{
  "id": 8558793,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HELEN LOUISE MARTIN PHILLIPS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Phillips",
  "decision_date": "1973-05-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 69",
  "first_page": "339",
  "last_page": "344",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "283 N.C. 339"
    }
  ],
  "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": "10 S.E. 2d 614",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "218 N.C. 122",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614236
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/218/0122-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 S.E. 2d 454",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 N.C. 62",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621115
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/227/0062-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 601,
    "char_count": 10792,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.534,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3661553241134908
    },
    "sha256": "1604cd7232deb19188a631c1fd888f813dced0132ee208c1137fb23b126c32a8",
    "simhash": "1:83f774ab8f8b953c",
    "word_count": 1872
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:42:12.699050+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Justices Lake and Branch dissent."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HELEN LOUISE MARTIN PHILLIPS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HIGGINS, Justice.\nOrdinarily when it becomes necessary to order a new trial on the ground the prosecution in a criminal case was permitted, over objection, to introduce incompetent and prejudicial evidence, this Court confines the discussion to the assignment of error which challenges the admissibility of the evidence. In this' instance, Assignment of Error No. 1, based on Exception No. 28, challenged the admissibility of State\u2019s Exhibit Eight\u2014 the defendant\u2019s letter to the warden of the State\u2019s prison.\nThe State\u2019s witness who identified the letter stated on cross-examination it was written one year prior to the homicide. The witness was in the habit of transcribing stories which the defendant wrote for publication. She testified:\n\u201c , . I typed a number of letters and stories for Mrs.Phillips.\n\u201cMrs. Phillips discussed her stories with me. . . .\n\u201cWhen I wrote the letter she discussed with me about a story she anticipated writing and was gathering the proper background and details about a woman that was sent to prison.\u201d\n. The- letter itself stated the writer wanted the information for a story. The witness at the time she typed the letter knew of the defendant\u2019s plans and preparations for the story..\u2019\nIir this case, not only the solicitor for the State and- his staff, but privately employed counsel appeared for the prosecution. The defendant offered evidence, hence the State had the right to open and conclude the argument to the jury. After the argument, the court in reviewing the evidence, charged the jury:\n\u201c. . That on one occasion about eighteen months ago that the defendant in this case brought her a letter to be typed and that she typed the letter for the defendant. The letter was introduced into evidence and as I recall it but you take your own recollection of the letter, that it was to the Warden of the State Prison or some official in the State Department of Correction asking for information as to what would happen to a woman that was in prison serving a sentence for manslaughter.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nThe court interpreted the letter \u201cas asking for information as to what would happen to a woman that was in prison . . . serving a sentence for manslaughter.\u201d\nResearch has failed to disclose a court decision which is of much value as authority on the question before us. The cases deal largely with remoteness in time rather than with remoteness in purpose or mental attitude. With respect to remoteness in time, the rule is stated in 1 Wharton\u2019s Criminal Evidence, 13th Ed., \u00a7 152:\n\u201cNo rigid rule can be stated to determine when the time interval is so great that a given fact has no probative value. . . . Flexibility, then, is necessary in verbalizing a workable standard. . . . There being no fixed standard for determining remoteness, it is necessary to consider all the attendant circumstances, the nature of the evidence offered, and the nature of the crime.\u201d\nEvidence of prior acts or declarations, to be admissible must be related to and tend to shed light on the acts complained of State v. Kelly, 227 N.C. 62, 40 S.E. 2d 454; Barnes v. Teer, 218 N.C. 122, 10 S.E. 2d 614.\nThe legitimate purpose of the defendant\u2019s letter is explained by the State\u2019s witness as well as by the letter itself. The purpose was to obtain information for use in a story.\nTo those familiar with criminal trials, it is not difficult to visualize the prejudicial effect the private counsel for the prosecution and the solicitor were able to generate by waving this letter before the jury and picturing it as an attempt on the part of this woman to find out what would happen to her when she executed her plan and thereafter was convicted of killing her husband. In the court\u2019s recapitulation of the State\u2019s evidence, the court characterized the letter as \u201casking for information as to what would happen to a woman that was in prison . . . serving a sentence for manslaughter.\u201d (Emphasis added.) The recapitulation magnified the error.\nIn view of the explanation the State\u2019s witness gave for the defendant\u2019s letter, none of which was contradicted in the evidence, the use the court permitted the State to make of it was so prejudicial the defendant is entitled to go before another jury.\nThe cause is remanded to the Superior Court of Caldwell County for a\nNew trial.\nJustices Lake and Branch dissent.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HIGGINS, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert Morgan, Attorney General by E. Thomas Maddox, Jr., Associate Attorney for the State.",
      "West & Groome by H. Houston Groome, Jr. and Ted G. West for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HELEN LOUISE MARTIN PHILLIPS\nNo. 69\n(Filed 9 May 1973)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 38\u2014 evidence of prior acts \u2014 admissibility\nEvidence of prior acts or declarations, to be admissible, must be related to and tend to shed light on the acts complained of.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 80, 169 \u2014 letter written by defendant \u2014 improper use by prosecution \u2014 prejudicial error\nWhere defendant addressed a letter to \u201cthe Director of Prisons\u201d one year prior to the homicide with which she was charged asking for information on a day in the life of a woman serving time for manslaughter, as defendant was compiling information for a short story she was writing, the trial court committed error requiring a new trial in that it allowed the letter to be represented by the prosecution as an attempt by defendant to find out what would happen to her when she killed her husband and was convicted therefor.\nJustices Lake and Branch dissent.\nAppeal by defendant from Webb, S. /., August 21, 1972 Session, Caldwell Superior Court. By order dated March 26, 1973, the appeal was docketed in the Supreme Court prior to review by the Court of Appeals.\nThe defendant, Helen Louise Martin Phillips, was indicted for the first degree murder of her husband, Garvey Willie Phillips. .The evidence disclosed that the deceased and the defendant had been married for twenty-nine years. Their married life had not been harmonious. They had separated on at least three different occasions. The deceased was six feet tall and weighed two hundred pounds. He was addicted to drinking. The defendant had been under doctor\u2019s care for some time. She had a medical history of nervous tension and emotional instability. She kept a light in a window which she used at night as a signal that she and her husband were having trouble. When the light flashed on it was a call for help:\nAt about 5 o\u2019clpck on the afternoon of February 23, 1972, a female voice called for an ambulance. The caller had difficulty in giving directions. However, through the telephone operator, the ambulance corps was able to locate the source of the call and went directly to the Phillips\u2019 home. When the crew entered the house, they found the defendant with a pistol in her hand standing in the floor. Her husband was lying on the floor of the living room, apparently unconscious. He was taken to the hospital where examination disclosed two bullet wounds from a pistol. When he revived, he was angry, belligerent and appeared to be intoxicated. He later died as a result of the wounds.\nCaptain Hagaman of the Lenoir Police Department followed the ambulance to the home, found the pistol on the floor of the living room, and Mrs. Phillips lying on the couch. Captain Haga-man testified: \u201c[S]he was in a semi-conscious state. I did not get any response from Mrs. Phillips. ... I called an ambulance for her to go to the hospital.\u201d\nA daughter-in-law of the parties testified as a witness for the State and said that about eighteen months before the trial, approximately one year before the shooting, she typed a letter for the defendant which the defendant had written in longhand and brought to her for transcription. The State obtained the original letter from defense counsel by court order requiring its production. The letter was addressed to the Director of Prisons and is here quoted:\n\u201cDear Sir:\nI would like some information on a day in the life of a woman serving time for manslaughter.\nI am compiling a outline on a story.\nI want the woman to serve not more than two years, not less than one.\nDo you place the woman in categories. Do they work in the sewing or laundry departments? What hours do they work? Are they paid any fee at all? How many to a cell block? And what are the visiting rights. Anything you could tell me would be very helpful.\nI want this woman to be of good character. Also to be a model prisoner.\nIf this isn\u2019t asking too much of your time, I will be forever grateful.\nThank you very much\nMrs. Helen Phillips\n116 Locust Drive\nLenoir, N. C.\u201d\nOn cross-examination the witness testified:\n\u201c . . . I typed a number of letters and stories for Mrs. Phillips. This is a short story of some 45 pages that she wrote and I typed it. She wrote a number of short stories and submitted those stories to magazines for publication. . . .\n\u201cMrs. Phillips discussed her stories with me from time to time during the course of my doing the typing for her. I was generally familiar with the theme of the story when I discussed them with her.\n\u201c . . . When I wrote the letter she discussed with me about a story she anticipated writing and was gathering the proper background and details about a woman that was sent to prison.\u201d\nWhen the letter was offered by the State and objected to by the defendant, it was admitted before the jury as State\u2019s Exhibit Eight. This was the basis of defendant\u2019s Exception No. 28 and is listed as Assignment of Error No. 1.\nThe defendant testified in her own defense. She detailed the difficulties she and her husband had had and instances of assaults and acts of violence. She testified that on the afternoon of February 23, 1972, he came home from the farm intoxicated and started a fuss, threatened and struck at her and pulled her hair. She was afraid of him. She picked up the garbage can under the pretense of taking it outside so she could leave the house, but he prevented her from going. He had threatened to go out and get the axe and use it on the television set. During the difficulty he ordered her to take the garbage can back in the kitchen. When she did, she noticed the pistol lying on the hot water heater by the kitchen door. When he went for the axe, she got the gun and took it back to the living room and concealed it behind her leg. He came back without the axe, but still in a rage, struck at her but hit the back of her chair, then grabbed her hair and when he swung around, she shot. She did not know whether she fired one or more shots.\nThe defendant offered a number of witnesses who testified to her good character. She offered evidence that her husband was violent and dangerous when he was intoxicated.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty of voluntary manslaughter. From the court\u2019s judgment that the defendant serve from eight to ten years in the State\u2019s prison, she appealed.\nRobert Morgan, Attorney General by E. Thomas Maddox, Jr., Associate Attorney for the State.\nWest & Groome by H. Houston Groome, Jr. and Ted G. West for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0339-01",
  "first_page_order": 367,
  "last_page_order": 372
}