light most favorable to defendant, these facts were sufficient only to permit the jury to find to its satisfaction that defendant so acted. In any event, when the testimony of Allred, Scales, Huff, Teele and Cherry is considered, the court properly denied defendant\u2019s motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit. In this connection, we note that defendant\u2019s flight from the scene of the killing was competent for consideration by the jury in connection with other circumstances in passing upon whether defendant was guilty of unlawful homicide but was not admissible to prove premeditation and deliberation. State v. Payne, 213 N.C. 719, 723-24, 197 S.E. 573, 576 (1938), and cases cited.\nHaving concluded that the facts narrated in defendant\u2019s statement of September 12th did not establish as a matter of law that he acted in self-defense, we turn now to consider whether the State\u2019s evidence was sufficient to require submission of murder in the first degree as a permissible verdict. The answer to this question requires an analysis of the evidence offered by the State other than defendant\u2019s statement of September 12th, with emphasis upon those portions which are in conflict, expressly or impliedly, with defendant\u2019s explanatory statement.\nDefendant\u2019s explanation of the incident in the poolroom when Wiles missed the shot and lost the bet and of his departure from Stadium Drive Lunch and his return is as follows: Wiles got awfully mad and was going to \u201cjump all over\u201d defendant until Gerrey spoke up and told Wiles he had heard what was going on and asked Wiles to leave defendant alone. Thereupon, Wiles \u201cjumped on\u201d Gerrey. Then, according to defendant\u2019s statement, \u201cWiles said, Tf you people don\u2019t like what I do, I have got a forty-five and a thirty-two out in the car and I\u2019ll just blow your brains out.\u2019 Huff and Ted Gerrey heard Bill Wiles say this.\u201d Thereupon, \u201cthe dark-haired man\u201d pushed Wiles out of the door and took him to his car. Defendant then walked up to the front, talked with one Charlie Cryner, and \u201cwas going to ask Harold Huff if he wanted a ride home.\u201d He told Gerrey to come on and he would take him home. Gerrey said that Wiles was going to do what he said. Accompanied by Gerrey, defendant left Stadium Drive Lunch, went by his own home and picked up his shotgun. Defendant and Gerrey returned to the Stadium Drive area, first stopping in front of Stadium Drive Lunch. Scales walked out the front door and defendant asked, \u201cIs Huff still there?\u201d Whereupon, Scales told him: \u201cLook out, that fellow is still in there and you had better watchout. You had better not park here.\u201d Defendant then pulled down the street, and stopped on the Kashway parking lot.\nThe testimony of Scales and of Huff is in sharp conflict with the foregoing explanation of defendant. They testified that they did not hear Wiles say anything about having \u201ca forty-five or thirty-two in his car\u201d and did not hear him make threats of any kind. Too, they testified explicitly that defendant and Ger-rey left Stadium Drive Lunch first and that Wiles was the last customer to leave. Their testimony contains no reference to a departure by Wiles under escort of a \u201cdark-haired man,\u201d prior to the departure of Cryner, Bolin and Gerrey. Nothing in defendant\u2019s explanation indicates that he in fact asked Huff if he wanted a ride home. Huff\u2019s testimony was that he planned for Scales to take him home as usual. No testimony of Scales or of Huff indicates that either of them saw defendant or Gerrey between the time defendant and Gerrey left in defendant\u2019s truck and the later time when Wiles left the Stadium Drive Lunch building.\nDefendant\u2019s explanation as to what occurred after he parked his truck on the Kashway parking lot was as follows: Just as soon as defendant stopped, Wiles came \u201ctearing out\u201d of the side door and \u201ccame up the hank walking south\u201d toward defendant\u2019s truck and said something like, \u201cI\u2019m going to teach you some manners.\u201d Wiles reached in his pocket and defendant thought Wiles \u201cwas going to get a knife or gun.\u201d Defendant thought \u201cabout leaving but . . . didn\u2019t know what [Wiles] was going to do.\u201d When Wiles was four or five feet away, defendant told Wiles he had \u201cbetter stop\u201d where he was. Wiles was on the left side of defendant\u2019s truck. Wiles did not stop but kept on coming, moving faster. When defendant first told Wiles to stop, defendant \u201cstuck [his] gun out of the window and told [Wiles] he had better look at what [defendant] had and stop,\u201d but Wiles \u201cjust put his hand in his pocket.\u201d Defendant \u201cjust cut loose when [Wiles] kept on coming and [Wiles] fell in front of [defendant\u2019s] truck.\u201d Defendant shot Wiles when Wiles was \u201cabout five feet away.\u201d Gerrey was in the truck when defendant shot Wiles, but Gerrey \u201cjumped out of the truck and ran in the luncheon in the back door and told [defendant] to go on so [defendant] did.\u201d\nAlthough Scales and Huff were present when Wiles left, nothing in the testimony of either suggests that Wiles went \u201ctearing out\u201d of Stadium Drive Lunch. Huff testified that when Wiles came out of the poolroom he had a Budweiser beer can in his hand. Allred testified that he found no weapon of any kind on or near Wiles\u2019s body but did find \u201ca Budweiser beer can\u201d near his right arm. The diagram, tending to show \u201cthe point of injury and the angle trajectory after the pellets entered the body,\u201d indicates the shot entered the right anterior wall of Wiles\u2019s chest and coursed downward. This evidence, defendant\u2019s statement that Wiles \u201ccame up the bank walking south,\u201d and Allred\u2019s testimony as to where Wiles\u2019s body was found, permitted the inference and a finding that Wiles was shot as he approached the top of the bank.\nDefendant\u2019s statement that Wiles came from his left is in accord with Teele\u2019s testimony that the lights of the truck on the Kashway lot were burning and headed toward Stadium Drive. Defendant\u2019s statement that Wiles came \u201ctearing out\u201d of the Stadium Drive Lunch \u201c[j]ust as soon\u201d as he stopped on the Kashway parking lot is in conflict with Teele\u2019s testimony that defendant had been parked there when Teele passed, which was 10 or 15 minutes before Teele heard the radio broadcast \u201cof a shooting at the Stadium Street Lunch.\u201d\nCherry testified that Gerrey told him that the statement made by defendant was correct. This included a statement that Gerrey was in the truck with defendant when defendant shot Wiles. Circumstances testified to by other witnesses permit contrary inferences. According to Huff, Gerrey was not in the Stadum Drive Lunch building when he left to go where Wiles\u2019s body was lying. The truck left during the brief interval between the firing of the shot and the times when Huff and Allred viewed Wiles\u2019s lifeless body. When Huff returned, he found Gerrey inside the Stadium Drive Lunch building. Too, Allred testified that Gerrey and Scales were in this building when he arrived upon the scene.\nThere was evidence that the left door of the Thunderbird was open and that the car keys were in the ignition. It may be inferred from this evidence that Wiles, upon leaving the Stadium Drive Lunch, had gone first to the Thunderbird. Whatever may have induced him to leave the Thunderbird and approach defendant\u2019s truck, the fact that he had no weapon of any kind (unless a Budweiser beer can can be considered a weapon) and that defendant had and exhibited his shotgun negates rather than supports an inference that Wiles approached defendant\u2019s truck in a threatening and menancing manner.\nThe foregoing evidence would permit and support jury findings that there was an argument in the poolroom of the Stadium Drive Lunch between defendant and Gerrey on the one hand and Wiles on the other; that Wiles did not threaten defendant or Gerrey with a deadly weapon of any kind and did not have such a weapon; that defendant and Gerrey left in defendant\u2019s truck, leaving Wiles inside the Stadium Drive Lunch building; that, instead of taking Gerry home as originally planned, defendant drove to his own home, 2.2 miles away, and got his shotgun; that, armed with his shotgun, defendant and Gerrey returned to the Stadium Drive Lunch area and parked in the Kashway parking lot, with the truck headed toward the exit to Stadium Drive; that defendant returned to confront Wiles, not to offer Huff a ride; that defendant, with the shotgun in his lap, waited until Wiles emerged from the building; that Wiles, after first going to his Thunderbird car, was prompted or induced in some manner to approach defendant\u2019s truck; that, when he approached defendant\u2019s truck, Wiles had \u201ca Budweiser beer can\u201d in his hand and no weapon on his person; that, as Wiles walked up the slope of the grassy median toward defendant\u2019s truck, defendant shot him and immediately drove away; that Gerrey was not in the truck when defendant drove away but shortly thereafter showed up inside the Stadium Drive Lunch building. We conclude that the evidence tending to show these facts was sufficient to require submission of guilty of murder in the first degree as a permissible verdict and to support such verdict.\nSince defendant was not a witness, there was no cross-examination as to what was said in his statement. True, when the State introduced his extra-judicial statement, it was bound by what he said except insofar as it was contradicted and shown to be false. It was contradicted in material respects. In determining its credibility in these respects, the jury no doubt considered the fact that defendant had had the opportunity to reflect for more than three days before he gave any explanation as to what had occurred.\nWe have considered carefully each of defendant\u2019s assignments of error to the court\u2019s charge. As indicated above, none discloses prejudicial error. Elaboration of well-settled principles would serve no useful purpose.\nDefendant having failed to show prejudicial error, the verdict and judgment will not be disturbed.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "BOBBITT, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Morgan and Associate Attorney Sauls for the State.", "White, Crum/pler & Pfefferkorn, by Fred G. Crumpler, Jr., Michael J. Lewis and G. Edgar Parker, for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM HARRISON BOLIN\nNo. 114\n(Filed 16 June 1972)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 14\u2014 intentional shooting causing death \u2014 second degree murder\nIf defendant intentionally shot decedent and thereby inflicted bullet wounds which proximately caused decedent\u2019s death, nothing else appearing, defendant would be guilty of murder in the second degree.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 104\u2014 motion for nonsuit \u2014 consideration of evidence\nOn a motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the State; contradictions and discrepancies, even in the State\u2019s evidence, are matters for the jury and do not warrant nonsuit.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 90, 104\u2014 statement by defendant \u2014 introduction by State \u2014 showing that facts are different\nThe introduction in evidence by the State of a statement made by defendant which may tend to exculpate him does not prevent the State from showing that the facts concerning the crime were different from what the defendant said about them.\n4. Homicide \u00a7 14\u2014 self-defense \u2014 burden of proof\nIf and when the jury found that defendant intentionally shot decedent and thereby inflicted wounds which proximately caused his death, it was incumbent on defendant to show to the satisfaction of the jury that he acted in self-defense and that in doing so he used no more force than was or reasonably appeared necessary under the circumstances to protect himself from death or great bodily harm.\n5. Homicide \u00a7 21\u2014 self-defense as matter of law \u2014 insufficiency of evidence\nWritten statement signed by defendant, which was offered into evidence by the State, to the effect that defendant and his companion had an argument with decedent in a poolroom, that decedent stated that he had a \u201cforty-five and a thirty-two\u201d in his car and threatened to shoot defendant, that defendant went by his home and got a shotgun, that defendant and his companion returned to the poolroom to offer an employee of the poolroom a ride home, that the operator of the poolroom told defendant that decedent was still there and that he had better watch out, that defendant parked in a nearby parking lot, that decedent came out of the poolroom toward defendant\u2019s truck and said something like, \u201cI\u2019m going to teach you some manners,\u201d that defendant stuck his gun out the window and told decedent he had better look at what defendant had and stop, that decedent put his hand in his pocket and defendant thought he was going to get a knife or gun, and that defendant shot decedent when he kept coming and was about five feet away, held insufficient to establish as a matter of law that defendant acted in self-defense, the question of self-defense being for the jury to determine.\n6. Criminal Law \u00a7 46\u2014 evidence of flight\nDefendant\u2019s flight from the scene of a killing was competent for consideration by the jury in connection with other circumstances in passing upon whether defendant was guilty of unlawful homicide, but was not admissible to prove premeditation and deliberation.\n7. Homicide \u00a7 21\u2014 first degree murder \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient to require the submission to the jury of an issue of defendant\u2019s guilt of first degree murder where it would support findings by the jury that defendant and his companion had an argument with decedent in a poolroom, that, contrary to defendant\u2019s contention, decedent did not threaten defendant or his companion with a deadly weapon of any kind and did not have such a weapon, that defendant and his companion drove to defendant\u2019s home, got defendant\u2019s shotgun, returned to the poolroom area and parked in a nearby parking lot, that defendant returned for the purpose of confronting decedent, that defendant, with the shotgun in his lap, waited until decedent emerged from the poolroom, that decedent, after going to his car, was prompted or induced in some manner to approach defendant\u2019s truck, that decedent had a beer can in his hand and no weapon on his person, and that as decedent walked toward defendant\u2019s truck, defendant shot him and immediately drove away.\nAppeal by defendant from Long, /., November 22, 1971 Session of Forsyth Superior Court.\nDefendant was indicted, in the form prescribed by G.S. 15-144, for the murder of Buiel A. Wiles on September 9, 1971.\nIt was stipulated that Wiles died on September 9, 1971, as the result of a gunshot wound inflicted by defendant.\nThe only evidence was that offered by the State. It consists of exhibits and the testimony of each of the following witnesses: Donald W. Allred (Allred) ; Roy Tinley Scales (Scales); Harold Gray Huff (Huff) ; James H. Teele (Teele) ; and C. E. Cherry (Cherry). Allred, Teele and Cherry are members of the Police Department of Winston-Salem. Scales is the owner of Stadium Drive Lunch. Huff works there as an employee of Scales. Exhibits include (1) a statement signed by defendant, and (2) a diagram showing what the pathologist would testify as to \u201cthe point of injury and the angle trajectory after the pellets entered the body.\u201d\nThere was evidence tending to show that Stadium Drive, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, runs north and south; that Stadium Drive Lunch and its unpaved parking lot are north of Kashway Food Store and its paved lot, all being on the west side of Stadium Drive; that a grass median which separates the parking lots is 18 feet wide and slopes toward the Stadium Drive Lunch parking lot; and that it is 86 feet from the north side of the median to the south side of the Stadium Drive Lunch building.\nThe testimony of each witness, summarized except when quoted, is set forth below.\nAllred\u2019s Testimony\nIn response to a call which he received at 4:02 a.m., Allred (accompanied by J. C. Caudin, then a member of the Winston-Salem Police Department) went to the Stadium Drive Lunch (1716 Stadium Drive), arriving at 4:05 a.m. He found the lifeless body of Wiles lying on the southern edge of the grass median, 104 feet south of the Stadium Drive Lunch building and 20 feet west of the sidewalk along the west side of Stadium Drive.\nAllred searched Wiles\u2019s body and the adjacent \u201cwell-lighted\u201d area. He found \u201ca Budweiser beer can,\u201d containing approximately two ounces, a foot from Wiles\u2019s right arm. He found no knife or gun on Wiles or in the vicinity of his body. He also searched Wiles\u2019s Thunderbird car, including the trunk, but found no weapon. The Thunderbird was parked close to the south side of the Stadium Drive Lunch building. The keys to the Thunderbird were in the ignition.'\nAllred saw no people at the scene where Wiles\u2019s body was found except Scales, Huff and Ted Abrum Gerrey (Gerrey). When Allred arrived, Gerrey and Scales were inside the building. Huff came out \u201cof the drive\u201d when Allred drove up.\nScales\u2019s Testimony\nThe Stadium Drive Lunch building fronts on Stadium Drive. It consists of two rooms. There are tables and a bar in the front room where beer and sandwiches are sold. There is a pool table in the back room. Scales and Huff, his employee, were operating this place of business on the night of September 8th and during the early morning of September 9th.\nDefendant and Gerrey entered the Stadium Drive Lunch together. Wiles came in later. They played pool in the back room and stayed until all other customers had left. They played pool in the back room until Scales \u201ctold them [he] was closing\u201d and \u201csent them off.\u201d Defendant and Gerrey left first. When they left the building, Scales went out \u201cthe back side door,\u201d which was between the south side of the poolroom and Stadium Drive Lunch parking lot, \u201cto empty some trash.\u201d He saw defendant and Gerrey get in a truck and leave. Wiles stayed there \u201cfor a while\u201d and talked to Scales and Huff while they were \u201ccleaning the place up.\u201d When Wiles left the building, Scales \u201cclosed the place up and locked the door.\u201d \u201cA few minutes later\u201d Scales \u201cheard a shot.\u201d Huff opened the back side door and left the building. Upon his return, Huff told Scales that Wiles had been shot and Huff then \u201ccalled the officers and ambulance.\u201d When the officers arrived, Scales \u201cwent down to where the body [of Wiles] was.\u201d Scales noticed that the left front door of Wiles\u2019s car was open. During the evening, Scales had been \u201cup front most of the time,\u201d not paying \u201ca great deal of attention\u201d to what was going on in the poolroom. He heard no argument between defendant and Wiles. He did not hear Wiles say anything \u201cabout having a gun\u201d or \u201cabout threatening to shoot the defendant Bolin at any time that evening or at any other time.\u201d He heard no discussion between defendant and Wiles regarding a dollar bet on pool. At or about the time they were leaving, he heard them talking \u201cabout a shot that somebody had made,\u201d but knew of \u201cno heated argument\u201d between them.\nAlthough admittedly uncertain as to the time (times) and time intervals, Scales testified that defendant and Gerrey came into his place between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. on September 8th; that Wiles arrived shortly after midnight; that defendant and Gerrey left about 2:45 a.m.; that Wiles left from fifteen to forty-five minutes later; that he heard the shot from five to fifteen minutes later; and that Huff was gone from three to five minutes before returning to call the officers and ambulance.\nHuff\u2019s Testimony\nBolin and Wiles \u201cknew one another\u201d and \u201calways seemed to be friends.\u201d Huff \u201cheard no argument between Wiles and Bolin\u201d whenever he \u201cwent back into the pool area.\u201d When he went back \u201cto start cleaning up,\u201d he heard a discussion over a shot on the pool table. Defendant and Wiles had a dollar bet on whether Wiles could make a certain shot, and Wiles missed the shot. There \u201cwasn\u2019t a heated argument,\u201d but \u201cjust poolroom talk is about all.\u201d \u201c [A] s a result of the argument,\u201d Wiles passed back to defendant a dollar which defendant had previously given him. Defendant and Gerrey left the Stadium Drive Lunch together. Wiles stayed inside the place approximately 10-20 minutes and then left. Wiles had a Budweiser beer can in his hand \u201c[w]hen he left the poolroom part of the place.\u201d \u201cSomething like ten or fifteen minutes after [Wiles] left,\u201d Huff heard a shot and thereupon went out the side door. He did not see a vehicle of any kind except Wiles\u2019s Thunderbird. He noticed that \u201c[t]he door on the driver\u2019s side was open.\u201d Huff walked up to where Wiles\u2019s body was lying, saw that he was dead, and came back and called the police. Huff was outside \u201ca minute, a minute and a half.\u201d\nHuff \u201cdid not hear any kind of threats at all that Wiles was going to shoot Bolin,\u201d and \u201cdid not hear any statements of whether or not [Wiles] had a forty-five or thirty-two in his car or anything like that.\u201d Huff did not hear Wiles \u201ctell Bill Bolin he was going to shoot him,\u201d and \u201cdid not see any guns outside, inside, or anywhere else.\u201d Huff also testified that Gerrey was not in the Stadium Drive Lunch building when he heard the shot but was there when he returned. Scales had been taking Huff home whenever he helped him and Huff planned to go home with Scales that evening.\nTeele\u2019s Testimony\nOn September 9th, after 3:00 a.m., Teele was driving south on Stadium Drive at about ten miles an hour. In passing, he observed \u201ca couple of cars\u201d parked in the Stadium Drive Lunch parking lot and a \u201clight-colored pickup truck\u201d parked in the Kashway Food Store parking lot. The headlights on the pickup were shining toward Stadium Drive. He observed that there were two people in the pickup but could not tell \u201cwhether they were black or white.\u201d Ten or fifteen minutes later, when he was approximately a mile away, Teele heard a radio broadcast \u201cof a shooting at the Stadium Street Lunch.\u201d He \u201cturned around,\u201d drove back and pulled into the parking lot of the Stadium Drive Lunch. As he started to get out of his car, \u201ca person\u201d standing at or near the front door of Stadium Drive Lunch pointed toward Kashway Food Store and said, \u201cIt happened up that way.\u201d He headed south again on Stadium Drive an'd started to pull into the parking lot at Kashway Food Store \u201cwhen several other cars arrived at the scene.\u201d He had seen no one there when he arrived at Stadium Drive Lunch. He saw the body \u201con the north edge of the parking lot with the upper portion . . . turned to the north . . . into a grassy area and the lower part . . . extending onto the parking lot.\u201d (Note: Apparently, Teele left the scene without participating with other officers in the investigation.)\nCherry\u2019s Testimony\nAt 4:30 a.m. on September 9th, Detective Sergeant Cherry was assigned to investigate the killing of Wiles. After talking with Scales and Huff, he attempted without success to locate defendant, checking at his home and \u201cat the Post Office where he was employed.\u201d\nOn Sunday, September 12th, about 2:00 a.m., at his residence, Cherry received a telephone call from a man who identified himself as defendant\u2019s brother. As a result, the sheriff met defendant, one of defendant\u2019s brothers and defendant\u2019s attorney, at 9:00 a.m. on Sunday, September 12th, in the office of the Detective Division. Defendant was advised fully of his constitutional rights and signed \u201ca waiver of rights,\u201d which was witnessed by defendant\u2019s brother. Defendant then made a statement which was taken down in shorthand, transcribed, submitted to defendant for corrections, then signed by defendant and witnessed by Cherry and by defendant\u2019s brother. Defendant\u2019s statement, which was admitted in evidence without objection, is quoted below.\n\u201cI was leaving to go home. I was down at Southside with Mr. Yates in the six hundred block of Waughtown adjacent to McLean Trucking Company just to the east side. They have a shuffleboard game in there and I was playing a game of shuffleboard and one or two other people got in the game. I don\u2019t know their names, but one was a blond-headed girl and a man named Gene Dudley was watching. There were two more, but I don\u2019t know their names. This man that I know, Teddy Gerrey, he asked if I would give him a ride to Roy\u2019s Lunch on Stadium Drive, about the eight hundred block. I said, \u2018Yes, I will give you a ride,\u2019 so we arrived down there and I went in and sat down and was just sitting there and Ted asked if I would like to play a game of pool and I said, \u2018Yes, I\u2019ll play you a game,\u2019 so we went back to the poolroom to play a game of pool and some of the people that were there were Charlie Cryner and Gene Dudley. I played a couple of games and Ted left the poolroom and somebody said, \u2018Let\u2019s just play for a beer,\u2019 and I said, \u2018Okay, let\u2019s play and the loser will buy the beer,\u2019 so, I won a game or two and then Bill Wiles won a game. We played three or four games.\n\u201cAfter nearly through the last game, I offered to bet Bill Wiles a dollar that he would not make the last ball and buy a beer. Bill Wiles was not going to win the game because this dark-haired guy about five feet seven inches or five feet eight inches about a hundred eighty-five or ninety pounds was going to win. He was a gentle acting man. This was about 12:30. I knew that I should have already been home. I wasn\u2019t paying any attention to the time. When Bill lost, he got awfully mad and he was going to jump all over me, and Ted Gerrey told him he heard what was going on and the man was right and to leave me alone. I said, \u2018Bill, listen to the man or ask this other fellow sitting here.\u2019 He said yes, he heard what was said and it was just like what he said and then Bill jumped on Ted. He didn\u2019t ever hit me. He jumped on Ted. Then, Bill Wiles said, \u2018If you people don\u2019t like what I do, I have got a forty-five and a thirty-two out in the car and I\u2019ll just blow your brains out.\u2019 Huff and Ted Gerrey heard Bill Wiles say this. Then, the dark-haired man pushed Bill Wiles out of the door and took him to the car. So, I walked up to the front and I said hello to Charlie Cryner. He works at McLean\u2019s and I was talking to him and he was kidding Harold Huff and I was going to ask Harold Huff if he wanted a ride home and Charlie said, \u2018Do you need to borrow any money,\u2019 and I said, \u2018No, I have got some money in my pocket.\u2019 So, I was going to see if Huff wanted a ride home, so I told Ted to come on and I would give him a way home. He said, \u2018That man is going to do what he says. Bill means what he says.\u2019 So, I went by my home and picked up my shotgun and Ted was with me.\n\u201cSo, I stopped by Roy\u2019s and parked out front and Roy walked out the front door and I said, \u2018Is Huff still there?\u2019 and Roy Scales said, \u2018Look out, that fellow is still in there and you had better watch out. You had better not park here.\u2019 So, I just pulled on down the street and stopped on the parking lot of Kashway Pood Store and my truck was headed north of the luncheon. Just as soon as I got stopped, Bill Wiles came tearing out that door and he came up the bank walking south. He came out the side door and walked south towards my truck and he came up and looked at me and said something to me, I can\u2019t remember, but it was something like \u2018I\u2019m going to teach you some manners,\u2019 and he kept on walking and he reached in his pocket and I thought he was going to get a knife or gun. I didn\u2019t know what he was doing. I thought about leaving, but I didn\u2019t know what he was going to do. I said, \u2018Bill, you better stop where you are,\u2019 and he was about four or five feet away from me. He was on the left side of my truck. I just told him he better stop, but he didn\u2019t stop. He just kept on coming and he just moved faster. I had my shotgun in my lap and I just raised my gun up and shot him. The first time I told him to stop, I stuck my gun out the window and told him he had better look at what I had and stop, but he didn\u2019t. He just put his hand in his pocket. I just cut loose when he kept on coming and he fell in front of my truck. He was about five feet away when I shot him. Ted Gerrey was in the truck at this time. He jumped out of the truck and ran in the luncheon in the back door and told me to go on so I did.\n\u201cI don\u2019t know if anybody was drinking beer in there or not. Gerrey was present when Bill Wiles told me he had a thirty-two and a forty-five in his car and so was Huff. They heard Wiles say he would blow my brains out. After I left the parking lot at the luncheon, I went to Thomasville and came back through High Point and stopped in High Point and cashed a check and got some gas at a service station and came back halfway between Winston-Salem and High Point and drove down Cumley Road and drove to a sawmill and got a hose and tried to commit suicide. I stayed there for two nights. Then, Saturday night, I came back home. I figured I had better get it straight.\u201d\nAfter signing the statement, defendant was \u201ctaken into custody and charged with the offense\u201d for which he was tried.\nCherry testified that defendant told him that Gerrey was in the truck when defendant shot Wiles; and that defendant had thrown the gun \u201cin Salem Creek.\u201d\nCherry also testified that it was exactly 2.2 miles from Stadium Drive Lunch to where defendant lived.\nIn his cross-examination of Cherry, defendant\u2019s counsel elicited testimony which tended to show the following: Scales had told Cherry that Wiles and defendant \u201chad started arguing after they started closing up and he [Scales] went back and told them he didn\u2019t want any trouble, they would have to leave.\u201d After defendant was \u201ctaken in custody,\u201d Gerrey was picked up and brought to the Police Department. After reading defendant\u2019s statement, Gerrey said \u201cit was a true and accurate account of what had taken place\u201d; \u201cthat when they had left Roy\u2019s Lunch that he was planning to go home but that the defendant drove to his house instead and got the shotgun and came back.\u201d\nThe jurors were instructed to return one of the following verdicts: \u201cguilty of first degree murder; or guilty of first degree murder with a recommendation of life imprisonment; or guilty of second degree murder; or guilty of manslaughter; or not guilty.\u201d\nThe jury returned a verdict of \u201cguilty of first degree murder with a recommendation of life imprisonment.\u201d Whereupon, the court pronounced judgment which imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. Defendant excepted and appealed.\nAttorney General Morgan and Associate Attorney Sauls for the State.\nWhite, Crum/pler & Pfefferkorn, by Fred G. Crumpler, Jr., Michael J. Lewis and G. Edgar Parker, for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0415-01", "first_page_order": 443, "last_page_order": 457 }