{ "id": 8561660, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE FOSTER, JR.", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Foster", "decision_date": "1973-12-12", "docket_number": "No. 45", "first_page": "259", "last_page": "284", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "284 N.C. 259" } ], "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": "192 S.E. 2d 320", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 189", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563969 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0189-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 S.E. 2d 738", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "277 N.C. 197", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563713 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/277/0197-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 S.E. 2d 545", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "241 N.C. 156", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8604316 ], "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/241/0156-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 S.E. 345", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1919, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "178 N.C. 693", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273901 ], "year": 1919, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/178/0693-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 S.E. 2d 650", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1948, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "229 N.C. 340", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12165913 ], "year": 1948, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/229/0340-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 S.E. 2d 334", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "260 N.C. 177", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573534 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/260/0177-01" ] }, { "cite": "192 S.E. 2d 283", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 220", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564078 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0220-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 N.C. 737", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8698711 ], "year": 1881, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/84/0737-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 S.E. 2d 63", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "244 N.C. 212", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2219465 ], "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/244/0212-01" ] }, { "cite": "161 S.E. 533", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1931, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N.C. 761", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627927 ], "year": 1931, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0761-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 S.E. 2d 264", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "241 N.C. 47", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8600615 ], "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/241/0047-01" ] }, { "cite": "145 S.E. 2d 363", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "266 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559506 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/266/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 174", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 663", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571959 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0663-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 874", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 366", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572031 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0366-01" ] }, { "cite": "193 S.E. 2d 71", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 334", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565099 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0334-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 S.E. 230", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1927, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "194 N.C. 206", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8601054 ], "year": 1927, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/194/0206-01" ] }, { "cite": "197 S.E. 176", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1938, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "213 N.C. 590", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629537 ], "year": 1938, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/213/0590-01" ] }, { "cite": "165 S.E. 2d 481", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8557806 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 115", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 449", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560629 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0449-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 405", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565770 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 7", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 476", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560709 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0476-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 S.E. 2d 398", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "277 N.C. 286", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564719 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/277/0286-01" ] }, { "cite": "386 U.S. 18", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6168882 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/386/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "405 U.S. 427", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11722669 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/405/0427-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 S.E. 477", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1916, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "171 N.C. 328", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270188 ], "year": 1916, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/171/0328-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 S.E. 8", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1910, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "153 N.C. 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271673 ], "year": 1910, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/153/0148-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 S.E. 591", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1904, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "136 N.C. 115", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658853 ], "year": 1904, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/136/0115-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 N.C.L. Rev. 233", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "N.C. L. Rev.", "year": 1946, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "27 S.E. 96", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1897, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "120 N.C. 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659342 ], "year": 1897, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/120/0534-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 S.E. 2d 7", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1939, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "215 N.C. 393", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629856 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1939, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/215/0393-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 S.E. 2d 805", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "256 N.C. 99", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571257 ], "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/256/0099-01" ] }, { "cite": "131 S.E. 743", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1926, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "191 N.C. 378", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629365 ], "year": 1926, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/191/0378-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 S.E. 2d 844", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "232 N.C. 281", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8599035 ], "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/232/0281-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 S.E. 2d 572", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "233 N.C. 390", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8608863 ], "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/233/0390-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 S.E. 2d 291", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "234 N.C. 612", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625084 ], "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/234/0612-01" ] }, { "cite": "146 S.E. 227", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "year": 1929, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "196 N.C. 556", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628234 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1929, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/196/0556-01" ] }, { "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" ] }, { "cite": "191 S.E. 2d 664", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 107", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562829 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0107-01" ] }, { "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": "317 F. 2d 753", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 165188 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/317/0753-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 S.E. 2d 833", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 456", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564744 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0456-01" ] }, { "cite": "188 S.E. 2d 296", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574551 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "196 S.E. 2d 786", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 462", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559216 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0462-01" ] }, { "cite": "192 S.E. 2d 320", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 189", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563969 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0189-01" ] }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 668", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "672" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "82 S.E. 2d 762", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 516", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8603731 ], "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0516-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 174", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "180" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "192 S.E. 2d 320", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 189", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563969 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "197" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0189-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1791, "char_count": 57855, "ocr_confidence": 0.577, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.833083073150794e-07, "percentile": 0.9780543189969763 }, "sha256": "7728446bcd6e15a671b31fc7b16933ebe52124d1c34a51d1cdc9f216e645326b", "simhash": "1:b320a56b64fe1719", "word_count": 9628 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:23:00.028129+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Justice Sharp joins in this dissenting opinion." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE FOSTER, JR." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HUSKINS, Justice.\nUpon the call of this case for trial defendant moved to dismiss it and seven other criminal cases pending against him on the ground that the State had failed to provide him a speedy-trial. Denial of the motion constitutes his first assignment of error.\nWe note from defendant\u2019s brief that he has abandoned this assignment insofar as it pertains to the case before us but continues to assert the right to have seven other criminal cases pending against him dismissed under G.S. 15-10.\nIt suffices to say that defendant may not, in this action, assert motions pertaining to other cases. The question whether defendant has been denied a speedy trial should be raised in the case to which it pertains and a hearing conducted to determine the matter. This is neither the time nor the place to debate or decide questions arising in cases not now before us. Defendant\u2019s first assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s second and third assignments of error are based on denial of his motions to quash the bill of indictment and in arrest of judgment. He asserts that G.S. 14-52, authorizing the death penalty or life imprisonment as the punishment for burglary in the first degree, violates the cruel and unusual punishment prohibition of the Eighth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and Article I, sections 19 and 27, of the Constitution of North Carolina.\nWe have consistently held that a sentence of imprisonment which is within the maximum authorized by statute is not cruel or unusual in a constitutional sense, unless the punishment provisions of the statute itself are unconstitutional. State v. Mitchell, 283 N.C. 462, 196 S.E. 2d 786 (1973); State v. Cradle, 281 N.C. 198, 188 S.E. 2d 296 (1972); State v. Hilton, 271 N.C. 456, 156 S.E. 2d 833 (1967). The federal rule is to like effect. Martin v. United States, 317 F. 2d 753 (9th Cir. 1963). First degree burglary committed prior to 18 January 1973 is punishable by life imprisonment. State v. Waddell, 282 N.C. 431, 194 S.E. 2d 19 (1973); State v. Davis, 282 N.C. 107, 191 S.E. 2d 664 (1972); Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 33 L.Ed. 2d 346, 92 S.Ct. 2726 (1972). Thus the judgment pronounced is within the maximum authorized by law. The constitutional question raised by these assignments has already been the subject of conclusive judicial determination. Defendant\u2019s second and third assignments have no merit and are overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s sixth assignment of error is abandoned under Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court.\nDefendant assigns as error the admission over objection.of testimony of Officer Stubbs relative to comparison of defendant\u2019s fingerprint with the latent print and his opinion based thereon and the admission into evidence of State\u2019s Exhibit 1, on the ground that since the three by five index card containing latent prints taken from the Davis home was lost and not produced at the trial, the State could not establish that the latent print examined by Officer Stubbs and photographed by Officer Adams was, in fact, the latent print lifted from the flowerpot in the Davis home. Hence he contends that the State has failed to establish that the photographs on both sides of the folder marked State\u2019s Exhibit 1 were in fact the photographs made by Officer Adams.\nThe State offered evidence which tends to show: (1) Officer Cobb obtained three latent fingerprint lifts from the flowerpot in the Davis home, placed them on a three by five white card, and handed the card to Officer Adams at the Davis home; (2) Officer Adams indicated on the card the complainant\u2019s name, address, the offense, the date, complaint number of the case, and the technician\u2019s signature; (3) the card was inserted in a five by seven envelope and placed in Officer Stubbs\u2019 file box in the crime laboratory under lock and key; (4) Officer Stubbs received the envelope containing the three by five index card with the latent prints on it, examined the latent prints, and later returned it to Officer Adams for photographic enlargement; (5) Officer Adams photographed the one identifiable latent print designated by Officer Stubbs, using a fingerprint camera for enlargement purposes; (6) the photographic enlargement of the latent print was returned to Officer Stubbs who wrote in ink the complaint number \u201c71-77794\u201d in the lower right hand corner of said enlargement; and (7) that the enlargement of the latent print shows the number 71-77794 in the lower right hand corner and is the photograph which appears on the right side of the folder marked State\u2019s Exhibit No. 1. This chain of possession establishes unmistakably that the enlarged photograph on the right side of State\u2019s Exhibit 1 is a blowup of the one identifiable latent print lifted by Officer Cobb from the flowerpot in the Davis home.\nOfficer Stubbs testified without objection that he personally fingerprinted the defendant on 12 November 1971. The fingerprints thus obtained were placed on State\u2019s Exhibit 2 and delivered to Officer Adams. Without objection, Officer Adams testified that he photographed the print of defendant\u2019s right index finger as it appeared on State\u2019s Exhibit 2, made an eight by ten enlargement thereof, and that that enlargement is the photograph on the left side of State\u2019s Exhibit 1. This evidence establishes unmistakably that the enlarged photograph on the left side of the folder marked State\u2019s Exhibit 1 is the photograph of defendant\u2019s right index fingerprint which was personally inked by Officer Stubbs on 12 November 1971.\nThen, using the photographs which constitute State\u2019s Exhibit 1 to illustrate his testimony, Officer Stubbs testified over objection that the photograph on the left side of State\u2019s Exhibit 1 fairly and accurately depicts a blowup of defendant\u2019s right index finger and the photograph on the right side.of. the folder marked State\u2019s Exhibit 1 fairly and accurately depicts a blowup of the one identifiable latent print on the three by five index card which he received in the five by seven envelope, State\u2019s Exhibit 3. Officer Stubbs then testified as follows:\n\u201cLadies and gentlemen, on the left of this folder is an enlargement of a known or inked fingerprint. On the right is an enlargement of what we call the latent or crime scene print. The comparisons between these two prints are made by what we call points of identification or characteristics. These are when we can find the identical characteristics on both prints. Some of these types of characteristics are called ridge endings. This is where these friction or capillary ridges of the fingers create the fingerprint pattern ridge. A ridge ending will come to an abrupt end. There are other characteristics like bifurcation. This is when two ridges, are running along parallel and just run together to form one ridge. The bifurcations can either run clockwise or counterclockwise. There are also ridge dots. This is just a very \u2022short ridge in itself, usually between two of the longer friction ridges. There are also islands in these friction ridges in many instances 'where one ridge will be running along and then fork out to make a small dot or island; but it is from the comparisons of these identical characteristics on two. prints that we can ascertain that one print is identical with' another. In this particular case, I have marked off thirteen characteristics which are identical in nature and in the same general places as on the latent print. . . . [A] s I said, there are thirteen marked off on this particular print. However, there are many more on here that I did not mark off, but I have convinced myself that these were made by the same finger.\u201d\nWe hold that State\u2019s Exhibit 1 was properly admitted. Decisions of this Court since Honeycutt v. Brick Co., 196 N.C. 556, 146 S.E. 227 (1929), adhere to the rule that in the trial of cases, civil or criminal, photographs may not be admitted as substantive evidence but, where there is evidence of the accuracy of a photograph, a witness may use it for the restricted purpose of explaining or illustrating his testimony relative and material to some matter in controversy. Stansbury\u2019s North Carolina Evidence \u00a7 34 (Brandis rev. 1973); State v. Tew, 234 N.C. 612, 68 S.E. 2d 291, (1951). Accuracy is established where,, as here, it is. shown by extrinsic evidence that the photograph is a true representation, of the scene, object or person it purports to portray. State v. Tew, supra; State v. Rogers, 233 N.C. 390, 64 S.E. 2d 572 (1951); Spivey v. Newman, 232 N.C. 281, 59 S.E. 2d 844 (1950); State v. Matthews, 191 N.C. 378, 131 S.E. 743 (1926); 3 Wigmore on Evidence \u00a7 793 (Chadbo\u00fcrn rev. 1970).\nIt shp\u00fald be noted that these photographs were admitted over defendant\u2019s general objection and there was no request that their us\u00e9 be limited or restricted. When a general objection is interposed and overruled, \u201cit will not be considered reversible error if the evidence is competent for any purpose.\u201d State v. Casper, 256 N.C. 99, 122 S.E. 2d 805 (1961); State v. Cade, 215 N.C. 393, 2 S.E. 2d 7 (1939); Rule 21, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court.\nSince' the photographs contained in State\u2019s Exhibit 1 had been properly authenticated as to' accuracy and properly identified as enlargements of the fingerprints they purport to portray, the testimony' of Officer Stubbs relative to comparison of defendant\u2019s known fingerprint with the latent print and his opinion based thereon was properly admitted. Defendant\u2019s seventh and ninth assignments of error are without merit and therefore overruled.\nLawrence A. Kelly, a fingerprint expert, testified over objection that defendant\u2019s counsel hired and paid him to examine the two enlarged photographs on State\u2019s Exhibit 1 and make a comparison of the two fingerprints shown thereon; that he did so in November 1971 and in his opinion the fingerprints shown in the two photographs were made by one and the same person. Defendant argues that the court permitted the witness Kelly to use the photographs in State\u2019s Exhibit 1 as substantive evidence, thus rendering his testimony incompetent. He contends that a witness cannot offer substantive testimony \u201cbased solely on photographs, when the photographs themselves cannot be used as substantive evidence.\u201d The admission of this testimony over objection and denial of defendant\u2019s motion to strike it constitutes defendant\u2019s fifteenth and sixteenth assignments of error.\nWhether Kelly\u2019s testimony here is prohibited by the rule that photographs may be used for illustrative purposes only, and not as substantive evidence, is open to question. Since the photographs were at least competent for illustrative purposes and were admitted over defendant\u2019s general objection and there was no request that their use be limited or restricted, they were properly in evidence and may be regarded as generally admitted for all purposes. State v. Casper, supra; State v. Cade, supra. Moreover, for an expert witness to say that he has compared two photographs and in his opinion they depict a fingerprint made by the same finger is arguably not equivalent to use of the photographs as substantive evidence. Kelly is a fingerprint expert. By reason of his superior learning,. knowledge and skill in the field of identification by fingerprints, he is better qualified than the jury to form an opinion as to whether the two fingerprints shown in the enlarged photographs in State\u2019s Exhibit 1 were made by the same finger. He was asked to express his expert opinion concerning the similarity or dissimilarity of photographs which had already been authenticated as to their accuracy and which had already been introduced in evidence and used by Officer Stubbs, another fingerprint expert, to illustrate his testimony. In this factual setting, \u2022 Kelly\u2019s testimony was competent and no improper use of the photographs has been shown.\nBut if Kelly\u2019s use of the photographs as here depicted requires them to be characterized as substantive evidence, so be it. North Carolina\u2019s \u201cillustrative\u201d rule of evidence as applied to photographs has been criticized and long regarded as erroneous by numerous commentators. Dean Henry Brandis comments as follows in Stansbury\u2019s North Carolina Evidence \u00a7 34 (Brandis rev. 1973) :\n\u201cThe North Carolina rule is that material of this sort is not substantive evidence and may be used only to illustrate or explain the testimony of a witness. Like the original author of this text, the present author confesses his inability to grasp the significance of this distinction. . . .\u201d\nMcCormick on Evidence \u00a7 214 (2d ed. 1972), commenting on the North Carolina rule, says:\n\u201cThe foregoing doctrine concerning the basis on which photographs are admitted is clearly a viable one and has undoubtedly served to facilitate the introduction of the general run of photographs. Unfortunately, however, some courts have tended to carry the implications of the theory to unwonted lengths, admitting photographs as \u2018illustrative\u2019 evidence but denying them \u2018substantive\u2019 effect. It is believed that this distinction is essentially groundless, and fails to warrant the practical consequences which are sometimes seen to flow from it.\u201d\nMcKelvey on Evidence \u00a7 381 (5th ed. 1944) says:\n\u201cPhotographs as silent witnesses have come increasingly'into use in the Courts for the purpose of independent proof of their subject matter. Their character, as a means of putting before the jury original evidence, is quite different from that of illustrative evidence. Instead of explaining to the jury the testimony of a witness, they picture original evidence which reaches the jury through no human witness. If shown to be competent and if their story is material they tell it themselves as silent witnesses of what they portray. Such evidence has. its own independent probative value.\u201d\nThe \u201csilent witness\u201d theory as to the use of photographs is recognized with approval in 3. Wigmore on Evidence \u00a7 790 (Chadbourn rev. 1970) in the following language:\n\u201cGiven an adequate foundation assuring the accuracy of the process producing it, the photograph should then be received as a so-called silent witness or as a witness which \u2018speaks for itself.\u2019 \u201d\nIn 2 C. Scott, Photographic Evidence \u00a7 1022 (2d ed. 1969), the North Carolina rule is. criticized in the, following;language:\n\u201cPhotographic evidence is admissible when it assists a witness in illustrating or explaining his testimony. This test ... is probably the poorest reason for the use of photographs in that, considered by itself, it fails to recognize their independent probative value.\u201d\nThe theory of admitting photographs as \u201csilent witnesses\u201d is not new to North Carolina jurisprudence. Chief Justice Clark, dissenting in Hampton v. Railroad, 120 N.C. 534, 27 S.E. 96 (1897), urged adoption of a rule which allowed photographs to be used as a substitute for a jury view. This is substantially the same theory as the silent witness theory. 3 Wigmofe on Evidence \u00a7 790 at 220 n. 4 (Chadbourn rev. 1970). The subsequent history of the doctrine in North C\u00e1rolina is discussed in detail in Gardner, The Camera Goes to Court, 24 N.C.L. Rev. 233 (1946). Although, as the Gardner comment demonstrates, the silent witness doctrine was seemingly adopted by the'majority of this Court in a few cases, Davis v. Railroad, 136 N.C. 115, 48 S.E. 591 (1904); Pickett v. Railroad, 153 N.C. 148, 69 S.E. 8 (1910); Bane v. Railroad, 171 N.C. 328, 88 S.E. 477 (1916), that support was short-lived. In Honeycutt v. Brick Co., 196 N.C. 556, 146 S.E. 227 (1929), the Court held that the admission of photographs as substantive evidence constituted error and reverted to the \u201cillustrative\u201d rule which has been the law in North Carolina until the present time.\nEven so, Honeycutt has been discredited to some extent by the holding in State v. Cade, 215 N.C. 393, 2 S.E. 2d 7 (1939). There, a photograph of the murder victim at the spot where the body was found was admitted in evidence and shown to the jury. Justice Barnhill (later Chief Justice), writing for a unanimous Court in approving such use of the photograph, said: \u201cThe evidence merely shows that the photographs were exhibited to the jury and there was no request that their use be limited or restricted.\u201d\nWhile we are not prepared, in this case, to repudiate the \u201cillustrative\u201d doctrine with respect to all photographs, we hold that a photograph of fingerprints, when shown by extrinsic evidence to accurately represent, depict or portray the print it purports to show, is admissible as substantive evidence. Our holding in this respect is in accord with the overwhelming majority of courts throughout the nation. See cases cited in 3 Wigmore on Evidence \u00a7 792, n. 1 (Chadbourn rev. 1970). Defendant\u2019s fifteenth and sixteenth assignments of error are overruled. \u25a0\nDefendant\u2019s eighth assignment of error is addressed to the admission over objection of testimony of Officer Stubbs that he identified the latent fingerprint lifted from the flowerpot with an alleged fingerprint of the defendant contained on a fingerprint card of Willie Foster, Jr., in the \u201cmaster file at the police department.\u201d No foundation had been laid by evidence that the fingerprint on the master file card was, in fact, a fingerprint of this defendant.\nOn a former appeal in this case, State v. Foster, 282 N.C. 189, 192 S.E. 2d 320 (1972), when a new trial was awarded, this Court alerted the trial court in the following language: \u201cUpon the present record serious questions arise as to the admission over objection of testimony regarding a master fingerprint card bearing date 1958 and the name \u2018Willie Foster, Jr.,\u2019 . . . in the absence of testimony that the prints on these cards were made by defendant. A discussion of these questions is deemed unnecessary. If they arise at all at the next trial, presumably there will be additional evidence as to when and by whom these prints were taken.\u201d For some obscure reason, this red flag was apparently ignored by both the trial judge and the solicitor.\nThe fingerprint card from the master file was not introduced in evidence. Even so, introduced or not, the testimony concerning it, without evidence as to when and by whom the card was made and that the prints on the card were in fact those of this defendant, violated the hearsay rule and should have been excluded. If defendant\u2019s conviction rested upon this evidence, it could not stand. But such is not the case.\nComparison of the latent print lifted from the flowerpot with the fingerprint on the card in the master file apparently furnished the lead resulting in defendant\u2019s arrest. Officer Stubbs testified without objection that, following the arrest, he personally fingerprinted the defendant on 12 November 1971. The fing\u00e9rprints thus obtained were placed on a card identified as State\u2019s Exhibit 2 and delivered to Officer Adams. Officer Adams testified without objection that he photographed the print of defendant\u2019s right index finger as it appeared on State\u2019s Exhibit 2 and made an eight by ten enlargement thereof, which enlargement is the photograph on the left side of State\u2019s Exhibit 1. Defendant\u2019s right index fingerprint as shown by this enlarged photograph was then compared with the latent fingerprint lifted from the flowerpot as shown by the photographic enlargement of it; and Officer Stubbs, a fingerprint expert, testified that based on thirteen or more identical characteristics, those prints were made by the same finger. This evidence as to the common origin of defendant\u2019s known fingerprint and the latent print lifted from the flowerpot is so overwhelming, and the prejudicial effect of the incompetent testimony concerning the master file fingerprint is so insignificant by comparison, that the incompetent evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 31 L.Ed. 2d 340, 92 S.Ct. 1056 (1972); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 17 L.Ed. 2d 705, 87 S.Ct. 824 (1967); State v. Brinson, 277 N.C. 286, 177 S.E. 2d 398 (1970). Unless there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed' to the conviction, its admission constitutes harmless error. State v. Smith, 278 N.C. 476, 180 S.E. 2d 7 (1971); State v. Fletcher and State v. St. Arnold, 279 N.C. 85, 181 S.E. 2d 405 (1971). This accords with consistent decisions of this Court that admission of technically incompetent evidence is harmless unless it is made to appear that defendant was prejudiced thereby and that a different result likely would have ensued had the evidence been excluded. State v. Barbour, 278 N.C. 449, 180 S.E. 2d 115 (1971); State v. Williams, 275 N.C. 77, 165 S.E. 2d 481 (1969). We do not think exclusion of the evidence concerning the master file fingerprint could or would have produced a different result. Defendant\u2019s eighth assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s tenth assignment of error is abandoned under Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court.\nOver objection the State was permitted to ask defendant on cross-examination for impeachment purposes whether he had committed other named criminal offenses unrelated .to the present case and for which he has not been tried or convicted. Exceptions to this line of cross-examination constitute-defendant\u2019s eleventh and twelfth assignments of error.\nWhen a defendant elects to testify in his own behalf, he surrenders his privilege against self-incrimination and knows he will be subject to impeachment by questions relating to specific acts of criminal and degrading conduct. Such \u201ccross-examination for the purpose of impeachment is not limited to conviction of crimes. Any act of the witness which tends to impeach his character may be inquired about or proven by cross-examination.\u201d State v. Simms, 213 N.C. 590, 197 S.E. 176 (1938) (emphasis added); State v. Colson, 194 N.C. 206, 139 S.E. 230 (1927). Recent cases upholding this rule include State v. Mack, 282 N.C. 334, 193 S.E. 2d 71 (1972); State v. Gainey, 280 N.C. 366, 185 S.E. 2d 874 (1972); State v. Williams, 279 N.C. 663, 185 S.E. 2d 174 (1971). Defendant concedes the rule to be as stated but requests the Court to re-examine and repudiate it. The rule is necessary to enable the State to sift the witness and impeach, if it can, the credibility of a defendant\u2019s self-serving testimony. We therefore adhere to our prior decisions. These assignments are overruled.\nDefendant assigns as error the following exchange which occurred.during cross-examination of defendant:\n\u201cQ. One more question, Mr. Foster.\nA. Yes, sir.\nQ. Let me ask you if you didn\u2019t hire your own expert witness to examine . . .\nMr. Hicks: Objection, your Honor, and I would like to be heard out of the hearing of the jury on this.\nCourt: All right. Take the jury out.\u201d\nFollowing a discussion in the absence of the jury, the unfinished question was abandoned. The jury returned to the jury box and defendant rested his case.\nDefendant moved for a mistrial on the ground that the unfinished question quoted in the foregoing colloquy deprived him of a fair trial. Denial of the motion constitutes his thirteenth assignment of error.\nThis assignment has no merit. The unfinished question was no evidence against the defendant. Moreover, the allowance or refusal of a motion for a mistrial in a criminal case less than capital rests largely in the discretion of the trial court. State v. Hines, 266 N.C. 1, 145 S.E. 2d 363 (1965); State v. Humbles, 241 N.C. 47, 84 S.E. 2d 264 (1954). The judge\u2019s action is not reviewable except under circumstances establishing gross abuse \u2014a circumstance not shown by this record. See State v. Guice, 201 N.C. 761, 161 S.E. 533 (1931).\nThe action of the court in allowing the testimony of Lawrence A. Kelly as a \u201crebuttal\u201d witness constitutes defendant\u2019s fourteenth assignment of error. Defendant argues that such evidence amounted to a reopening of the State\u2019s case and, further, that the evidence elicited was not in fact \u201crebuttal\u201d testimony.\nThe order of proof is a rule of practice resting in the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Thomas, 244 N.C. 212, 93 S.E. 2d 63 (1956). \u201cThe court, to attain the ends of justice, may in its discretion allow the examination of witnesses at any stage of the trial.\u201d State v. King, 84 N.C. 737 (1881). The great weight-of authority holds that \u201cthe admission in a criminal prosecution of evidence as a part of the rebuttal, when such evidence would have been properly admissible in chief,, rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be interfered with in the absence of gross abuse of that discretion.\u201d 53 Am. Jur., Trial, \u00a7 129. Accord, State v. Mack, 282 N.C. 334, 193 S.E. 2d 71 (1972); State v. Knight, 282 N.C. 220, 192 S.E. 2d 283 (1972): This assignment is overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s seventeenth assignment of error relates to the court\u2019s charge on first degree burglary.\nIt appears that the court simply instructed the jury to disregard an inadvertent statement previously made and then proceeded to charge the jury correctly. The inadvertence was discovered immediately and the correction was prompt -and complete. This is sufficient and is all the law requires. State v. Orr, 260 N.C. 177, 132 S.E. 2d 334 (1963); Wyatt v. Coach Co., 229 N.C. 340, 49 S.E. 2d 650 (1948); State v. Baldwin, 178 N.C. 693, 100 S.E. 345 (1919). This assignment is overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s eighteenth and nineteenth assignments relate to the instructions of the court on the law pertaining to felonious, breaking or entering and non-felonious breaking or entering. Defendant contends the court erroneously defined, and failed to define, the essential elements of those offenses. These assignments are overruled for the reasons stated below.\nThe court submitted as permissible verdicts: guilty of burglary in the first degree, guilty of felonious breaking or entering, guilty of non-felonious breaking or entering, or not guilty. All evidence offered by the State tended to show defendant was guilty of burglary in the first degree. All evidence offered by defendant tended to show defendant was not guilty and to support his alibi that he was home in bed at the time of the burglary charged in the bill of indictment. There was no evidence tending to show that defendant may be guilty of either felonious or non-felonious breaking or . entering. \u201cThe necessity for instructing the jury as to an included crime of lesser degree than that charged arises when and only when there is evidence from which the jury could find that such included crime of lesser degree was committed. The 'presence of such evidence is the determinative factor.\u201d State v. Hicks, 241 N.C. 156, 84 S.E. 2d 545 (1954). Accord, State v. Williams, 275 N.C. 77, 165 S.E. 2d 481 (1969). Thus the court erred in submitting the lesser included offenses of felonious and non-felonious breaking or entering, but the error was definitely in defendant\u2019s favor and he is in no position to complain. State v. Murry, 277 N.C. 197, 176 S.E. 2d 738 (1970). The charge on these offenses, in view of the verdict, is immaterial.\nAssignments four and five relate to denial of motions for nonsuit and to set aside the verdict. Evidence offered by the State was sufficient to go to the jury and support its finding (1) that the latent print lifted from the flowerpot in. the Davis home was in fact a print of defendant\u2019s right index finger; (2) that the latent print of defendant\u2019s right index finger was placed thereon by defendant on the occasion referred to in the indictment; and (3) that defendant was present when the crime charged in the indictment was committed and at least participated in its commission. State v. Foster, 282 N.C. 189, 192 S.E. 2d 320 (1972). These assignments are overruled.\nOn substantially similar evidence two juries have been satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant burglarized the Davis home as charged in the bill of indictment, In defendant\u2019s second trial now under, review, we find no prejudicial error. The verdict and judgment must be upheld.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "HUSKINS, Justice." }, { "text": "Chief Justice Bobbitt\ndissenting.\nAt 1 May 1972 Schedule \u201cC\u201d Regular Criminal Session, defendant was tried on two bills of indictment, one charging first degree burglary and the other charging assault with intent to commit rape. The assault indictment charged that, defendant on 5 September 1971 assaulted Rosa Mae Davis with intent to rape her. With reference thereto the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Mrs. Davis\u2019s testimony affirmatively disclosed that she could not identify defendant as the intruder who was in her bedroom. With reference to the burglary indictment, defendant was found guilty of first degree burglary; and, in compliance with the jury\u2019s recommendation, the court pronounced judgment which imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. G.S. 14-52. Upon defendant\u2019s appeal, this Court awarded a new trial on account of the admission of incompetent prejudicial testimony. State v. Foster, 282 N.C. 189, 192 S.E. 2d 320 (1972).\nAt the 19 February 1973 Schedule \u201cD\u201d Conflict Criminal Session, defendant was tried again on the same burglary indictment and was again found guilty of first degree burglary and was again sentenced to life imprisonment. The present appeal is from that verdict and judgment.\nThe following is an excerpt from our opinion on former appeal:\n\u201cMotions filed by defendant assert the following: After his arrest on 22 October 1971, defendant was confined in. jail, until released on 19 January 1972. Nine warrants had been issued, two of which were for the crimes for which he was tried at the 1 May 1972 Session. Defendant was present and represented by counsel at each of five scheduled preliminary hearings. At each of the first four, the hearing was continued on motion of the State and over defendant\u2019s objection. The last was on 19 January 1972 when, by order of the presiding District Court Judge, all of the cases were dismissed from the docket of that court and in each case the entry \u2018nolle prosse\u2019 was made.\n\u201cWe take judicial notice that the 3 January 1972 Session, at which the two indictments on which defendant was tried were returned, was a one-week session. A week or so after his release on 19 January 1972, defendant was rearrest\u00e9d oh a capias based on these indictments. Seemingly, the District Court Judge who ordered defendant\u2019s release on 19 January 1972 was unaware of the fact that defendant had been indicted by the grand jury.\u201d 282 N.C. at 195, 192 S.E. 2d at 324-25.\nBy order dated 17 February 1972 Judge Hasty denied defendant\u2019s motion that the indictments be dismissed because he had been denied a preliminary hearing. This Court found no error in such denial of defendant\u2019s motions to dismiss. State v. Foster, 282 N.C. at 197, 192 S.E. 2d at 325.\nUnder the caption, \u201cMotions Prior to Trial,\u201d the record now before us shows the following:\n\u201cMr. Gilchrist: Your Honor, prior to proceeding in one of the cases, State v. Willie Foster, Jr., #72-CR-1171, the State elects to take a nolle prosequi, in that a True Bill has never been returned by the Grand Jury, and, insofar as the State is able to ascertain, the witness cannot be served.\n\u201cCourt: Let it be Nolle Prosequied.\n\u201cMr. Gilchrist: The State intends to call for trial Case 72-CR-1173.\n\u201cMr. Hicks: That is the only case you are going to call?\n\u201cMr. Gilchrist: Yes.\n\u201cMr. Hicks : Your Honor, prior to beginning the trial, we would like to make certain Motions.\n\u201cThe defendant thereupon moved to dismiss for failure to bring defendant to trial prior to today, February 20, 1973, notwithstanding numerous terms of Court having intervened, as demanded by his prior Motion For Speedy Trial or For Discharge Under G.S. 15-10, made in Open Court and filed January 19, 1972 as to all the remaining seven cases calendared for trial at this February 19, 1973 Session, asking that all seven cases be dismissed, including the case being called for retrial by the prosecution, #72-CR-1173 (formerly #71-CR-62833 in the District Court), namely the seven cases known as Case' #72-CR-1172, formerly #71-CR-62838 in District Court, charging First Degree Burglary with intent to steal from James Edw\u00e1rd Sinclair on or about October 11, 1971; Case #72-CR-1174, formerly #71-CR-62835 in District Court, charging Housebreaking and Larceny from Lonnie W. Wallace at 217 South Turner Avenue, Charlotte, N. C. on or about February 20, 1971; Case #72-CR-1175, formerly #71-CR-62834 in District Court, charging Hous\u00e9-breaking' and Larceny from Kenneth Walker at 128 S. Gregg St., Charlotte, N. C. on or about May 8, 1971; Case #72-CR-1176, formerly #71-CR-62840 in District Court,, charging Housebreaking and Larceny from Teretha Phillips at 2224 Roslyn Avenue, Charlotte, N. C. on or about May 23,' 1971; Case #72-CR-1177, formerly #71-CR-62837 in District Court charging Housebreaking in the home of Shirley T. Torrence at 514 Honeywood Ave., Apartment No. 3, Charlotte, N. C., on or about September 17, 1971; and Case #72-CR-1178, formerly #71-CR-62836 in District Court charging Housebreaking and Larceny from Roy Lee Armstrong at 201 South Turner Ave., Charlotte, N. C. on or about July 24, 1971; inasmuch as the prosecution had just nolle prosequied Case #72-CR-1171, formerly #71-CR-62839 in District Court charging first degree Burglary with intent to rape Martha Pitts on or about August 3, 1971; and the defendant previously had been. found Not Guilty in his first trial of and Case #72-CR-1170, formerly #71-CR-62841 in District Court, charging assault with intent to rape Rosa Mae Davis on or about September 5, 1971, said Motion to Dismiss filed January 19, 1972 having been as follows. ...\u201d\nWhether the cross-examination of defendant referred to below was prejudicial must be considered against the background of the indictments of defendant for offenses for which the State did hot choose to place defendant on trial.\nThe State\u2019s entire case rested upon the fingerprint on the flowerpot. The original of the latent print lifted from the flowerpot was unavailable at the second trial. However, a photograph of this lost print had been made. I am in accord with the Court\u2019s holding that this photograph of the lost print is competent. However, the loss of the original does suggest that even the most careful officers and court personnel make mistakes.\nNo evidence points to the guilt of defendant except that relating to the fingerprint on the flowerpot. Defendant\u2019s testimony and evidence tending to show where he was and what he was doing at the time of the alleged burglary was not impeached or discredited in any manner apart from the presence of the fingerprint on the flowerpot. Evidence offered by defendant consisting of testimony of his good character and of his employment record was not discredited or impeached in any manner except by the fingerprint on the flowerpot.\nThe case was before the jury in this posture: The State\u2019s case consisted of testimony tending to show that the fingerprint on the flowerpot was made by defendant at or about the time of the alleged burglary. Defendant\u2019s evidence consisted of testimony tending to show that he had never been in the Davis home; that he was an employed person of good character; and that he was at his home at the time of the alleged burglary. Seemingly, the State\u2019s counsel considered it a matter of major importance that doubt be cast upon defendant\u2019s character and the credibility of his testimony.\nAs the Court\u2019s opinion points out, the admission of the card dated 1958, bearing the name \u201cWillie Foster, Jr.,\u201d was erroneous. There was no evidence as to when, by whom or under what circumstances this fingerprint was obtained. The 1958 card added nothing to the State\u2019s case except to call attention to the fact that a card bearing the fingerprint of defendant was in the master file at the police department. The only significant impact, of this incompetent evidence was to give rise to the inference or suspicion that on some prior occasion defendant had made contact with the police department incident to some criminal charge. This, standing alone, probably would not be sufficiently prejudicial to justify the award of a new trial.\nOn cross-examination, the State\u2019s counsel was permitted, over objection by defendant, to ask defendant the following questions :\nI\n\u201cQ. Now, I will ask you if on October 20, of 19, excuse me, on August 3, of 1971 if you didn\u2019t break into Martha W. Pitts\u2019 hous\u00e9...\n\u201cMr. Hicks: Objection..\n\u201cQ. At 2416 Rozzelles Ferry Road here in the city?\n\u201cMr. Hicks: Objection.\n\u201cA. No, I sure didn\u2019t.\u201d\nThis is the subject of Exception No. 23.\nrH HH\n\u2022 \u201cQ. I will, ask you if you didn t break in the residence of James Sinclair at 312 Center . Street on October 11, 1971, by going into the front door and reaching up and unscrewing with your fingers a light bulb in the ceiling?\n\u201cMe. Hicks: Objection.\n\u201cCouet: Overruled.\n\u201cQ. Did you or did you not?\n\u201cA. What you mean \u2018did I\u2019? No, I didn\u2019t.\u201d\nThis is the subject of Exception No. 24.\nh-t f \u2014 (\n\u201cQ. I will ask you if you didn\u2019t break into the residence of Lonnie Bell Wallace at 217 South Turner Street? How far is South Turner Street from there on Center Street?\n\u201cMe. Hicks: Objection.\n\u201cA. I couldn\u2019t tell you.\n\u201cQ. I will ask you if you didn\u2019t break into Lonnie Bell Wallace\u2019s house oh February 20, 1971, between 6:30 and 11:00 o\u2019clock and by breaking out the center glass window in the front door? .\n\u201cMe. Hicks: Objection.\n\u201cCouet: Overruled.\n\u201cA. Sure didn\u2019t.\u201d\nThis is the subject of Exception No. 25.\nIV\n\u201cQ. I will ask you if you did not break into the residence of Teretha Phillips at 2224 Roslyn Avenue on the 23rd of May, 1971, by prying open her kitchen window and breaking out the window pane?\n\u201cMe. Hicks: Objection.\n\u201cCouet: Overruled.\n\u201cA. Sure didn\u2019t.\u201d\nThis is the subject of Exception No. 26.\nV\n\u201cQ. I will ask you if on the 17th of September, 1971, you didn\u2019t break into the home of Shirley Torrence at 514 Honey-wood, Apartment No. 3, by taking the screen off the window and breaking out the front window ?\n\u201cMe. Hicks: Objection.\n\u201cCourt: Overruled.\n\u201cA. Sure didn\u2019t.\u201d\nThis is the subject of Exception No. 27.\nVI\n\u201cQ. And I will ask you if you on the 25th day of July 1971 you didn\u2019t break into the residence of Roy Lee Armstrong at 201 South Turner Avenue?\n\u201cMr. Hicks : Objection.\n\u201cCourt: Overruled.\n\u201cA. Sure didn\u2019t.\u201d\nThis is the subject of Exception No. 28.\nWe note that the cross-examiner interrupted and revised his first question to correct an error in respect of the date on which the question suggests there was a breaking into the house of one Martha W. Pitts. The exact detail and particularity of each of these questions indicates that the cross-examiner had before him documents which alleged that defendant had committed such crimes. Indeed, it seems clear that these documents were the identical indictments referred to in the record under the heading, \u201cMotions Prior to Trial,\u201d that is, indictments on which the State has not prosecuted defendant.\nAlthough the record shows that defendant is under indictment for each of the six criminal offenses to which th\u00e9 cross-examiner\u2019s questions relate, there is no evidence that he committed any of them. The delay in prosecution notwithstanding defendant\u2019s repeated requests for preliminary hearings suggests that the State\u2019s evidence is insufficient to show that any of these alleged crimes was committed by defendant. The State elect\u00e9d to proceed only in a case which rested solely on a single fingerprint, presumably its strongest case.\nUnder the circumstances, the asking of these six questions by the State\u2019s counsel was highly prejudicial to defendant in that it tended to destroy by inference and suspicion the otherwise unimpeached evidence as to his alibi and as to his good character. The asking of these questions gave the impression that the State\u2019s counsel had knowledge of evidential facts sufficient to support these insinuations. The record tends to negate rather than to support the view that he had such knowledge. If he did not have such knowledge, the cross-examination was improper. State v. Phillips, 240 N.C. 516, 82 S.E. 2d 762 (1954). If sufficient evidential facts do exist to support all or any of the six untried indictments, the State at long last may undertake to prosecute in such cases.\nIn State v. Williams, 279 N.C. 668, 672, 185 S.E. 2d 174, 180 (1971), this Court held \u201cthat, for purposes of impeachment, a witness, including the defendant in a criminal case, may not be cross-examined as to whether he, has been. indicted or is under indictment for a criminal offense other than that for which he is then on trial.\u201d Approval in this case, of the six quoted questions would enable the cross-examiner to do indirectly what he could not do directly, that is, bring to the attention of the jury the fact that defendant was under indictment in other cases.\nFor the reasons indicated, I vote for a .new trial.\nJustice Sharp joins in this dissenting opinion.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Chief Justice Bobbitt" } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert Morgan, Attorney General; William M. Melvin and William B. Ray, Assistant Attorneys General, for the State of North Carolina.", "Eugene C. Hicks III and Tate K. Sterrett of Hicks & Harris, attorneys for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE FOSTER, JR.\nNo. 45\n(Filed 12 December 1973)\n1. Burglary and Unlawful Breakings \u00a7 8; Constitutional Law \u00a7 36\u2014 maximum statutory sentence \u2014 no cruel and unusual punishment\nA sentence of imprisonment which is within the maximum authorized by statute is not cruel or unusual, in a constitutional sense, unless the punishment provisions of the statute itself are unconstitutional.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 43, 60 \u2014 fingerprints \u2014 photograph and opinion testimony admissible\nThe trial court in a first degree burglary case did not err in admitting into evidence photographs which were properly authenticated as to accuracy and properly identified as enlargements of fingerprints lifted from flowerpots at the crime scene, nor did it err in allowing a police officer to testify as to his comparison of defendant\u2019s known fingerprint with the latent print and to give his opinion that the prints were made by the same finger.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 43, 60 \u2014 fingerprint photograph \u2014 use by second expert witness \u2014 competency of testimony\nWhere photographs of fingerprints had\u2019 already been authenticated as to their accuracy and had already been introduced into evidence and used by another fingerprint expert to illustrate his testimony, testimony of a second fingerprint expert referring to the photographs was competent and did not constitute an improper use of the photographs.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 43, 60 \u2014 fingerprint photograph \u2014 admissible as substantive evidence\nA photograph of fingerprints, when shown by extrinsic evidence accurately to represent, depict or portray the print it purports to show, is admissible as substantive evidence.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 60, 169\u2014 evidence of fingerprint card in master police file \u2014 harmless error\nThough the trial court erred in allowing into evidence testimony concerning a fingerprint card allegedly bearing the print of defendant in the master file at the police department where no foundation had been laid by evidence that the fingerprint on the master file card was in fact a fingerprint of this defendant, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.\n6. Criminal Law \u00a7 86\u2014 cross-examination of defendant \u2014 inquiry as to other offenses committed\nThe trial court did not err in permitting the State to ask defendant on cross-examination for impeachment purposes whether he had committed other named criminal offenses unrelated to the case under consideration and for which he had not been tried or convicted.\n7. Criminal Law \u00a7 128 \u2014 cross-examination \u2014 motion for mistrial \u2014 denial proper\nThe trial court in a first degree burglary case did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant\u2019s motion for a mistrial where defendant contended that an unfinished question' asked him during cross-examination but abandoned after a discussion in the absence of the jury deprived him of a fair trial.\n8. Criminal Law \u00a7 93\u2014 order of proof \u2014 discretionary matter\nThe admission in a' criminal prosecution of evidence as a part of rebuttal, when such evidence would have been properly admissible in chief, rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be interfered with in the absence of gross abuse of that discretion.\n9. Criminal Law \u00a7 111 \u2014 error in instructions \u2014 immediate correction sufficient\nDefendant was not prejudiced where the trial court instructed the jury to disregard an inadvertent statement previously made and then proceeded to- charge the jury correctly, since the inadvertence was discovered immediately and the correction was prompt and complete.\n10. Burglary and Unlawful Breakings \u00a7 7 \u2014 first degree burglary \u2014 submission of lesser degrees of crime \u2014 harmless error\nError of the trial court in a first degree burglary case in submitting the lesser included offenses of felonious and non-felonious breaking or entering was in defendant\u2019s favor, and the charge on those offenses, in view of the verdict of guilty of first degree burglary, was immaterial. \u2022 \u25a0 \u25a0\n11. Burglary and Unlawful Breakings \u00a7 5\u2014 first degree burglary \u2014 fingerprint evidence \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nEvidence was sufficient to be submitted -to the jury in a first degree burglary case where it tended to show that a fingerprint lifted from a flowerpot in the victim\u2019s home was in fact a print of defendant\u2019s right index finger, that the print of. defendant\u2019s right index finger was placed on the flowerpot by defendant on the occasion referred to in the indictment, and that defendant was present when the crime charged in the indictment was committed. and at least participated in its commission.\nChief Justice Bobbitt dissenting.\nJustice Sharp joins in the dissenting opinion.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment of Chess,, S.J., 19 February 1973 Schedule \u201cD\u201d Conflict Criminal Session, Mecklen-burg Superior Court.\nDefendant is charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with burglary in the first degree of the dwelling house of James Harley Davis located at 3422 Kentucky Avenue in Charlotte. He was first tried for this offense at .the 1 May 1972 Schedule \u201cC\u201d Regular Criminal Session of Mecklenburg Superior Court, convicted by the jury, and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal we awarded a new trial due to erroneous admission of hearsay evidence. See 282 N.C. 189, 192 S.E. 2d 320 (1972).\nEvidence offered by the State tends to show the facts narrated below.\nOn 5 September 1971 James Harley Davis, his wife Rosa Mae Davis, their twelve-year-old daughter and ten-year-old son were at home in their dwelling at 3422 Kentucky Avenue. The house had five rooms consisting of three bedrooms, a living room and a kitchen. On Saturday night, 4 September 1972, Mr. Davis and his son went to bed about 9:00 or 9:30 p.m. in the daughter\u2019s bedroom. Mrs. Davis and the daughter slept in the front bedroom and went to sleep about 12 midnight. The bathroom was between and accessible from the front bedroom in which Mrs. Davis was sleeping and the back bedroom in which Mr. Davis was sleeping. The third bedroom in which the son normally slept was unoccupied that night due to a fresh paint job. The windows in the son\u2019s bedroom were left open so the odor of the paint might escape. The screens were in place and were latched by hooks.\nMrs. Davis awoke at approximately 1:50 a.m. A man was leaning over her beside the bed with his hands on her arms and leg. He was wearing a dark jacket with two white stripes down the sleeves and had a mask or stocking over his head. She called her husband several times, and each time the man would say, \u201csh-sh-sh.\u201d When the man stood up and turned her loose, she sat up in bed and screamed. He struck her in the face and ran toward the living room. He stopped, turned around, heard Mr. Davis coming through the bathroom, and ran out toward the kitchen. Mr. Davis, awakened by his wife\u2019s screams, searched for the intruder without success.\nThe police were called. Investigation revealed that the screen in the son\u2019s bedroom, which was in place and fastened when the family retired for the night, had been removed. Mr. Davis\u2019s pants and shirt were found in the son\u2019s bedroom, his empty wallet on the bed and his money gone. A television set and record player located in the comer of the living room were missing. Plastic flowerpots on stands approximately two and one-half feet tall, one on each side of the television, had been moved from their regular location toward the center of the living room. Mrs. Davis had owned these two flowerpots about three years and had planted flowers in them many times. \u201cI would change them and plant more flowers. I would wash the pots,, loosen the dirt and put fresh dirt in. I kept the pots in the living room and they always stayed indoors.\u201d\nThere was evidence that neither Mrs. Davis nor her husband had known on seen defendant prior to 5 September 1971; that defendant had never been inside the Davis home; and that defendant had no permission \u201cto come into or carry my television set or stereo or anything out of my home.\u201d None of the missing property has ever been recovered.\nOfficers Cobb and Adams of the Charlotte Police Department arrived at the Davis residence at approximately 2:45 a.m. on the morning of 5 September 1971. Cobb was trained and experienced in dusting for fingerprints and had with him the necessary equipment for lifting latent prints. After speaking with the patrol officers who were already there handling the preliminary investigation, Cobb and Adams entered the house and Cobb dusted for fingerprints around an open window in the son\u2019s bedroom but was unable to take any prints from that area. In the living room Cobb dusted two plastic flowerpots and lifted three latent fingerprints from one of them. The lifts were made by placing a clear plastic Scotch tape over the prints which showed up in the dust. The three prints thus lifted from the flowerpot were put on a three by five white index card. Officer Cobb handed this card to Officer Adams who made certain identifying notations thereon, viz: the complainant\u2019s name and address, the complaint number of this case, the offense, date, and his signature as technician. Adams put the card in a five by seven envelope and placed it in the \u201cCrime Lab\u201d at the Charlotte Police Department for the attention of Officer Stubbs. Later, Officer Adams, got the card back from Officer Stubbs and used a fingerprint camera to photograph one latent print on the card designated by Officer Stubbs for enlargement purposes. The photograph thus taken was enlarged and given to Officer Stubbs.\nOfficer Stubbs is a fingerprint expert. Upon receiving from Officer Adams the latent lift from the flowerpot in the Davis home, he searched the master fingerprint file maintained in his office to see if the latent print could be identified from any print in the master file. Based on leads thus obtained, defendant Willie Foster, Jr., was arrested and fingerprinted on 22 October 1971 in the booking office of the county jail by Preston Pendergrass, Jr., one of the Breathalyzer officers. In order to eliminate the necessity for Pendergrass to appear as a witness in this case, Officer Stubbs personally fingerprinted defendant on 12 November 1971, and a card bearing these fingerprints is State\u2019s Exhibit 2. An enlargement of defendant\u2019s right index fingerprint, as same appears on State\u2019s Exhibit 2, is reproduced on the left hand side of State\u2019s Exhibit 1.\nThe right hand side of State\u2019s Exhibit 1 purports to be an eight by ten enlargement of the photograph Officer Adams made of the latent print lifted from the flowerpot and given to Officer Stubbs. This \u201cblowup\u201d is the focal point of controversy in this case. The three by five card on which Officer Adams placed the latent print lifted from the flowerpot has been misplaced or lost from the clerk\u2019s office and was not available at this, the second, trial for visual comparison with the \u201cblowup.\u201d The folder to which the. \u201cblowup\u201d is attached has on it the words \u201clatent print.\u201d No identifying data on the lost three by five card appears in this photograph of the one identifiable print placed on the card. However, written on the bottom right corner of the photograph is the number 71-77794. Officer' Stubbs testified that \u201cwhen I received the enlargements of the latent, in the lower right-hand corner I put in ink the complaint number that this print was involved with.\u201d Other testimony disclosed that the five by seven manila envelope, from which Officer Stubbs took the latent print card, had written on it \u201cthe name of the complainant, the address and complaint number which has been assigned to this particular case.\u201d Examination of the five by seven manila envelope, State\u2019s Exhibit 3, discloses the following words and numbers written across the top:\nHB & L James H. Davis 5 Sept 71\n1st degree 3422 Kentucky\n71-77794\nDefendant objected to the blowup photograph, contending it has not been established that said enlargement is a blowup of the latent lift taken from the flowerpot and placed on the now lost three by five card.\nOn voir dire in the absence of the jury, Officer Stubbs testified that the blowup photograph on the right hand side of State\u2019s Exhibit 1 under the lettering \u201clatent print\u201d fairly and accurately represents \u201ca blowup photograph of the one identifiable print\u201d he had observed on a three by five index card contained in an envelope in the \u201cCrime Lab\u201d marked for his attention: that it is \u201ca blowup photograph of the identifiable print on the three by five card which on the front contained the notation, \u2018James Harley Davis\u2019 and \u20183422 Kentucky Avenue\u2019 and \u2018September 5, 1971.\u2019 \u201d Based thereon, the court overruled defendant\u2019s objection, recalled the jury, and admitted in evidence State\u2019s Exhibit 1, State\u2019s Exhibit 2, and State\u2019s Exhibit 3. Then, over defendant\u2019s objection, Officer Stubbs testified that on the left of State\u2019s Exhibit 1 \u201cis an enlargement of a known or inked fingerprint. On the right is an enlargement of what we call the latent or crime scene print. The comparisons between these two prints are made by what we call points of identification or characteristics.\u201d Officer Stubbs then pointed out thirteen characteristics which are identical in nature and in the same general places on the inked print and on the latent print. Based on his examination of the two prints, Officer Stubbs testified that in his opinion both were made by the same finger.\nOn cross-examination Officer Stubbs said he did not know of his own personal knowledge \u201cwhere the latent lift on a three by five card to which I have testified came from.\u201d\nThe evidence for defendant is narrated below.\nHazeline Foster, wife of defendant, testified that on the evening of Saturday, 4 September 1971, and throughout that night, defendant was home in bed; that the family did not own a television set before that date and her husband did not bring home a television on or about that date; that she did the washing for the family and her .husband did not own a dark jacket with white stripes down the sleeves and did not own a ski mask.\nWillie Foster, Jr., testifying in his own behalf, said he was thirty-four years of age and lived at 532 Center Street, Apartment 3, with his wife and son; that he had lived in Charlotte about twenty-five years; that he has always had more work than he could do including caddying for several years at the country club and working for a number of named individuals, particularly the Triple-A Heating Company; that he lives about a block and a half from Kentucky Avenue but has never been in the Davis home; that he has never owned any type of ski mask or any type of dark jacket with white stripes down the side; that he did not have a television set in his home on 5 September 1971; and that he has been in jail for fourteen months on the present charge. He emphatically denied that he had ever been on the Davis premises or touched any flowerpots. He admitted he had been fingerprinted but denied the commission of any criminal acts in the past.\nMrs. Henry Wilson testified that defendant had done yard work and heavy indoor work in and around her home for two or three years prior to October 1971; that she had left him alone in her house on many occasions and knows other people who regard defendant as an honest and conscientious worker; that his general reputation in the community is excellent.\nBy way of rebuttal, the State examined Lawrence A. Kelly, Identification Technician in the sheriff\u2019s office. Mr. Kelly testified that he has worked in the identification of fingerprints for fifty years; that he was with the 27th C.I.D. Crime Lab in Europe for four years and nine months dealing with the identification of fingerprints of displaced persons; that he was with the Durham Police Department, the City-County Bureau of Identification in Fayetteville, and the Mecklenburg County Police Department for twenty years; that he has attended many seminars given by the F.B.I. during the past forty years dealing with the identification of fingerprints.\nOver objection, Mr. Kelly testified that defendant\u2019s counsel hired and paid him to examine the two blowup photographs on State\u2019s Exhibit 1 and make a comparison between them; that he did so in November 1971; that in his opinion the print on the left and the print on the right were made by one and the same person.\nAt the close of all the evidence defendant renewed his motions previously made to exclude State\u2019s Exhibit 1 and to strike all testimony relative thereto, and again moved for judgment of nonsuit. These motions were denied. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of burglary in the first degree as charged in the bill of indictment and defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed to the Supreme Court assigning errors discussed in the opinion.\nRobert Morgan, Attorney General; William M. Melvin and William B. Ray, Assistant Attorneys General, for the State of North Carolina.\nEugene C. Hicks III and Tate K. Sterrett of Hicks & Harris, attorneys for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0259-01", "first_page_order": 279, "last_page_order": 304 }