{ "id": 8563999, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. J. C. CASTOR", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Castor", "decision_date": "1974-05-15", "docket_number": "No. 68", "first_page": "286", "last_page": "295", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "285 N.C. 286" } ], "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": "202 S.E. 2d 281", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "20 N.C. App. 565", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554401 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/20/0565-01" ] }, { "cite": "375 U.S. 85", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11717703 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/375/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "395 U.S. 250", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1771609 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/395/0250-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 A.L.R. 3d 1065", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "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": "185 S.E. 2d 677", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "682" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 273", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571097 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "280" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0273-01" ] }, { "cite": "380 U.S. 609", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1524757 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/380/0609-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 S.Ct. 1469", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "378 U.S. 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6164855 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/378/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 U.S. 436", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12046400 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "444" }, { "page": "707" }, { "page": "1612" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 S.E. 2d 286", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "270 N.C. 710", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570354 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/270/0710-01" ] }, { "cite": "138 S.E. 2d 777", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "263 N.C. 73", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567166 ], "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/263/0073-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 S.E. 571", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "year": 1935, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "572" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 N.C. 313", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8604319 ], "year": 1935, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/208/0313-01" ] }, { "cite": "134 S.E. 2d 619", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "621" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "261 N.C. 322", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573118 ], "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/261/0322-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 S.E. 2d 792", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 738", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8610646 ], "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0738-01" ] }, { "cite": "97 L.Ed. 593", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "344 U.S. 604", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11300869 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/344/0604-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 S.E. 2d 323", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "233 N.C. 683", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8615889 ], "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/233/0683-01" ] }, { "cite": "165 S.E. 2d 481", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8557806 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 S.E. 2d 399", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "277 N.C. 602", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566982 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/277/0602-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 115", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 449", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560629 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0449-01" ] }, { "cite": "407 U.S. 371", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9138398 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/407/0371-01" ] }, { "cite": "405 U.S. 427", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11722669 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/405/0427-01" ] }, { "cite": "375 U.S. 85", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11717703 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/375/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "395 U.S. 250", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1771609 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/395/0250-01" ] }, { "cite": "386 U.S. 18", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6168882 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/386/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 677", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 273", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571097 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0273-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 U.S. 436", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12046400 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0436-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 886, "char_count": 21392, "ocr_confidence": 0.559, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.476060036916071e-07, "percentile": 0.9603167983924932 }, "sha256": "3e10e0bfa9b84cedbba3d9cae70f68514f7810afcd5f80007af83fb7869acfa3", "simhash": "1:0a3a3ed2c63988d8", "word_count": 3560 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:42:08.335271+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. J. C. CASTOR" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BOBBITT, Chief Justice.\nThe court admitted, over defendant\u2019s objection and motion to strike, the following portion of the testimony of Barrier:\n\u201cQ. Did you at any time talk with the witness Elaine Crisco in the presence of the defendant, J. C. Castor ?\n\u201cA. Yes, sir, I did. This was on July 8,1971.\n\u201cQ. I ask you first what the witness Elaine Crisco said to and in the presence of J. C. Castor?\n\u201cA. Miss Crisco was asked several questions in the presence of J. C. Castor, the first one was \u2018Who went with you to Miss Walker\u2019s home,\u2019 and she replied that Phillip Scearcy and J. C. Castor went there with her. She was also asked who was in the house when she heard the shot fired, and she stated that J. C. Castor was. We asked her why they went to Miss Walker\u2019s house, and she stated for the purpose of robbing the old woman.\n\u201cQ. Were these questions asked and answered in the presence of J. C. Castor ?\n\u201cA. Yes, they were.\n\u201cQ. Did he make any denial?\n\u201cA. No, sir, he did not.\u201d\nDefendant assigns as error the admission of this testimony and the instruction in the court\u2019s charge with reference thereto, to wit:\n\u201cEvidence had [sic] been received which tends to show that a statement accusing the defendant of the crime charged in this case was made in his presence and the defendant neither denied or objected to the statement. This evidence should be considered by you with great caution [sic] before you may consider the defendant\u2019s silence on this as evidence of his guilt, you must find first that the defendant \u2014 that the statement was in fact made in the hearing of the defendant, second, that he understood it and that it contained an accusation against him and third, that all the circumstances including the content of the statement and the identity of the person making it in the other person\u2019s presence was sufficient to make a reply natural and proper and fourth, that the defendant had an opportunity to reply. Unless you find all these things to be present you must completely disregard this evidence. If you find all these things to be present you may consider the defendant\u2019s silence together with all other facts and circumstances in this case in determining the defendant\u2019s guilt or innocence.\u201d\nOrdinarily, whether the defendant\u2019s failure to deny an accusatory statement made in his presence may be considered an implied admission of the truth thereof is to be determined by legal principles established by decisions of this Court reviewed in State v. Temple, 240 N.C. 738, 83 S.E. 2d 792 (1954), and in State v. Guffey, 261 N.C. 322, 134 S.E. 2d 619 (1964). See 2 Stansbury\u2019s North Carolina Evidence, Brandis Rev., \u00a7 179.\n\u201c[A]n admission or confession, even where it may be implied by silence, must be voluntary. Any circumstance indicating coercion or lack of voluntariness renders the admission incompetent.\u201d State v. Guffey, supra, at 324, 134 S.E. 2d at 621.\nIn State v. Dills, 208 N.C. 313, 180 S.E. 571 (1935), the appellants, when under arrest upon a charge of murder, were forced by officers to hear read affidavits of codefendants which accused them of complicity in the crime. The State contended the appellants\u2019 silence when confronted by these accusations constituted an implied admission that the accusations were true. Rejecting this contention, the Court awarded a new trial for error in admitting this evidence. It was held that the circumstances disclosed coercion and lack of voluntariness. The following excerpt from the opinion of Justice Schenck is pertinent to the present case: \u201c [I] f the accusations were true, the appellants had one of three courses to pursue, either admit their truth and thereby admit their own guilt, or deny them and thereby make false statements, or remain silent. We think in remaining silent the appellants acted within their legal rights, since no man should be forced to incriminate himself, or to make false statements to avoid doing so.\u201d Id. at 315, 180 S.E. at 572.\nIn State v. Virgil, 263 N.C. 73, 138 S.E. 2d 777 (1964), the defendant, under arrest for burglary, was taken by an officer to the hospital room of one Evans. The officer testified that the defendant failed to deny incriminating statements made by Evans in defendant\u2019s presence. Under these circumstances, it was held that defendant\u2019s silence did not constitute an implied admission of the truth of the incriminating statements, and that the officer\u2019s testimony as to Evans\u2019s statements (declarations) was incompetent and the admission thereof was prejudicial error.\nIn State v. Fuller, 270 N.C. 710, 155 S.E. 2d 286 (1967), the court admitted over objection the testimony of an officer with reference to incriminating statements made by the defendant when in custody charged with murder. The testimony disclosed that the statements attributed to the defendant were made after officers confronted him with a State\u2019s witness who made accusatory statements in the defendant\u2019s presence. The court\u2019s findings after a voir dire hearing included a finding that \u201che [the defendant] was advised by the officers that anything he said or did not say in response to anything said by Margaret Campbell could be used for or against him.\u201d This Court, in an opinion by Justice Pless, noted the holding in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694, 707, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612 (1966), that, prior to any questioning, a person in the custody of law enforcement officers must be warned, inter alia \u201cthat he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him. ...\u201d The defendant was awarded a new trial on the ground the admission of his incriminating statements after he had been advised \u201cthat anything he said or did not say in response to anything said by Margaret Campbell could be used for or against Mm,\u201d (our italics) violated defendant\u2019s constitutional privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 12 L.Ed. 2d 653, 84 S.Ct. 1469 (1964), and Article I, Section 11 (now Section 23), of the Constitution of North Carolina.\nDefendant was in custody, charged with the murder of Pearl Walker, when Elaine was brought into his presence and questioned concerning what she had previously related to Barrier in the absence of defendant. Defendant was not then represented by counsel and had not been advised of his constitutional rights. However, decision is not based on either of these circumstances. The crucial fact is that he exercised his constitutional right to remain silent.\nThe constitutional right against self-incrimination which defendant exercised by remaining silent when Elaine made accusatory statements when questioned by Barrier in defendant\u2019s presence is the same constitutional privilege against self-incrimination he exercised at trial when he did not testify after Elaine had testified to substantially the same effect. Adverse comments on a defendant\u2019s failure to testify at trial are impermissible under North Carolina law, Constitution of North Carolina, Article I, Section 23, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8-54, and under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 14 L.Ed. 2d 106, 85 S.Ct. 1229 (1965). A fortiori, a defendant\u2019s failure to testify may not be considered an admission of the truth of testimony which tends to incriminate him. Similarly, under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence herein, defendant\u2019s silence in the rightful exercise of his privilege against self-incrimination may not be considered an admission of the truth of incriminating statements made in defendant\u2019s presence by a prospective State\u2019s witness in response to an officer\u2019s questions.\nThe Court of Appeals held that error in the admission of the challenged testimony and in the court\u2019s instruction with reference thereto was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore defendant was not \u201csufficiently prejudiced\u201d to warrant a new trial. This conclusion is based upon its application of the doctrine stated by Justice Huskins in State v. Taylor, 280 N.C. 273, 280, 185 S.E. 2d 677, 682 (1972), as follows:\n\u201cEvery violation of a constitutional right is not prejudicial. Some constitutional errors are deemed harmless in the setting of a particular case, not requiring the automatic reversal of a conviction, where the appellate court can declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 17 L.Ed. 2d 705, 87 S.Ct. 824, 24 A.L.R. 3d 1065 (1967) ; Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 23 L.Ed. 2d 284, 89 S.Ct. 1726 (1969). Unless there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction, its admission is harmless. Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 11 L.Ed. 2d 171, 84 S.Ct. 229 (1963).\u201d\nAlthough our conclusion differs from that of the Court of Appeals, nothing stated herein should be interpreted as a departure from the quoted statement.\nThe fact that, exclusive of the erroneously admitted evidence, there was plenary evidence to support the verdict is not determinative. The test is whether, in the setting of this case, we can declare a belief that the erroneously admitted evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, that is, that there is no reasonable possibility the admission thereof might have contributed to the conviction.\nThe statements of Elaine when questioned by Barrier in defendant\u2019s presence do not relate to incidental or peripheral features of the case. On the contrary, the facts related therein, if true, were sufficient to establish that defendant was the person who committed the crime charged in the indictment. If considered an admission of the truthfulness of these statements, defendant's silence would be the equivalent of a confession of guilt. Under these circumstances, it seems probable the chai-lenged evidence contributed substantially to the conviction of defendant. Certainly we cannot say there is no reasonable possibility that it contributed significantly to defendant\u2019s conviction. Hence, the erroneous admission of this evidence was prejudicial, not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.\nFor error in admitting the challenged testimony and in the instruction with reference thereto, defendant is entitled to a new trial. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and vacate the verdict and judgment of the superior court. The cause is remanded to the Court of Appeals with direction that it be remanded to the Superior Court of Cabarrus County for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "BOBBITT, Chief Justice." }, { "text": "Justice Huskins\ndissenting.\nWhen a defendant is in custody under circumstances requiring the custodial officers to advise him of his constitutional rights as mandated in Miranda, v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966), evidence of silence as an admission of guilt is clearly inadmissible. I regard decisions of this Court on \u201cin-custody silence\u201d prior to Miranda as no longer authoritative. I therefore fully agree with the majority opinion that the challenged testimony in this case was erroneously admitted. Even so, I share the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals that its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.\nIn the evidentiary setting of this case, I see no reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to defendant\u2019s conviction. Edith Elaine Crisco testified from the witness stand that she was with defendant and one Phillip Scearcy in Scearcy\u2019s car on the night Pearl Walker was murdered; that she parked the car on a road near the victim\u2019s house and defendant left the car and entered the house carrying a sawed-off shotgun; that she heard a woman say, \u201cLord, have mercy on me,\u201d and shortly thereafter heard a shotgun blast; that defendant came out of the house with the sawed-off shotgun, and reentered the car with her and Scearcy. The pathologist who examined the body of Pearl Walker approximately twelve hours later removed pellets and wadding from a shotgun wound in the victim\u2019s neck. It is undenied that a shotgun wound was the cause of death.\nBrenda Leasor testified from the witness stand that one week before the murder defendant told her \u201cthey knew where some money was and they were going to get it\u201d; that on the day following the murder defendant told her \u201cthey had done the job\u201d; that he had to shoot \u201cthe old Negro woman\u201d because \u201cPhillip [Scearcy] had called his name and that Phillip said he would have to shoot her or she would be able to identify them.\u201d S.B.I. Agent Richardson testified that statements made to him by Brenda Leasor in his investigation of the crime were in substantial accord with her testimony.\nIn the face of such damning evidence, it is unrealistic in my view to award a new trial because S.B.I. Agent Barrier was erroneously allowed to testify that he talked to Elaine Crisco in the presence of this defendant two weeks after the murder and that she made statements substantially in accord with the very things she swore at the trial and defendant made no denial but remained silent. In some cases, and this is one of them, the properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming, and the prejudicial effect of the improperly admitted evidence is so insignificant by comparison, that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the improperly used evidence did not contribute to the conviction and was therefore harmless error. 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) ; Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 11 L.Ed. 2d 171, 84 S.Ct. 229 (1963). In my judgment, the minds of an average jury would not have found the State\u2019s case significantly less persuasive had Barrier\u2019s incompetent testimony been excluded. In the language of Mr. Justice Douglas in Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 23 L.Ed. 2d 284, 89 S.Ct. 1726 (1969), the evidence of guilt \u201cis so overwhelming that unless we say that no violation of Bruton can constitute harmless error, we must leave this . . . conviction undisturbed.\u201d In the Harrington case the constitutional error consisted of the admission in evidence at Harrington\u2019s trial of a confession by a codefendant who did not testify, implicating Harrington. Since the evidence supplied through the erroneously admitted confession was merely cumulative and other evidence of Harrington\u2019s guilt was overwhelming, as here, it was held that admission of the codefend-ant\u2019s confession was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. To like effect is Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371, 33 L.Ed. 2d 1, 92 S.Ct. 2174 (1974).\nConsistent decisions of this Court, holding 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, include State v. Taylor, 280 N.C. 273, 185 S.E. 2d 677 (1972) ; State v. Barbour, 278 N.C. 449, 180 S.E. 2d 115 (1971) ; State v. Swaney, 277 N.C. 602, 178 S.E. 2d 399 (1971) ; State v. Williams, 275 N.C. 77, 165 S.E. 2d 481 (1969). \u201cVerdicts and judgments are not to be lightly set aside, nor for any improper ruling which did not materially and adversely affect the result of the trial.\u201d State v. Bovender, 233 N.C. 683, 65 S.E. 2d 323 (1951).\nEvery defendant is \u201centitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one.\u201d Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604, 97 L.Ed. 593, 73 S.Ct. 481 (1953). I think this defendant had a fair trial and that the error complained of was harmless. The verdict itself is some evidence of that fact since, notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence of first degree murder, he was only convicted of murder in the second degree. I vote to uphold the verdict and judgment and respectfully dissent from the majority opinion awarding a new trial.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Justice Huskins" } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorney General Richard N. League for the State.", "Smith, Carrington, Patterson, Follin & Curtis by J. David James for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. J. C. CASTOR\nNo. 68\n(Filed 15 May 1974)\nConstitutional Law \u00a7 33; Criminal Law \u00a7 48 \u2014 silence of defendant in presence of State\u2019s witness \u2014 implied admission of guilt \u2014 error\nWhere defendant was in custody and charged with murder, his silence when a prospective State\u2019s witness was brought into his presence and questioned concerning what she had previously related to an officer in the absence of defendant could not be considered an admission of the truth of incriminating statements made by the witness, and the trial court committed prejudicial error in allowing testimony with respect to the confrontation into evidence and in instructing with reference thereto. Constitution of N. C., Art, I, \u00a7 23; G.S. 8-54; Constitution of the U. S., Amendments V, XIV.\nJustice Huskins dissenting.\nAppeal by defendant under G.S. 7A-30(1) from the decision of the Court of Appeals, reported in 20 N.C. App. 565, 202 S.E. 2d 281, which upheld the verdict and judgment in defendant\u2019s trial before Judge Collier, and a jury, at the 15 November 1971 Session of Cabarrus County Superior Court.\nDefendant was indicted, in the form prescribed by G.S. 15-144, for the murder of Pearl Walker on 24 June 1971.\nEdith Elaine Crisco (Elaine), age 19, testified she was with defendant and Phillip Scearcy in Scearcy\u2019s car on the night of 24 June 1971; that defendant had a sawed-off shotgun and Scearcy had a rifle; that she parked the car down the road from Pearl Walker\u2019s house; that defendant left the car and went into Pearl Walker\u2019s house; that she did not hear what occurred inside the house until she heard a woman say, \u201cLord, have mercy on me,\u201d and shortly thereafter, she heard a shotgun blast; and that defendant came out of Pearl Walker\u2019s house, with the sawed-off shotgun, and got back in the car with her and Scearcy.\nOn Friday, 25 June 1971, at approximately 11:80 a.m., J. G. Barrier, an employee of the State Bureau of Investigation, found the body of Pearl Walker on the floor of the living room of her home. She was lying on her back, next to a couch, in a pool of blood. Portions of her home had been ransacked.\nA pathologist examined the body of Pearl Walker on 25 June 1971 at 11:45 a.m., approximately twelve hours after her death. He removed pellets and wadding from a shotgun wound which extended into her neck from across her shoulder. In his opinion, this shotgun wound was the proximate cause of her death.\nElaine was arrested on Thursday, 1 July 1971. Barrier talked to her briefly that night and talked to her again on Thursday, 8 July 1971, at which time he took her to the house of Pearl Walker. Barrier testified to statements made to him by Elaine when defendant was not present. This testimony was offered and admitted only for the limited purpose of corroborating her earlier testimony.\nA warrant charging Elaine \u201cfor accessory after the fact\u201d was issued on Thursday, 1 July 1971, or on Friday, 2 July 1971.\nA warrant was issued for the defendant, who was arrested in Jacksonville by Florida officers. He waived extradition and returned voluntarily to Cabarrus County in Barrier\u2019s custody.\nTestimony admitted over defendant\u2019s objection with reference to what occurred when Elaine and defendant, both under arrest and in custody, were brought together by Barrier, will 'be set forth in detail in the opinion.\nDefendant did not testify. He attacked the credibility of Elaine by cross-examination and by witnesses whose testimony tended to contradict her testimony in various respects. Oliver Walker, a witness for defendant, testified he was a grandson of Pearl Walker and that he talked with her at her home about 8:15 a.m. on Friday, 25 June 1971.\nIn rebuttal, the State offered the testimony of Jack Richardson, a Special Agent for the State Bureau of Investigation, to the effect Oliver Walker first told the officers he had gone to his grandmother\u2019s house on this Friday morning and had talked to her about borrowing some money, but later told the officers he \u201chad lied\u201d when he made that statement.\nAfter Richardson testified, Barrier was recalled for further cross-examination by the defense. Thereupon, defendant announced that he rested.\nThe State then called as a witness one Brenda Leasor who testified that on 17 June 1971 defendant had told her \u201cthey knew where some money was and they were going to get it\u201d; that on. Friday, 25 June 1971, he told her \u201cthey had done the job\u201d; that he had to shoot \u201cthe old Negro woman\u201d because \u201cPhillip [Scearcy] had called his name and that Phillip said he would have to shoot her or she would be able to identify them.\u201d The State then recalled Richardson who testified that statements made to him by Brenda Leasor on 1 July 1971 were in substantial accord with her testimony at trial.\nAfter this testimony by Richardson, the State rested, and no further evidence was offered by defendant.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree. Thereupon, the court pronounced judgment which imposed a prison sentence of thirty (30) years, subject to credit for time in jail pending trial.\nPursuant to its writ of certiorari, the Court of Appeals reviewed the superior court trial as upon (belated) appeal. Upon such review, it found no prejudicial error.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorney General Richard N. League for the State.\nSmith, Carrington, Patterson, Follin & Curtis by J. David James for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0286-01", "first_page_order": 318, "last_page_order": 327 }