{ "id": 8558286, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JUNIOR LEE WASHINGTON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Washington", "decision_date": "1973-04-11", "docket_number": "No. 46", "first_page": "175", "last_page": "191", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "283 N.C. 175" } ], "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": "159 S.E. 2d 562", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "568-69" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 N.C. 189", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574914 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "197" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/273/0189-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 S.E. 2d 254", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 132", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8595356 ], "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0132-01" ] }, { "cite": "183 S.E. 2d 671", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "676" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 413", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569338 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "421" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0413-01" ] }, { "cite": "409 U.S. 524", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6177676 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/409/0524-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 S.E. 2d 781", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "782" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 658", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627686 ], "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "660" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/254/0658-01" ] }, { "cite": "161 S.E. 2d 560", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "565" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "274 N.C. 62", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559380 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "68" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/274/0062-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 832", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "834" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 693", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561446 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "696" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0693-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 47", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "51" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 633", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573124 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "641" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0633-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 S.Ct. 669", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "21 L.Ed. 2d 590", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "393 U.S. 1042", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11414204, 11414340, 11414470, 11414536, 11414153, 11414602, 11414679, 11414268, 11414398 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/393/1042-02", "/us/393/1042-04", "/us/393/1042-06", "/us/393/1042-07", "/us/393/1042-01", "/us/393/1042-08", "/us/393/1042-09", "/us/393/1042-03", "/us/393/1042-05" ] }, { "cite": "161 S.E. 2d 568", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "573-574" }, { "page": "573" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "274 N.C. 106", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559459 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "113-114" }, { "page": "113" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/274/0106-01" ] }, { "cite": "391 U.S. 543", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1767611 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/391/0543-01" ] }, { "cite": "391 U.S. 510", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1767501 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/391/0510-01" ] }, { "cite": "165 S.E. 2d 481", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8557806 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 S.E. 2d 19", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566644 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0431-01" ] }, { "cite": "408 U.S. 238", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1782791 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/408/0238-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1180, "char_count": 37729, "ocr_confidence": 0.497, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.762599381201707e-07, "percentile": 0.8336953235497514 }, "sha256": "875ba386f0f4fe6ada1c122b12a2070fd45c259859cc5100903288a9dcbf27a1", "simhash": "1:841df66e9c6a7851", "word_count": 6426 }, "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. JUNIOR LEE WASHINGTON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BOBBITT, Chief Justice.\nDefendant was convicted at the 13 November 1972 Session of felonies committed on 2 August 1972. Both events occurred after the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 33 L.Ed. 2d 346, 92 S.Ct. 2726 (29 June 1972), and before the decision of this Court in State v. Waddell, 282 N.C. 431, 194 S.E. 2d 19 (18 January 1973).\nWith reference to the indictment for rape, the court instructed the jury: \u201cYou may find the defendant guilty of rape or not guilty,\u201d and \u201cif you return a verdict of guilty of rape, the law provides that the defendant will be put to death in the gas chamber.\u201d The jury was not instructed in accordance with this portion of G.S. 14-21: \u201cProvided, if the jury shall so recommend at the time of rendering its verdict in open court, the punishment shall be imprisonment for life in the State\u2019s prison, and the court shall so instruct the jury.\u201d Presumably, it was Judge Brewer\u2019s opinion that Furman had invalidated the proviso in G. S. 14-21 and that, absent the proviso, G.S. 14-21 made the death sentence mandatory upon a conviction of rape. It was so held by this Court in Waddell in respect of rapes committed after the date (18 January 1973) of that decision but that \u201cNorth Carolina\u2019s mandatory death sentence for rape . . . may not be constitutionally applied to any offense committed prior to the date\u201d of the decision in Waddell. Hence, even if defendant has failed to show prejudicial error in respect of guilt, the death sentence in the rape case must be vacated and the cause remanded for proper judgment (s).\nAssignments of Error Nos. 1, 2 and 3 may be considered together. Based thereon, defendant contends that (1) the constitutional right to due process was violated by the court\u2019s submission of the rape charge to the jury \u201cas a capital issue\u201d; (2) that the court erroneously failed to instruct the jury that life imprisonment was the maximum punishment for rape; and (3) that the court erroneously failed to instruct the jury that if they found defendant guilty of rape they could in their sole discretion return a verdict of \u201cguilty, with the recommendation of life imprisonment.\u201d\nIn the light of Waddell, Judge Brewer should have submitted this case for jury determination solely in respect of whether defendant was guilty or not guilty of rape without referring to the punishment in the event of conviction; and, if convicted, defendant should have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. This is the appropriate procedure in respect of trials for the crimes of murder in the first degree, rape, burglary in the first degree and arson committed prior to 18 January 1973. However, the indicated errors were not prejudicial to the defendant. Certainly jurors would be more reluctant to return a verdict of guilty if advised that the punishment upon conviction would be death rather than life imprisonment. Moreover, we find no merit in the suggestion that tiie fact that defendant ostensibly was being tried for his life rather than for life imprisonment tended to emphasize or aggravate the seriousness of the crime. In either event, the seriousness of the crime depended upon the evidence as to what happened, not on whether the punishment therefor would be death or life imprisonment. Either of these punishments would suffice to indicate the seriousness of the crime of rape.\nThe jurors were selected under instructions that a verdict of guilty of rape would require the imposition of a death sentence. In State v. Williams, 275 N.C. 77, 165 S.E. 2d 481 (1969), this Court rejected the idea that jurors are biased in favor of conviction simply because they do not have conscientious or religious scruples against capital punishment. Our decision in Williams was based largely on the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 20 L.Ed. 2d 776, 88 S.Ct. 1770 (1968), and in Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 20 L.Ed. 2d 797, 88 S.Ct. 1788 (1968), and in our prior decision of State v. Peele, 274 N.C. 106, 113-114, 161 S.E. 2d 568, 573-574 (1968), cert. den. 393 U.S. 1042, 21 L.Ed. 2d 590, 89 S.Ct. 669 (1969).\nNothing in the record before us indicates that any member of the jury which tried defendant was biased in favor of conviction or otherwise prejudiced against defendant on account of his views on capital punishment or otherwise. Nor does it appear that the jury included any juror who was challenged by defendant.\nIn Assignment of Error No. 6 defendant asserts that the court erroneously admitted the portion of Mrs. Adams\u2019s testimony which relates to what defendant calls \u201can alleged second, uncharged, rape of the prosecuting witness by the defendant outside the car in the woods some time after the alleged first charged rape in the home.\u201d He bases this contention on the general rule that \u201cin a prosecution for a particular crime the State cannot offer evidence tending to show that the accused has committed another distinct, independent, or separate offense.\u201d State v. Long, 280 N.C. 633, 641, 187 S.E. 2d 47, 51 (1972). This general rule does not apply to the testimony challenged by defendant. The indictment charged that defendant raped Mrs. Adams on 2 August 1972. It was sufficient to support a conviction for rape committed in the home or in the woods or in the home and in the woods. The evidence is to the effect that from defendant\u2019s initial assault on Mrs. Adams in her home until he left her in the woods (clothed only in her panties), Mrs. Adams was defendant\u2019s captive. Defendant\u2019s actions constituted one continuous course of conduct. It makes no difference that the second act of rape took place in the woods rather than in Mrs. Adams\u2019s home.\nIn Assignment of Error No. 7 defendant asserts that the court erroneously admitted testimony of Mrs. Adams which included statements by defendant that up north \u201ca white woman would let a black lay them\u201d and that he had picked Mrs. Adams as his victim because she was \u201can uppity white chick.\u201d Mrs. Adams testified that the quoted statements were made by defendant after the second act of rape had been completed and while she and defendant were in the woods. Defendant asserts that this testimony \u201cgratuitously injected into the proceeding tones of racial conflict\u201d; that it was \u201chighly racial and anti-white in tone\u201d; and that it \u201cwas irrelevant, immaterial and highly prejudicial to the defendant in its effect upon the jury.\u201d True, the statements made by defendant were \u201chighly racial and anti-white in tone.\u201d But they were injected into the case gratuitously by defendant, not by Mrs. Adams. We hold that the evidence was competent and properly admitted notwithstanding prejudice, if any, to the defendant. The testimony refers to statements made by defendant to a woman whom he had forcibly removed from her home and children, whom he had raped twice, and whose ultimate fate as his captive victim was unknown when the statements were made. Moreover, the quoted statements bear significantly upon the intent with which defendant entered the Adams home and upon his motivation in selecting an utter stranger as the object of his lust.\nIn Assignment of Error No. 13 defendant asserts that the court erred \u201cin failing to grant the defendant\u2019s pre-trial motion for psychiatric examination on November 3, 1972.\u201d\nDefendant was arrested 2 August 1972. He was indicted at the 14 August 1972 Session. We take judicial notice that a special (Criminal) session was held 2 October 1972. On 27 October 1972 a petition was filed which prayed that defendant be committed to the Dorothea Dix Hospital, Raleigh, North Carolina, for observation, evaluation and treatment as provided in G.S. 122-91. Petition was signed and verified by Carl A. Barrington, Jr., defendant\u2019s retained private counsel. A hearing on the petition was conducted by Judge Brewer, the presiding Judge of the Twelfth Judicial District. By order dated 1 November 1972, Judge Brewer denied the petition. Apparently, no evidence was presented other than the verified petition. Judge Brewer based his order upon findings of fact that \u201cthe defendant ha[d] been confined in the Hoke County Jail since August 2nd, 1972\u201d; that the cases were \u201cscheduled for trial on Monday, November 13, 1972\u201d; that \u201cthe information provided to the court is not sufficient grounds for a commitment to Dorothea Dix Hospital\u201d; and that \u201cno reasonable grounds for the defendant being committed to Dorothea Dix Hospital has been shown by competent evidence, affidavits or otherwise.\u201d\nAlthough defendant assigns as error the denial of this petition, the record does not show that an exception thereto was noted. \u201cThe Rules of Practice (1921) of both this Court and the Court of Appeals require any error asserted on appeal to be supported by an exception duly taken and shown in the record.\u201d State v. Jacobs, 278 N.C. 693, 696, 180 S.E. 2d 832, 834 (1971). We note that G.S. 122-91 provides that commitment to a State hospital for a period of not exceeding sixty days for observation and treatment may be entered. Defendant was not entitled to such order as a matter of right and has failed to show that the failure to grant his belated motion was an abuse of discretion. We note further that, upon arraignment at the 13 November 1972 Session, he pleaded not guilty, not insufficiency of mental capacity to plead to the indictment and conduct a rational defense. See State v. Propst, 274 N.C. 62, 68, 161 S.E. 2d 560, 565 (1968).\nDefendant\u2019s brief states no reason or argument and cites no authority in support of his Assignments of Error Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Hence, these assignments are deemed abandoned under Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court. State v. Strickland, 254 N.C. 658, 660, 119 S.E. 2d 781, 782 (1961). Notwithstanding, defendant\u2019s counsel urges that we consider Assignments of Error Nos. 4 and 5. He asserts that these assignments have merit in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524, 35 L.Ed. 2d 46, 93 S.Ct. 848 (1973), which was not available to him when he prepared his brief.\nIn Ham, under circumstances markedly different from those here under consideration, the Supreme Court of the United States held that refusal of the trial judge to make or permit any inquiry of the jurors as to racial bias denied defendant a fair trial in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In our opinion, the decision in Ham is not relevant to the present case. Notwithstanding, we have elected to consider defendant\u2019s Assignments of Error Nos. 4 and 5 as if they had been properly brought forward and presented in defendant\u2019s brief.\nWe first consider Assignment of Error No. 5 in which defendant asserts that \u201c[t]he court erred in allowing the State to challenge certain jurors for cause.\u201d Each of these prospective jurors testified unequivocally on voir dire that, because of moral or religious scruples against capital punishment, he (she) could not return a verdict of guilty of rape, knowing the penalty therefor was death, even if the State proved to him (her) by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in fact guilty of rape. Even if a death sentence were mandatory upon a conviction of rape, the challenges of these prospective jurors for cause would have been properly allowed under Federal and State decisions. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 20 L.Ed. 2d 776, 88 S.Ct. 1770 (1968); State v. Doss, 279 N.C. 413, 421, 183 S.E. 2d 671, 676 (1971).\nIn Assignment of Error No. 4 defendant asserts that \u201c [t] he court erred by its restrictions placed upon appellant in his voir dire of the prospective jury panel by its refusal to allow appellant to freely question the prospective jury members.\u201d This assignment is based on Exceptions Nos. 15-20, inclusive. The facts relating to these exceptions are set out below.\nIn conference at the bench, defendant\u2019s counsel stated to the court that he proposed to ask each prospective juror a series of questions with reference to circumstances in which he would vote to impose the death penalty, to wit:\n\u201c1. Would you consider evidence that some others convicted of rape had been executed and some had not?\n\u201c2. Would you consider evidence that there was or was not any rational basis for separating those who died from those who were allowed to live for a conviction of the same crime?\n\u201c3. Would you consider, if you had the opportunity, evidence about this defendant, either good or bad, other than that arising from the incident here?\n\u201c4. Would your decision to impose or not to impose the death penalty be influenced either way by evidence of how often members of the defendant\u2019s race, in this case that of a Negro, have been convicted of rape and have been executed, as compared to those convicted and executed in other racial and ethnic groups?\u201d\nThe record shows that, upon objection by the State, the court disallowed these questions. They were \u201cread into the record for the purpose of appeal only,\u201d but were not asked in the hearing of the jury. Defendant\u2019s Exception No. 15 is directed towards the court\u2019s ruling in respect of this series of questions.\nEvidence that \u201csome others convicted of rape had been executed and some had not,\u201d and evidence that \u201cthere was or was not any rational basis for separating those who died from those who were allowed to live for a conviction of the same crime,\u201d was not admissible. Hence, whether the prospective juror would consider such evidence was not relevant to his qualifications for service on the trial jury. This fact alone was sufficient ground for disallowing the first and second of the above questions.\nWhile the fourth question does not use the phrase, \u201cwould you consider evidence,\u201d it presents a similar inquiry. It could not be answered by a prospective juror absent evidence of \u201chow often members of the defendant\u2019s race . . . ha[d] been convicted of rape and ha[d] been executed, as compared to those convicted and executed in other racial and ethnic groups.\u201d Such evidence would have been inadmissible.\nWe note that the first, second and fourth questions relate solely to factors bearing upon whether the penalty of death should be imposed upon defendant in the event of his conviction of rape. Since the death penalty is to be vacated, defendant was not prejudiced by the inability of his counsel to obtain answers to these questions.\nThe third question was properly disallowed because \u201cevidence about the defendant, either good or bad, other than that arising from the incident here,\u201d might or might not be admissible for jury consideration. To illustrate: If defendant had! testified, evidence relating to his general reputation would have been admissible with reference to his credibility; and, if defendant had offered evidence of his good character, such evidence would have been admissible in respect of credibility and as substantive evidence of guilt or innocence. State v. Wortham, 240 N.C. 132, 81 S.E. 2d 254 (1954). Without knowledge of the nature of the evidence referred to in the question, and without knowledge of its admissibility, no prospective juror should have been required to answer a question of such scope and generality.\nThe record does not disclose how many prospective jurors were questioned before the jury selection procedure was completed. The exceptions on which defendant bases Assignment of Error No. 4 refer only to the prospective jurors referred to below.\nWe note first that Exceptions Nos. 16, 18 and 20 are directed to rulings in which the court sustained the State\u2019s objections to questions asked by defendant\u2019s counsel to prospective jurors Sanders, Goforth and Burr, respectively. The record fails to show what any of these prospective jurors would have said if permitted to answer. Such failure renders these rulings nonprejudicial. Eubanks v. Eubanks, 273 N.C. 189, 197, 159 S.E. 2d 562, 568-69 (1968).\nException No. 17 relates to the prospective juror identified only as Mrs. Lewis. Mrs. Lewis was asked: \u201cCould you, under your religious and moral scruples, as they exist now, impose the death penalty for rape?\u201d She answered: \u201cI don\u2019t know.\u201d She was then asked: \u201cIn your opinion there is some distinction between that crime and other crimes?\u201d The State\u2019s objection was sustained and defendant\u2019s Exception No. 17 was noted. The record does not show what Mrs. Lewis would have said if permitted to answer. Mrs. Lewis was then asked: \u201cCould you, .after hearing all of the evidence, the argument of counsel and charge of the court, and within the framework of your moral or religious scruples, impose or could you find the defendant guilty of rape, or a defendant guilty of rape, this defendant guilty of rape, knowing that it would mean mandatory imposition of the death penalty?\u201d The solicitor\u2019s objection was overruled and Mrs. Lewis answered: \u201cI do not, I just don\u2019t know.\u201d\nException No. 19 relates to the prospective juror identified only as Mr. Smith. After Mr. Smith had testified that he had no moral or religious scruples with reference to the imposition of the death penalty under certain circumstances, he was asked this question: \u201cWould you consider among those circumstances, the race of the defendant as compared to the race of the prosecuting witness?\u201d The State\u2019s objection was overruled and Mr. Smith answered, \u201cNo, sir.\u201d Thereafter, the record shows the following:\n\u201cAttorney Barrington : Would you consider among those circumstances, the personal injury, if any, of a physical nature, done to the prosecuting witness?\n\u201cSolicitor Thompson: Objection\u2014\n\u201cJuror: Yes, sir.\n\u201cSolicitor Thompson: \u2014to this line of questions.\n\u201cCourt: Objection to the last question is sustained. I instruct the jury, if the question is asked and an objection is made, do not answer until such time as the court has an opportunity to rule on the objection.\n\u201cException No. 19.\u201d\nWith reference to Exception No. 19, we first note that Mr. Smith\u2019s testimony was explicit and unequivocal to the effect that he would not consider \u201cthe race of the defendant as compared to the race of the prosecuting witness\u201d as a circumstance in his determination of whether he would return a verdict that would result in the death penalty for rape. Before the solicitor had finished his objection to the question, Mr. Smith stated that \u201cpersonal injury, if any, of a physical nature, done to the prosecuting witness,\u201d was one of the circumstances he would consider in determining whether he would return a verdict which would result in the death penalty for rape. Be that as it may, it is clear that all of these questions were directed to circumstances bearing upon whether the juror could or would return a verdict which would result in the imposition of the death penalty. We find nothing in the voir dire examination of these witnesses to support the contention that they were prejudiced racially against the defendant or that the fact of defendant\u2019s race was a factor for consideration in the return of the verdict.\nWhether defendant undertook to challenge either Mrs. Lewis or Mr. Smith for cause or peremptorily does not appear. Indeed, the record is unclear as to whether either of them served on the jury which found defendant guilty of the crimes charged. \u201cA party\u2019s right is not to select a juror prejudiced in his favor, but to reject one prejudiced against him.\u201d State v. Peele, 274 N.C. 106, 113, 161 S.E. 2d 568, 573 (1968). We further note that the record does not show that defendant had exhausted his peremptory challenges.\nIn No. 72CR2182, in which defendant was convicted of rape, the trial was free of prejudicial error and the verdict of guilty of rape stands. However, for the reasons stated above, the judgment, insofar as it imposed the death penalty, is reversed. Accordingly, case No. 72CR2182 is remanded to the Superior Court of Hoke County with directions to proceed as follows :\n1. The presiding judge of the Superior Court of Hoke County shall cause to be served on defendant, Junior Lee Washington, and on his counsel of record, notice to appear during a session of said superior court at a designated time not less than ten days from the date of the notice, at which time, in open court, the defendant, Junior Lee Washington, being present in person and being represented by his counsel, the presiding judge, based on the verdict of guilty of rape returned by the jury at the trial of this case at the 13 November 1972 Criminal Session, will pronounce judgment that the defendant, Junior Lee Washington, be imprisoned for life in the State\u2019s prison.\n2. The presiding judge of the Superior Court of Hoke County will issue a writ of habeas corpus to the official having custody of the defendant, Junior Lee Washington, to produce him in open court at the time and for the purpose of being present when the judgment imposing life imprisonment is pronounced.\nIn No. 72CR2183 and in No. 72CR2212, the trials were free of prejudicial error and the verdicts and judgments are affirmed. However, these cases are remanded to the Superior Court of Hoke County with direction to proceed as follows: After the sentence of life imprisonment has been pronounced in No. 72CR2182 as set out above, the judgment in No. 72CR2183 is to be modified so as to provide that the term of imprisonment imposed therein commence at the expiration of the sentence of life imprisonment imposed in No. 72CR2182, and the judgment in No. 72CR2212 is to be modified so as to provide that the term of imprisonment imposed therein commence at the expiration of the sentence imposed in No. 72CR2183.\nDeath sentence in No. 72CR2182 reversed and cause remanded with instructions.", "type": "majority", "author": "BOBBITT, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorney General Thomas B. Wood for the State.", "Barrington, Smith & Jones, P.A., by Carl 4. Barrington, Jr.; and Henry W. Witcover for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JUNIOR LEE WASHINGTON\nNo. 46\n(Filed 11 April 1973)\n1. Rape \u00a7 7; Criminal Law \u00a7 135\u2014 instructions as to death penalty upon guilty verdict \u2014 death sentence vacated \u2014 remand for sentence of life imprisonment\nIn a prosecution for rape allegedly committed after Furman v. Georgia but before State v. Waddell, the trial court erred in submitting the issue of rape to the jury and then instructing that a verdict of guilty would require imposition of the death penalty; hence, even if defendant has failed to show prejudicial error in respect of guilt, the death sentence in the rape case must be vacated and the cause remanded for proper judgment.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 120, 168\u2014 rape case \u2014 erroneous instruction as to mandatory death sentence \u2014 guilty verdict allowed to stand\nThe trial judge in a prosecution for rape which occurred prior to 18 January 1973 should have submitted the case for jury determination solely with respect to whether defendant was guilty or not guilty of rape without referring to the punishment in the event of conviction, and if convicted, defendant should have been sentenced to life imprisonment; however, the court\u2019s erroneous instruction that a verdict of guilty would require imposition of the death sentence does not require that defendant\u2019s conviction of rape be set aside since jurors would certainly be more reluctant to return a verdict of guilty if advised the punishment upon conviction would be death, and the fact that defendant ostensibly was being tried for his life rather than life imprisonment did not tend to emphasize or aggravate the seriousness of the crime.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 34; Rape \u00a7 3 \u2014 charge of rape \u2014 evidence of subsequent rape \u2014 sufficiency of indictment to support conviction for either or both\nThe general rule that in a prosecution for a particular crime the State cannot offer evidence tending to show that the accused has committed another distinct, independent, or separate offense was inapplicable to testimony by the prosecuting witness as to a second rape committed by defendant in the woods where the indictment, which charged that defendant raped the witness on 2 August 1972, was sufficient to support a conviction for rape committed in the witness\u2019s home or in the woods or in the home and in the woods.\n4. Rape \u00a7 4 \u2014 statements made by defendant to victim \u2014 competency to show intent and motivation\nThe trial court in a rape, kidnapping and felonious breaking and entering case properly admitted testimony of the white prosecuting witness as to highly racial and anti-white statements made to her by the black defendant, even though the statements may have been prejudicial to defendant, since the statements had a significant bearing upon the intent with which defendant entered the witness\u2019s home and upon his motivation in selecting an utter stranger as his victim.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 29\u2014 mental capacity to plead \u2014 denial of petition for psychiatric examination \u2014 no abuse of discretion\nDefendant was not entitled to an order of commitment to a State hospital for psychiatric examination as a matter of right, and he failed to show that the failure to grant his belated motion for such order was an abuse of discretion; moreover, the record does not show an exception duly taken to the denial of his motion, and upon arraignment he pleaded not guilty, not insufficiency of mental capacity to plead to the indictment and conduct a rational defense.\n6. Constitutional Law \u00a7 29; Criminal Law \u00a7 135; Jury \u00a7 7\u2014 prospective jurors opposed to capital punishment \u2014 challenge for cause proper\nThe trial court in a rape case properly allowed the State to challenge certain jurors for cause where each prospective juror testified unequivocally on voir dire that, because of moral or religious scruples against capital punishment, he could not return a verdict of guilty of rape, knowing the penalty therefor was death, even if the State proved to him by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in fact guilty of rape.\n7. Jury \u00a7 6 \u2014 jury examination \u2014 questions with respect to death penalty, evidence about defendant \u2014 limitation proper\nThe trial court in a rape case did not err in refusing to allow defendant to ask prospective jurors whether they would consider evidence that \u201csome others convicted of rape had been executed and some had not,\u201d evidence that \u201cthere was or was not any rational basis for separating those who died from those who were allowed to live for a conviction of the same crime,\u201d and evidence of \u201chow often members of defendant\u2019s race . . . have been executed, as compared to those convicted and executed in other racial and ethnic groups,\u201d since such evidence would have been inadmissible; nor did the court err in refusing to allow defendant to ask prospective jurors whether they would consider \u201cevidence about the defendant, either good or bad, other than that arising from the incident here,\u201d since such evidence might or might not be admissible for jury consideration.\n8. Jury \u00a7\u00a7 5, 7\u2014 rape case \u2014 selection of jury \u2014 no prejudicial error\nThe defendant in a rape case showed no prejudice in the jury selection process where the record did not show what several prospective jurors would have said if they had been permitted to answer defendant\u2019s questions, where there was nothing in the voir dire examination of two prospective jurors to support defendant\u2019s contention that they were prejudiced racially against him or that defendant\u2019s race was a factor for consideration in return of the verdict, and where the record did not show that defendant had exhausted his peremptory challenges.\nAppeal by defendant under G.S. 7A-27 (a) from Brewer, at the 13 November 1972 Criminal Session of Hoke County Superior Court.\nIn separate indictments by the Hoke County grand jury at the 14 August 1972 Session, defendant was charged with (1) feloniously breaking into and entering the dwelling house of Patricia H. Adams with intent to rape her, (2) with raping Patricia H. Adams, and (3) with kidnapping Patricia H. Adams.\nThe indictments charged that .these felonies were committed in Hoke County on 2 August 1972. Upon arraignment, defendant pleaded not guilty to each indictment. In accordance with his request, the trial jury was selected from special venires of jurors from Cumberland County. The cases were consolidated for trial.\nThe State\u2019s evidence, summarized except when quoted, tends to show the facts narrated below. Unless otherwise indicated, this narration is based on the testimony of Mrs. Patricia H. Adams.\nShortly before noon on 1 August 1972, the driver of a green Mustang stopped at the Adams residence in Raeford, N. C., and \u201cblew the horn.\u201d Mrs. Adams was then in the kitchen. The children, her daughter (age 10 months) and her stepdaughter (age 8 years), were playing in the carport. Mrs. Adams went out into the yard and observed that the driver of the car was a black male she \u201chad never seen before.\u201d He was later identified as Junior Lee Washington, defendant. He first asked whether her husband was at home. She thought he used her husband\u2019s name, \u201cGeorge.\u201d In response to his inquiry, she told defendant that \u201cGeorge came home for lunch at twelve.\u201d Defendant asked several questions concerning the grass and landscaping. When given permission to look at the grass, defendant went into the backyard out of the sight of Mrs. Adams. During this time, Mrs. Adams picked up her little girl and took her inside the house. Upon defendant\u2019s return he remarked that the grass felt like a carpet. When asked if he knew her husband, defendant answered, \u201cNo, I don\u2019t think so.\u201d Defendant asked if he could come back about the same time the next day to see George. Defendant gave his name as \u201cJunior\u201d and some other name Mrs. Adams did not remember. After stating that he worked in Burlington, defendant got in his car and left. In about five minutes, George Adams came home and was told by Mrs. Adams and the eight-year-old girl \u201cabout the visitor.\u201d\nThere are only two doors to the Adams home, a \u201cfront door\u201d and a door \u201cat the carport.\u201d On the morning of 2 August 1972, about 10:00 a.m., Mrs. Adams saw defendant come from the back of her house. He stopped at the carport door and knocked. The eight-year-old girl opened the door and reported to Mrs. Adams that \u201cthe man was back.\u201d Defendant was standing \u201cin front of [her] back carport door.\u201d When asked if George was at home, Mrs. Adams reminded defendant that she had told him the previous day that George did not come home until twelve. After further inquiries concerning landscaping and grass, defendant asked for a glass of water. He was \u201csweating\u201d and said he had \u201cwalked from uptown.\u201d Mrs. Adams got him a glass of water, opened the screen door and handed it to him. After he had taken a few drinks from it, she opened the screen door again, took the glass and closed the door. When she tried to latch it, defendant opened the door, came right in fast, pulled out a knife with a blade two or three inches long, put the knife in front of her and backed her into the dining room area of the home.\nThe children were in the room of the eight-year-old girl. Defendant told the eight-year-old \u201cto stay in there and not come out ... no matter what happened,\u201d and closed the door.\n\u201c[Defendant] still had the knife.\u201d He got Mrs. Adams by the arm and took her into her bedroom. There, after forcing her to take off all of her clothes and to lie on the bed, defendant had sexual intercourse with her by force, intimidation and against her will. When this act of sexual intercourse had been completed, Mrs. Adams requested and was permitted to clean up and put on her clothes.\nDefendant then forced Mrs. Adams to get the keys to her Ford Torino car and to drive it as he directed. As she drove, defendant was seated directly behind her with a knife against her neck. He forced her to drive from Raeford and then from a paved rural road into the woods. When she stopped the car as directed, defendant got out and went around to the car door. He told Mrs. Adams to get out and to take off all of her clothes. When she had done so, he made her get in the back seat of the car and lie down. He attempted to have sexual intercourse with her there but was unable to do so because \u201cit was too cramped.\u201d He then took her clothes and laid them down on the ground and made her lie on them. He then proceeded to have intercourse with her again by force, intimidation and against her will.\nAfter this second act of sexual intercourse, Mrs. Adams was permitted to put on her clothes. As directed by defendant, she got back in the driver\u2019s seat. Defendant got into the front passenger\u2019s seat. As directed, Mrs. Adams drove \u201cup the road there a little piece to a clearing\u201d and there \u201ccut the motor off.\u201d At that time she noticed that defendant had opened the blade of his knife and \u201cwas fiddling with it.\u201d She thought defendant was going to kill her and she \u201cstarted begging him not to kill [her], to let [her] go home.\u201d Although he told her he was not going to kill her, she didn\u2019t believe him. He then started talking to her \u201cabout the race problem and that the whites were always thinking they were superior to blacks and that he wished he had stayed up north.\u201d He said \u201cthe whites were friendlier up there and a white woman would let a black lay them.\u201d When Mrs. Adams asked why he had picked her, defendant told her \u201che thought because [she] was an uppity white chick.\u201d All during this period of from fifteen to thirty minutes, Mrs. Adams was crying off and on.\nUpon leaving the location where they had parked, defendant made her drive back and stop in the wooded area where the second act of sexual intercourse had occurred. There defendant made Mrs. Adams get in the back seat and take off all of her clothes again. Defendant took her car keys and all of her clothes except her panties and went up the road. He told her he was leaving but would be back. Soon thereafter he did come back, looked in the back seat of her car and then \u201ctook off running again.\u201d Mrs. Adams then left her car and walked up to a house which she later learned was the home of Mrs. Nannie Green, where she telephoned Sheriff Barrington, told him she had been raped and asked him to get her husband and to get somebody to look after her little girls.\nAfter receiving Mrs. Adams\u2019s, call, Sheriff Barrington went to the Green residence, took Mrs. Adams to her home in Raeford for her to put on some clothes, and then took her to the office of Dr. Riley M. Jordan. After being examined by Dr. Jordan, Mrs. Adams went home, took a bath and remained at home until after defendant was taken into custody. Later, she took the officers out to her car.\nMrs. Adams gave Sheriff Barrington a description of the defendant and of his car. During the afternoon of 2 August 1972 Mrs. Adams identified defendant by photograph and in person in a lineup.\nDr. Jordan testified that he examined Mrs. Adams at his office at 12:30 p.m. on 2 August 1972; that the examination disclosed that she had mobile sperm cells in her vagina; and that in his opinion she recently had had sexual intercourse with some male.\nErnest Leverne Parker testified that about 11:00 a.m. on 2 August 1972 he saw defendant coming up the road towards Mrs. Green\u2019s house; that defendant wanted a ride to Hoke High School to get his ear, stating that he had left it there because \u201cit ran hot\u201d; that, driving his father\u2019s truck, he took defendant to Hoke High School where defendant\u2019s green sixty-six Mustang was parked; and that defendant got in his car, started without any trouble and drove away. Mrs. Adams had testified that \u201cthe school [was] directly in front of [her] house.\u201d\nMrs. Green testified to the circumstances under which Mrs. Adams arrived at her house, asking for help, and to Mrs. Adams\u2019s call to Sheriff Barrington.\nThe testimony of George S. Adams, husband of Mrs. Patricia H. Adams, concerning what his wife had told him concerning defendant\u2019s visit on 1 August 1972 was offered and admitted only as corroborative evidence.\nThe testimony of Sheriff Barrington as to what Mrs. Adams told him was offered and admitted only as corroborative evidence. Sheriff Barrington testified to the telephone conversation from Mrs. Adams, his trip to Mrs. Green\u2019s house, taking Mrs. Adams to her home and thereafter to the office of Dr. Jordan, and to the identification by Mrs. Adams of defendant as the man who had feloniously broken into and entered her home, raped her, kidnapped her, and raped her again in the woods. Sheriff Barrington also testified that he arranged with George S. Adams to go to the Adams home and look after the two little girls.\nThere was other evidence corroborating Mrs. Adams\u2019s identification of defendant as the man who committed the crimes charged. However, further review of the evidence is unnecessary.\nDefendant did not testify or offer evidence.\nThe jury found defendant (1) guilty of rape, (2) guilty of kidnapping, and (3) guilty of felonious breaking and entering, as charged in the indictments.\nIn No. 72CR2182, upon the verdict of guilty of rape as charged in the indictment, the judgment of the court pronounced a sentence of death.\nIn No. 72CR2183, upon the verdict of guilty of kidnapping as charged in the indictment, the judgment of the court sentenced defendant to imprisonment for life, \u201csaid term of imprisonment to commence at the expiration of the term of imprisonment or penalty imposed this date in case Number 72CR2182.\u201d\nIn No. 72CR2212, upon the verdict of guilty of felonious breaking and entering, the judgment of the court sentenced defendant to imprisonment for a term of ten years, \u201cto commence at the expiration of term of imprisonment or penalty imposed in the cases Number 72CR2182 and 72CR2183.\u201d\nDefendant excepted and appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorney General Thomas B. Wood for the State.\nBarrington, Smith & Jones, P.A., by Carl 4. Barrington, Jr.; and Henry W. Witcover for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0175-01", "first_page_order": 203, "last_page_order": 219 }