{ "id": 8557640, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CRAVEN TURNER, JR.", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Turner", "decision_date": "1973-03-14", "docket_number": "No. 6", "first_page": "53", "last_page": "57", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "283 N.C. 53" } ], "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": "187 S.E. 2d 750", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 118", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573933 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0118-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 123", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 42", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569736 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0042-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 U.S. 436", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12046400 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0436-01" ] }, { "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": "176 S.E. 2d 756", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "277 N.C. 188", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563654 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/277/0188-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 761", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 38", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573668 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0038-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 561", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565516 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0001-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 497, "char_count": 8880, "ocr_confidence": 0.552, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0873126127746902e-07, "percentile": 0.563964540017584 }, "sha256": "a5299adad83c2b27902a5aae5700715025f46348136d67d7ac28eef0e56be3c7", "simhash": "1:a271b46846d71800", "word_count": 1496 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:42:12.699050+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CRAVEN TURNER, JR." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HIGGINS, Justice.\nThe defendant brings forward two assignments of error on which he relies for a new trial. His first assignment challenges the admission of his confession on these grounds: First, it was not in writing; and second, it was made in the absence of counsel. He cites as authority, State v. Lynch, 279 N.C. 1, 181 S.E. 2d 561, and the decision of this Court on his first appeal. State v. Turner, supra.\nThe requirement that the State furnish counsel to each defendant charged with a criminal offense beyond the class of petty misdemeanor is conditioned upon a showing of indigency and inability to procure counsel for that reason. G.S. 7A-450; State v. Wright, 281 N.C. 38, 187 S.E. 2d 761; State v. Lynch, supra; State v. Green, 277 N.C. 188, 176 S.E. 2d 756; State v. McRae, 276 N.C. 308, 172 S.E. 2d 37.\nThe evidence before the court disclosed by the defendant\u2019s own affidavit that at the time of his arrest and confession, he had jobs which paid him $650.00 per month; that he had $400.00 \u201ccoming to him\u201d; that his wife\u2019s income was $480.00 per month; that he owned two automobiles (a 1965 Mustang and a 1970 Chevrolet) on which one payment of $179.00 was due. In addition to his other household furnishings, he had a stereo of the value of $300.00 and a color television set worth $1500.00. On his own showing, he was not an indigent. Hence, he was in a position to waive counsel and actually did so. A written waiver was not required. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602.\nThe defendant\u2019s second assignment of error challenged the evidence of the State\u2019s witness Katrina Tyson who testified that on and prior to January 5,1971, she worked for Almond Brothers Poultry near Albemarle. She knew James Alexander Howell and that he cashed checks on Tuesday of each week. Shortly before January 5, 1971, she had a conversation with the defendant, Craven Turner, Jr., who asked her if James Alexander Howell \u201cstill cashed checks on Tuesday, and I told him \u2018yes.\u2019 ... I knew James Alexander Howell from the time I started my employment at Almond Brothers Poultry. I knew that he cashed checks on Tuesday of each week regularly when we got paid off.\u201d\nPrior to the above testimony, the witness in answer to the questions of the solicitor, testified giving her age as nineteen and that she and the defendant \u201cwas going with each other. . . . We were out one night and he asked me whether the man still cashed checks on Tuesday and I told him \u2018yes.\u2019 \u201d The witness testified she knew the defendant was married. The foregoing testimony was given in reply to certain questions by the solicitor. Actually, the answers went beyond the scope' of the questions. The defendant did not move to strike and did not cross-examine except as to Howell\u2019s habit of cashing checks on each Tuesday.\nThe defendant argues here that the State by the above testimony offered proof of the defendant\u2019s bad character and inasmuch as he did not testify, his character was not in issue. Hence, the evidence related thereto should have been excluded on his objection.\nMiss Tyson, when interviewed by Sheriff McSwain, reported that shortly before Tuesday, January 5, 1971, the defendant Turner asked her if the man (Howell) still cashed checks on each Tuesday. She replied \u201cyes.\u201d This evidence was material on the question of motive for the robbery and tended to buttress Turner\u2019s confession. The intimate relationship between the witness and the defendant was properly before the jury whose duty it was to weigh the evidence. The attitude of the witness, interest or lack of it, has bearing on the weight of the testimony. Incriminating evidence from a friend ordinarily should outweigh the same evidence from a stranger or an enemy. The defendant\u2019s objection to Miss Tyson\u2019s testimony is not sustained.\nTwo juries have heard the evidence and on each occasion has found the appellant guilty of murder in the first degree, but made the recommendation that his life be spared.\nAfter careful review we conclude that prejudicial error in the second trial is not disclosed.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "HIGGINS, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert Morgan, Attorney General, by Howard P. Satisky, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "James C. Davis and Clarence E. Horton, Jr., for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CRAVEN TURNER, JR.\nNo. 6\n(Filed 14 March 1973)\n1. Constitutional Law \u00a7 32\u2014 requirement that State furnish counsel \u2014 indigency as prerequisite\nThe requirement that the State furnish counsel to each defendant charged with a criminal offense beyond the class of petty misdemeanor is conditioned upon a showing of indigency and inability to procure counsel for that reason.\n2. Constitutional Law \u00a7 32\u2014 defendant not indigent \u2014 waiver of counsel \u2014 sufficiency of oral waiver\nWhere the evidence tended to show that, at the time of his arrest and confession, defendant had jobs which paid him $650 per month, that his wife\u2019s income was $480 per month, that he owned two automobiles and that he owned a stereo, a color television set and other household furnishings, defendant was not an indigent but was in a position to waive counsel, could do so orally, and did in fact make such waiver.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 86\u2014 testimony of interested witness \u2014 admissibility\nIn a first degree murder prosecution testimony by a witness that she and defendant \u201cwas going with each other\u201d and that she knew defendant was married was admissible together with testimony that defendant had asked the witness questions with respect to the victim\u2019s habit of cashing checks since the attitude of the witness and her interest in the case had bearing on the weight to be given the testimony by the jury.\nAppeal by defendant from McConnell, J., August 21, 1972 Criminal Session, Union Superior Court.\nIn this criminal prosecution the defendant, Craven Turner, Jr., was indicted by a Stanly County Superior Court Grand Jury at the February 22, 1971 Session for the capital felony of murder in the first degree. The indictment charged the killing of James Alexander Howell on January 5, 1971.\nThe defendant was first tried at the May 31, 1971 Special Criminal Session, Stanly Superior Court. The evidence disclosed that the defendant and one Johnny James Blackmon shot and killed James Alexander Howell in the attempt to rob him. The evidence further disclosed that Blackmon actually did the shooting. The two defendants were tried separately. Blackmon was convicted and received a death sentence. He was awarded a new trial. State v. Blackmon, 280 N.C. 42, 185 S.E. 2d 123. Turner was convicted and given a life sentence. He also received a new trial. State v. Turner, 281 N.C. 118, 187 S.E. 2d 750. \u25a0 Turner\u2019s new trial was based on the ground the record did not affirmatively show that he had waived his right to counsel at the in-custody interrogation. After this Court remanded Turner\u2019s case to the Superior Court of Stanly County for another trial, the defendant applied for and was granted a change of venue on account of the unfavorable publicity in his and Blackmon\u2019s first trials. The court removed the case to Union County.\nThe evidence at the trial now under review disclosed that Johnny James Blackmon and the defendant Craven Turner, Jr., pursuant to a common plan, attempted to hold up and rob James Alexander Howell. In the attempt Blackmon shot and killed the intended victim.\nThe defendant Turner, having been fully advised of his rights, specifically waived his right to remain silent and to have counsel present. He stated to Sheriff McSwain that he wanted to make a full confession \u201cto get it off my brain.\u201d He told Sheriff McSwain that he and Blackmon planned to hold up and rob Howell and explained how he and Blackmon drove to Howell\u2019s home in the early morning and waited for him to start to work. As he sought to enter his truck, they made an effort forcibly to take his money. Howell resisted and Blackmon shot and killed him. Both fled from the scene in Turner\u2019s automobile.\nAt the new trial the State undertook to introduce Turner\u2019s confession. Upon objection, the court conducted a voir dire examination, made detailed findings of fact, and concluded that the defendant was not indigent and that his confession was free and voluntary. Counsel having been waived, the.confession was properly admissible in evidence. The defendant excepted when the confession was offered before the jury.\nThe defendant objected to the confession upon the grounds that he was an indigent not represented by counsel and that he did not waive in writing his right to counsel at the in-custody interrogation. The court overruled the objections and admitted the confession in evidence. The jury returned its verdict finding the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree and again recommended the punishment be life imprisonment. From the court\u2019s sentence in accordance with the jury\u2019s recommendation, the defendant appealed.\nRobert Morgan, Attorney General, by Howard P. Satisky, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nJames C. Davis and Clarence E. Horton, Jr., for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0053-01", "first_page_order": 81, "last_page_order": 85 }