{ "id": 8560744, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THURMAN LEE STRICKLAND", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Strickland", "decision_date": "1976-06-17", "docket_number": "No. 60", "first_page": "169", "last_page": "185", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "290 N.C. 169" } ], "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": "212 S.E. 2d 113", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "121-125" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 422", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568737 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "434-441" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0422-01" ] }, { "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": "222 S.E. 2d 222", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "289 N.C. 372", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569669 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/289/0372-01" ] }, { "cite": "184 S.E. 2d 249", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 566", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571190 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0566-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 S.E. 2d 179", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575256 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0397-01" ] }, { "cite": "203 S.E. 2d 849", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 202", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562902 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0202-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 U.S. 436", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12046400 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 S.E. 2d 319", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1946, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 N.C. 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616380 ], "year": 1946, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/226/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 S.E. 2d 921", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1952, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "236 N.C. 121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622682 ], "year": 1952, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/236/0121-01" ] }, { "cite": "215 S.E. 2d 80", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "287 N.C. 408", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562950 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/287/0408-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 S.E. 2d 83", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "84" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "270 N.C. 468", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569170 ], "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "469" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/270/0468-01" ] }, { "cite": "403 U.S. 948", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12043280, 12043226 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/403/0948-02", "/us/403/0948-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 S.E. 2d 487", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "496" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 N.C. 598", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563091 ], "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "610" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/276/0598-01" ] }, { "cite": "225 S.E. 2d 522", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "290 N.C. 253", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560872 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/290/0253-01" ] }, { "cite": "223 S.E. 2d 334", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "289 N.C. 570", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571208 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/289/0570-01" ] }, { "cite": "211 S.E. 2d 445", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "450" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 395", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566936 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "403" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0395-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 S.E. 2d 664", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "238 N.C. 222", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8602900 ], "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/238/0222-01" ] }, { "cite": "287 N.C. 671", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 S.E. 2d 770", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "778" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 N.C. 701", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564833 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "713" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/284/0701-01" ] }, { "cite": "220 S.E. 2d 326", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "288 N.C. 582", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570361 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/288/0582-01" ] }, { "cite": "211 S.E. 2d 201", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 377", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566835 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 S.E. 737", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1924, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "187 N.C. 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654088 ], "year": 1924, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/187/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 S.E. 2d 407", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1953, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "408" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "237 N.C. 475", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8614187 ], "year": 1953, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "477" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/237/0475-01" ] }, { "cite": "220 S.E. 2d 600", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "606" }, { "page": "611", "parenthetical": "no substantive error found" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "288 N.C. 553", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570287 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "559" }, { "page": "567", "parenthetical": "no substantive error found" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/288/0553-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 S.E. 2d 679", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "681" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 379", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564082 ], "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "382" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0379-01" ] }, { "cite": "220 S.E. 2d 575", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "580" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "288 N.C. 632", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570479 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "636" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/288/0632-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1377, "char_count": 36684, "ocr_confidence": 0.625, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.6825198032049408e-07, "percentile": 0.6977929987423978 }, "sha256": "7b205a9d713ed81eae6ccf2034a63382cda1fe21076aabd865ddc560812c71a5", "simhash": "1:a7000168633d8c71", "word_count": 6325 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:57:34.654413+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THURMAN LEE STRICKLAND" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "EXUM, Justice.\nI\nDefendant by assignment of error number 9 argues that there was insufficient evidence to carry the case to the jury on the issues of premeditation and deliberation and that the trial court erred in not allowing his motion for nonsuit on the two first degree murder charges.\nIn considering this assignment \u201cwe consider all of the evidence actually admitted, whether from the State or 'defendant, in the light most favorable to the State, resolve any contradictions and discrepancies therein in the State\u2019s favor, and give the State the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the evidence.\u201d State v. Hankerson, 288 N.C. 632, 636, 220 S.E. 2d 575, 580 (1975); State v. Cutler, 271 N.C. 379, 382, 156 S.E. 2d 679, 681 (1967). The elements of premeditation and deliberation in a first degree murder case \u201care not usually susceptible to direct proof, but must be established from the circumstances surrounding the homicide.\u201d State v. Patterson, 288 N.C. 553, 559, 220 S.E. 2d 600, 606 (1975).\nLeaving aside the interesting question whether defendant\u2019s version of the facts would, even if true, have constituted a defense to the murder charges, we hold there was ample evidence from which the jury could find that defendant not only killed his mother and his grandmother but did so with premeditation and deliberation.\nWith regard to significant facts there were enough inconsistencies between defendant\u2019s pre-trial statements to investigating Deputy Woodward and his aunt and his testimony at trial, and even between portions of his trial testimony for the jury to conclude that defendant\u2019s bizarre tale of being under the influence of two unknown abductors was an utter fabrication designed solely to cover up his complicity in the crimes. With regard to the purchase of the handcuffs and other restraining devices, defendant first told Woodward that these devices were given to him by his abductors. In a second statement to Woodward he said he bought them the day before at a police supply store in Kinston and that both the handcuffs and the straps were purchased for the purpose of locking a chain link fence gate at his home in Goldsboro. On direct examination at trial defendant did not state clearly how he acquired these devices but left the unmistakable impression that he had been given them by his abductors. He said, \u201cI related [to his mother, grandmother, and Chappell] that the two men had come to my house and what they had told me, what they told me I had to do. I showed them the instruments that I had been given, at that point Shorty turned and the handcuffs were placed on him and he went into the bedroom and laid down.\u201d This was defendant\u2019s o,nly reference to his acquisition of these instruments in a lengthy direct examination which covered in great detail other aspects of the case. On cross-examination, however, he conceded that he purchased the devices in Kinston on the afternoon of February 19 \u2014 the handcuffs for the purpose of locking his gate and the straps to use in securing certain camping equipment.\nDespite Chappell\u2019s testimony that defendant had called the Letson home on the afternoon of February 19 to advise that he and his boss would come in late that night, defendant omitted any discussion of this fact during his direct testimony. It was not until cross-examination on the point that he conceded that he called the house that afternoon, talked with his mother, and told her only that he would possibly be coming over between 12:00 midnight and 1:00 a.m.\nDefendant\u2019s direct examination purports to cover the crucial events of February 19 before arrival at his girl friend\u2019s home with this statement: \u201cOn February 19 I worked that day. The first part of the morning I worked in the community where I lived and in the afternoon I worked over in Lenoir County. Between six and seven o\u2019clock that evening I had gone over to [his girl friend\u2019s home].\u201d\nIn defendant\u2019s first statement to Woodward he said that his masked abductors carried him directly from his home in Goldsboro to his grandmother\u2019s home in Onslow County where they instructed him to go in, bind the occupants of the home, and to await their return at 6:00 a.m. In his second statement to Woodward he said he went first to his trailer on Emerald Isle with the masked men and then from Emerald Isle to Mrs. Letson\u2019s home, apparently alone.\nIn his direct testimony defendant stated that his abductors indicated en route from Goldsboro to Emerald Isle that they were going to rob him and that it was not until the threesome arrived at Emerald Isle that he was instructed to go to his grandmother\u2019s home in Onslow County were the robbery would take place. On cross-examination, however, his testimony was that the masked men told him en route from Goldsboro to Emerald Isle that they were going to rob the occupants of his grandmother\u2019s home and what he was to do there.\nIn the context of other evidence already referred to the jury could well have inferred from defendant\u2019s statement to his mother, \u201cMa, I\u2019ve done and gone too far,\u201d and from the note he left his girl friend that he was premeditating and deliberating at that time upon the killings. The jury could also have inferred that defendant began premeditating and deliberating the killings when he purchased the restraining devices on the afternoon of February 19. Neither the State nor the jury were bound to accept defendant\u2019s explanation of their purchase given either at trial or in his pre-trial statements which the State offered against him. The State is not bound by exculpatory portions of a defendant\u2019s pre-trial statement offered against him at trial if there is \u201cother evidence tending to throw a different light on the circumstances of the homicide.\u201d State v. Bright, 237 N.C. 475, 477, 75 S.E. 2d 407, 408 (1953); accord, State v. Hankerson, supra. The State\u2019s evidence as to what occurred in the early morning hours at the Letson home, given by the victim Chappell and investigating officers who arrived at the scene, together with defendant\u2019s inconsistent statements and evasiveness about the purchase itself tend to throw a different light on the circumstances of the homicide from that suggested at times by the defendant.\nIn short the evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt of two murders in the first degree is plenary. This assignment of error is overruled.\nBy assignment of error number 10 defendant complains of the refusal of the trial court to allow his motion for nonsuit as to the charge of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill William Chappell. The indictment alleges that defendant:\n\u201cdid feloniously assault William Kenneth Chappell with a deadly weapon, to wit: a plastic bag, with the felonious intent to kill and murder the said William Kenneth Chap-pell, the said plastic bag being a deadly weapon by the manner of its use in that the Defendant placed the plastic bag over the head and face of William Kenneth Chappell and closed the open end of said plastic bag tightly with tape around the neck of William Kenneth Chappell, all the while the said William Kenneth Chappell\u2019s hands were handcuffed behind him.\u201d\nThese allegations are precisely what the evidence of the State tended to show. Chappell testified that defendant:\n\u201cput a piece of tape each way across my mouth and he then rolled out some tape and then he put the bag over my head, and then he put the tape around the bag on my neck and he pulled up the left part of the bag and asked me if I could breathe and I said yes Thurman I can breathe, and with that he clapped it down around my neck and he went out and turned the lights off and closed the door. At that point I was still handcuffed and laying on my back.\n* * *\n\u201cAt that point I was not in a position to breathe.\u201d\nIn light of the fact that Mrs. Letson died by suffocation this is substantial evidence from which a jury might find that defendant placed the bag over Chappell\u2019s head and \u201cclapped it down around [his] neck\u201d with intent to suffocate him to death. This evidence also permits the jury to find that the bag was a deadly weapon. A deadly weapon is not one which must kill but one which under the circumstances of its use is likely to cause death or great bodily harm. State v. Smith, 187 N.C. 469, 121 S.E. 737 (1924). This assignment is overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s assignment of error number 11 refers to the trial court\u2019s \u201cfailure to grant the defendant\u2019s motion for judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict.\u201d This motion is not recognized in our criminal practice. Even if it were, we suppose it would raise the same legal question as presented by defendant\u2019s motions for judgment as of nonsuit at the close of all the evidence upon which, as we have said, the trial court properly ruled against defendant. This assignment is overruled.\nII\nDuring the jury selection process the following colloquy between the district attorney and prospective juror Harvey A. Lewis occurred:\n\u201cQ. Could you sit as a juror in these cases and listen to the evidence of the witnesses and the law that the court will charge to the jury and render a fair and impartial verdict based solely and entirely upon that?\n\u201cA. I think I can. I have to qualify that statement. Since you did say that this is one that there is a possibility of capital punishment, then I feel, although I do believe in capital punishment, but under the manner in which it has been administered, I don\u2019t think it has been fair, that would be my only qualification.\n\u201cQ. You mean the manner in which it has been administered is not fair.\n\u201cA. From the statistics that those people that have been tried say for a capital crime, it seems as though the black, poor is the ones that it has been administered to more.\n\u201cQ. Are you familiar in this state that nobody has died in the death chamber since 1961, that\u2019s thirteen years ago? (Emphasis supplied.)\n\u201cA. Yes, I am. Because of the administration of it, I hope that North Carolina will do away with the death penalty instead life imprisonment with no chance of parole.\n\u201cQ. That might have something to do with your verdict then in this case, your feelings about it?\n\u201cA. It might. At this time, I\u2019m not sure.\n\u201cQ. According to what you have just stated with respect to your feelings about punishment and the fact that it is done unfair and other things that you have stated, do you think it would be possible for you to sit on this jury and render a verdict in this case that would mean the death sentence?\n\u201cA. It might seem prejudice, I\u2019m not sure.\n\u201cQ. Now there is no race involved in this case.\n\u201cA. I understand that.\n\u201cQ. This is all the same race.\n\u201cA. I wasn\u2019t talking about the racial prejudice. I\u2019m talking about there is also the status of the defendant that might or might not enter in. I will be as fair as I can.\n\u201cMr. Britt: I believe the State will excuse this juror.\u201d\nDefendant contends that the statement by the prosecutor that \u201cnobody has died in the death chamber since 1961\u201d was prejudicial error, relying on State v. Hines, 286 N.C. 377, 211 S.E. 2d 201 (1975). A similar contention was made in State v. Miller, 288 N.C. 582, 220 S.E. 2d 326 (1975). In Miller the district attorney in closing argument told the jury that the only thing wrong with capital punishment was its lack of use and it could not be an effective deterrent to crime when no one had been executed in this State for twelve years. In that case we upheld the conviction and distinguished Hines. We said, 288 N.C. at 601-602, 220 S.E. 2d at 340:\n\u201cIn Hines a prospective juror under interrogation stated she was \u2018not comfortable with capital punishment.\u2019 The district attorney, in the presence of all the jurors, replied: \u2018Well, everybody feels that way but this is the punishment that is provided at this point. And to ease your feelings, I might say to you that no one has been put to death in North Carolina since 1961.\u2019 We held that the statement was improper and prejudicial in that it tended to dilute the solemn obligation imposed upon jurors in capital cases by leading them to believe that Hines and his co-defendants would not or might not be executed even if convicted. Such is not the import of the district attorney\u2019s remarks in this case. Here, the temper, tone and meaning of the district attorney\u2019s remarks were not likely to ease the feelings of the jury, or anyone else, regarding capital punishment. To the contrary, the prosecutor was scolding all persons connected with the administration of the criminal laws for their failure to execute those convicted of a capital crime. Rather than easing the feelings of the jury, the argument tended to emphasize the deadly seriousness of its duty. We think the challenged remarks were well within the bounds of legitimate debate.\u201d\nAs in Miller, the questioning here by the district attorney was not designed to ease the feelings of the jury as it embarked upon its serious task. The thrust of his remark was not, as it was in Hines, that since no one had been recently executed, perhaps the defendant on trial would likewise escape this fate. Instead the district attorney was countering prospective juror Lewis\u2019 statement that the death penalty was applied unfairly so as to discriminate against blacks and the poor. The thrust and clear import of the district attorney\u2019s statement was that there had been no recent discriminatory use of the death penalty in North Carolina because in fact it has not been used at all in this State for some thirteen years. There was no implied suggestion, as there was in Hines, that the death penalty would not be applied in the future or to the particular defendant on trial. There was consequently no error prejudicial to defendant in this incident.\nWe note also that defendant, again unlike the defendant in Hines, made no objection to the remark at trial. Had he then found it objectionable and said so, the trial judge would have then had an opportunity to inquire of those jurors who heard the remark as to what impression, if any, it made upon them and to correct such misleading impressions, if any, as may have been made. Under these circumstances defendant\u2019s failure to object waived his right to object and therefore to complain further on appeal. The general rule is that \u201c[a]n objection not made in apt time is waived.\u201d State v. Davis and State v. Fish, 284 N.C. 701, 713, 202 S.E. 2d 770, 778 (1974) ; cf. Rule 10(b)(1), North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, 287 N.C. 671 (1975).\nWhere, however, the error complained of is so prejudicial that even upon timely objection no purported curative instruction could possibly remove the prejudicial effect, \u201ccounsel\u2019s failure to make timely objection will not waive defendant\u2019s right to object. State v. Dockery, 238 N.C. 222, 77 S.E. 2d 664 (1953).\u201d State v. White, 286 N.C. 395, 403, 211 S.E. 2d 445, 450 (1975), and cases therein discussed. Although we held in Hines that a mere sustaining of the objection by the trial judge did not cure the error, this was not to say that the prejudicial effect of the district attorney\u2019s remark in Hines could not have been cured by appropriate instructions of the trial judge. Appropriate curative instructions might be effective to remove the prejudice of a Hines type remark. The jury could, for example, be told that it should not interpret this kind of remark to mean that the penalty of death may not be exacted upon its return of a guilty verdict and that it must act upon the assumption that upon its return of such a verdict the defendant will, as a matter of law, be sentenced to die and will, as a matter of fact, be executed in keeping with that sentence. Cf. State v. White, supra.\nAnother exception to the waiver rule, not applicable here, is the admission of evidence contrary to a statute which precludes its admission in furtherance of some public policy of the State. In this instance failure to object to the evidence does not waive one\u2019s right to have the error considered on appeal. State v. McCall, 289 N.C. 570, 223 S.E. 2d 334 (1976).\nIn capital cases this Court has applied the waiver rule only as an alternative ground for finding no error when, substantively, no error was apparent. State v. Shrader, 290 N.C. 253, 225 S.E. 2d 522 (1976); State v. Sanders, 276 N.C. 598, 610, 174 S.E. 2d 487, 496 (1970), death sentence reversed 403 U.S. 948. In keeping, however, with the now settled practice of the Court \u201cin every case in which a death sentence has been pronounced to examine and review the record with minute care to the end it may affirmatively appear that all proper safeguards have been vouchsafed the . . . accused . . . . \u201d State v. Fowler, 270 N.C. 468, 469, 155 S.E. 2d 83, 84 (1967), the Court has relaxed the waiver rule at least as regards motions to strike specific portions of testimony on grounds other than those raised by a general objection to the entire testimony. State v. Patterson, 288 N.C. 553, 567, 220 S.E. 2d 600, 611 (1975) (no substantive error found); State v. Fowler, supra (substantive error ground for new trial). The Court has uniformly in capital cases overlooked failure to support alleged errors by appropriate exceptions and assignments of error in instances where no objection at trial was required. State v. Buchanan, 287 N.C. 408, 215 S.E. 2d 80 (1975); State v. McCoy, 236 N.C. 121, 71 S.E. 2d 921 (1952); State v. Herring, 226 N.C. 213, 37 S.E. 2d 319 (1946).\nA defendant, however, in a capital case who fails to make even a general objection at trial when doing so could have saved the trial from error runs a high risk of waiving his right to complain on appeal where the incident complained of is not patently erroneous, or if erroneous, not patently prejudicial.\nIll\nBetween 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. on February 20 defendant was taken by a Swansboro Rescue ambulance to the Onslow Memorial Hospital for treatment of his bullet wound. Shortly after 8:00 a.m. Woodward questioned defendant at the hospital extensively about the incident then under investigation. Defendant unsuccessfully at trial challenged the admissibility of defendant\u2019s statement to Woodward made at this time. By his assignment of error number 8 defendant contends the trial judge committed error in admitting this statement on the ground that defendant was actually in custody and, therefore, entitled to be warned of his rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Woodward admitted that no such warnings were given before he questioned defendant at this time.\nUpon objection to Woodward\u2019s relating defendant\u2019s statement, the trial judge properly excused the jury to conduct a voir dire inquiry. On voir dire, consisting entirely of the testimony of Woodward, the evidence was that Woodward had been instructed by his superior \u201cto go to the hospital that a victim was coming in that had been shot and for me to interview him to see if I could find out what happened. So to me he was a victim, he was definitely not a suspect of the crime.\u201d Woodward further testified that at this time defendant was not in custody. Later that day after the investigating officers, including Woodward, had compared defendant\u2019s initial statement to Woodward with Chappell\u2019s version of what happened, defendant did become a prime suspect and was taken into custody from the hospital by Woodward at 3:00 p.m. on February 20. While in custody he was fully advised of his rights, affirmatively waived them, and made other statements. Their admissibility is not challenged. Upon this evidence the trial judge found and concluded in part as follows:\n\u201c2. The defendant arrived at the hospital in the emergency vehicle, he was not in custody, and was not under any police surveillance at that time.\n\u201c3. That the defendant was not suspected as a party to the crime at the time Officer Woodward interviewed him in the emergency room at the hospital at which time he made a statement.\n\u2756 * *\n\u201cThe Court concludes that the first statement was a noncustody interrogation and that the defendant\u2019s rights were in no way violated.\u201d\nAfter the trial judge\u2019s findings and conclusions were made, however, the voir dire was reopened to permit the district attorney to place in the record Woodward\u2019s testimony regarding the precise warnings which were given to defendant in the afternoon at the sheriff\u2019s office. On further cross-examination by defense counsel at this stage of the voir dire the following exchange occurred:\n\u201cMr. Braswell: Mr. Woodward, I assume that if he had told you he was going on home, you would have let him go home?\n\u201cA. No, sir.\n\u201cMr. Braswell : So he didn\u2019t have any right to go or not to go with you, it was go or be carried, is that right?\n\u201cA. I asked him first. If he had refused, then I would have took him in custody, yes, sir.\n\u201cMr. Braswell : He knew that, did he not?\n\u201cA. I don\u2019t know what he knew, I wish I could testify as to what he knows.\u201d\nDefendant strenuously argues that this testimony demonstrates conclusively that defendant was in fact in custody when he made his first statement to Woodward at the hospital. Counsel may have intended by his questions to refer to the morning at the hospital but it is patently clear from the record that Woodward in his replies was referring to that afternoon when, as he had earlier testified, \u201cI came back to the hospital and arrived . . . at approximately three p.m. . . . and then we took him into custody. ... I asked him to come and go with me to the Sheriff\u2019s office.\u201d\nIn any event the trial judge\u2019s findings that the defendant was not in custody at the hospital when first questioned by Woodward are clearly supported by some competent evidence, if not by all the evidence. The defendant not being in custody at that time, the Miranda, warnings and accompanying waivers were not required as a prerequisite to the admissibility of defendant\u2019s statement. State v. Sykes, 285 N.C. 202, 203 S.E. 2d 849 (1974); State v. Ratliff, 281 N.C. 397, 189 S.E. 2d 179 (1972); State v. Gladden, 279 N.C. 566, 184 S.E. 2d 249 (1971).\nIV\nBy assignments of error numbers 1 through 7 defendant challenges various rulings by the trial judge during the trial which he contends improperly admitted into evidence certain illustrative exhibits, allowed leading questions and conclusory testimony, constituted expressions of opinion regarding the evidence in violation of General Statute 1-180, and unduly limited the defendant\u2019s right of cross-examination. We have carefully examined each of these assignments. They are all totally without merit and are overruled without discussion.\nV\nDefendant\u2019s assignment of error number 12 is to the trial judge\u2019s failure to allow defendant\u2019s motion for new trial for errors committed and because the verdicts were contrary to the weight of the evidence. That aspect of this motion dealing with errors committed is purely formal. We have already dealt with the substance of it. The second aspect of this motion is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge. He acted well within that discretion in denying this motion. This assignment of error is overruled.\nVI\nFinally defendant complains that it was error for the trial judge to enter judgments of death in the murder cases. This Court has considered and a majority has consistently rejected all of defendant\u2019s arguments on this point and does so here. State v. Alford, 289 N.C. 372, 222 S.E. 2d 222 (1976) and cases cited therein; State v. Waddell, 282 N.C. 431, 194 S.E. 2d 19 (1973). However inasmuch as the crime was committed on February 20, 1974, before the effective date of N. C. Sess. Laws 1973, c. 1201 \u00a7 1 amending General Statute 14-17, Chief Justice Sharp, and Justices Copeland and Exum dissent from that portion of this opinion affirming the imposition of the death sentences and vote to remand for the imposition of sentences of life imprisonment. See their dissenting opinions in State v. Williams, 286 N.C. 422, 434-441, 212 S.E. 2d 113, 121-125 (1975).\nNo error in the trial.\nDeath sentences sustained by majority vote.", "type": "majority", "author": "EXUM, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by James E. Magner, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "Roland C. Braswell, Attorney for Defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THURMAN LEE STRICKLAND\nNo. 60\n(Filed 17 June 1976)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 21\u2014 premeditation and deliberation \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe evidence was sufficient to support a jury verdict that defendant killed his mother and grandmother with premeditation and deliberation where it would support findings by the jury that defendant told the occupants of his grandmother\u2019s house a fabricated story that his son had been kidnapped by masked men and that in order to get his son back he had been instructed to bind the occupants so that the masked men could rob them, defendant had previously purchased handcuffs and restraining straps, defendant placed handcuffs and straps on a handyman who was in the house and attempted to suffocate him by placing a plastic bag on his head, the handyman heard defendant\u2019s mother pleading with defendant to call the law and defendant reply that he had \u201cdone gone too far,\u201d defendant placed handcuffs on his mother and grandmother, defendant thereafter suffocated his grandmother with a pillow and shot and killed his mother, and defendant left a note to his girl friend stating that he knew she would not understand and that he thought \u201cthis might be a way out.\u201d\n2. Assault and Battery \u00a7 14\u2014 assault with deadly weapon with intent to kill \u2014 placing plastic bag over head\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient for the jury in a prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill where it tended to show that defendant placed a plastic bag over the victim\u2019s head and taped it around the victim\u2019s neck with the intent to suffocate the victim while his hands were handcuffed behind him.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 102\u2014 time since use of death penalty \u2014 remark by district attorney during jury selection\nIn this prosecution for first degree murder, the district attorney\u2019s remark during jury selection that \u201cnobody has died in the death chamber since 1961\u201d did not constitute prejudicial error where (1) the district attorney was countering a prospective juror\u2019s statement that the death penalty was applied unfairly so as to discriminate against blacks and the poor, (2) the clear import of the district attorney\u2019s statement was that there had been no recent discriminatory use of the death penalty in North Carolina because it has not been used at all in this State in thirteen years, and (3) there was no implied suggestion that the death penalty would not be applied in the future or to a particular defendant on trial; furthermore, defendant waived his right to object to the remark by his failure to object at trial.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 75\u2014 non-custodial questioning \u2014 absence of Miranda warnings \u2014 admissibility of statements\nThe evidence on voir dire supported the trial court\u2019s determination that defendant was not in custody when he was questioned by an officer at a hospital where he had been taken by ambulance for treatment of a bullet wound; therefore, the Miranda warnings and accompanying waivers were not required as a prerequisite to the admissibility of defendant\u2019s statements to the officer.\n5. Constitutional Law \u00a7 36\u2014 death penalty \u2014 constitutionality\nIt was not error for the trial judge to enter judgments of death upon defendant\u2019s conviction in two cases of first degree murder.\nChief Justice Sharp and Justices Copeland and Exum dissent as to death sentence.\nOn writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Onslow County pursuant to General Statute 7A-32(b). Thurman Lee Strickland was tried at the June 24, 1974 Session of Onslow Superior Court on two indictments charging the murders of Thelma Strickland and Addie Letson, and an indictment charging an assault on one William Chappell with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, all allegedly occurring on February 20, 1974. He was found guilty on all charges, sentenced to death in each murder case and to eight years imprisonment in the assault case. His appeal was not perfected in time. A writ of certiorari was sought and allowed by this Court on June 2, 1975. Defendant\u2019s motion to bypass the Court of Appeals in the assault case was allowed on June 4, 1975. This case was docketed and argued as No. 25 at the Fall Term 1975.\nThe State\u2019s evidence may be summarized as follows: Defendant was a vacuum cleaner salesman who lived in Goldsboro. In the afternoon or evening of February 19, 1974, defendant telephoned the deceased Addie Letson\u2019s home in Quail Haven, Onslow County, and left a message with Chappell that he would come there late that evening with his employer to spend the night. Defendant\u2019s employer never made any such arrangement with defendant nor was such an arrangement usual. Addie Letson was defendant\u2019s grandmother. The deceased, Thelma Strickland, defendant\u2019s mother, and the daughter of Mrs. Let-son, was living temporarily with Mrs. Letson at this time and was present in the Letson home. Also living in the Letson home was the victim Chappell, a long time helper and handyman of Mrs. Letson.\nDefendant, separated from his wife, spent the evening of February 19 until 11:15 p.m. at his girl friend\u2019s home in Golds-boro. He arrived at Mrs. Letson\u2019s home about 1:00 a.m. on February 20 carrying in his hand a brown paper sack. Defendant, his mother, grandmother, and Chappell, watched television until 2:30 a.m.\nAt that time, defendant told them all: His son, Lee, who generally lived with defendant\u2019s estranged wife in Garner, but who had been recently living with defendant, had been kidnapped by two masked men. These men had accosted defendant and Lee at defendant\u2019s home in Goldsboro and forced him and his son to drive to defendant\u2019s trailer on Emerald Isle where they now held the boy. In order to get the child back he had been instructed by these men to bind, gag, and blindfold all three occupants of the Letson home. The kidnappers would appear at 3:00 a.m., bring the boy Lee and take money from the home.\nDefendant then proceeded, with Chappell\u2019s cooperation, to handcuff Chappell from the rear, place restraining straps loosely around his ankles, and put Chappell on his bed in his bedroom. Later Chappell heard the two women talk about hiding their money and rings. They were in the front part of the house and handcuffed. Chappell could hear but not see what occurred. He heard the two women ask defendant on several occasions to call law enforcement officers. Twice he heard defendant speak as if he were calling the Sheriff\u2019s office requesting assistance.\nShortly before 6:00 a.m. defendant returned to Chappell\u2019s room, taped his lips, placed a plastic bag over his head and taped it around his neck so tightly that Chappell could not breathe. He advised Chappell that the kidnappers would not be there until 6:00 a.m. Defendant left. Chappell was able to remove the bag from his head by rubbing it against the bedposts and was able to release his leg straps. He was still handcuffed from the rear.\nChappell heard Thelma Strickland pleading with defendant to call the law. Defendant said, \u201cMa, I\u2019ve done gone too far.\u201d Chappell also heard someone say, \u201cdo not put that pillow on her, you know she can\u2019t stand it.\u201d At that point Chappell managed to escape and ran to a neighbor\u2019s house. The Sheriff was called from this house at 6:53 a.m. When sheriff\u2019s deputies arrived they did not go in immediately but observed the house as they waited for assistance. They saw no one enter or leave the house. One deputy heard a shot. They saw the dining room door open and heard a woman\u2019s voice call for help. As they approached the house defendant was found lying in the driveway with a superficial bullet wound in his thigh. He said his mother and grandmother were dead and that masked men who had just left in a big car had shot at the deputies. No one to the knowledge of the deputies had shot at them. They had not seen a car leaving the premises.\nThe body of Mrs. Letson was found face down on her daughter\u2019s bed with her hands cuffed behind her. The cause of her death was suffocation. The body of Mrs. Strickland was found dead in the den. She had been shot five times with a .22 caliber weapon in the head, neck, chest and abdomen. She was handcuffed from the front. A pillow was found nearby in which there was a bullet hole and powder burns. The cause of her death was a gunshot wound to the head. Defendant\u2019s .22 pistol was found in the den with six empty cartridges. A loaded .32 pistol was also found. At least two of the bullets found in Mrs. Strickland and the bullet in defendant\u2019s thigh had come from defendant\u2019s weapon.\nThere was further evidence that no person -or vehicle had gone to defendant\u2019s trailer at Emerald Isle during the evening or early morning of February 19-20, and that defendant\u2019s son was never kidnapped.\nThe State introduced two statements given by defendant to police officer Woodward which, broadly, were similar to his testimony at trial but inconsistent therewith in some important details. Two statements made to defendant\u2019s aunt while defendant was in jail were also admitted without objection. They, likewise, were, broadly speaking, similar to his trial testimony but again incomplete or inconsistent therewith in some impor-ant details.\nDefendant offered evidence which may be summarized as follows: He had a reputation for being a person of good character in his community. On the evening of February 19 he reached his home in Goldsboro about 11:15 p.m., having come from his girl friend\u2019s home. The doorbell rang. A masked man wielding a pistol appeared and claimed to have kidnapped his son Lee. The masked man collected three sets of handcuffs from defendant\u2019s kitchen table, some plastic bags from the kitchen cabinet, and some restraining straps from the kitchen counter. Defendant said he had bought the handcuffs earlier that afternoon for the purpose of locking the gate to his home and the restraining straps to secure a trailer tarpaulin and some camping equipment.\nThey got in defendant\u2019s car. A second masked man was in the back seat of this car. Defendant was instructed to and did drive to his trailer at Emerald Isle, where he was told his son would be. Upon arrival there his son was not present. Defendant was then instructed to go to his grandmother\u2019s house and bind, gag and blindfold the occupants. His abductors told him they would appear about 6:00 a.m. to rob the occupants of whatever money was available.\nFrom the time of defendant\u2019s arrival at his grandmother\u2019s home defendant\u2019s testimony roughly parallels the State\u2019s evidence until he put the plastic bag on Chappell\u2019s head. Defendant claimed he placed the bag on loosely so that Chappell could breathe. He testified further that after handcuffing and otherwise binding Chappell, his grandmother, and his mother, he determined to shoot it out alone with the masked men after he got his son. At 6:00 a.m. he looked out and saw a car drive by. He then wrote a note to his girl friend which said, \u201cDenise, I know you won\u2019t understand but I love you so much. I thought this might be a way out. Time is out. Thurman.\u201d\nHe then went out the door trying to find a vantage point outside the house from which to meet the men. No place seemed right. When he came back in the house a man suddenly came from behind a bar toward him, struck him, took his .22 pistol and threw his grandmother\u2019s .32 pistol on a desk. He was pushed into his mother\u2019s bedroom and saw her at the foot of the bed. She said, \u201cWhere is Lee ?\u201d His grandmother stood up; a second masked man stood up and grabbed her. He was carried into the living room. He heard his mother call out his name and a voice say \u201cDon\u2019t do that.\u201d Out the window defendant saw a sheriff\u2019s car pass. The masked man released him and went back in the den. Defendant heard several shots. Defendant ran back into the bedroom. In a struggle over a gun defendant was shot in his thigh. He looked and saw his grandmother dead. Defendant called Swansboro police officers on the phone. While on the phone he saw his mother sitting in a chair and she would not respond. He crawled out the door and yelled for help. Two officers approached and rendered assistance.\nDefendant admitted telephoning the Letson home on February 19, but testified that he talked with his mother and advised her only that he might drop by late that evening. He denied mentioning that his boss would be with him. He testified further that he initially told the occupants of the Letson home the kidnappers would be present at 3:00 a.m. rather than 6:00 a.m. in order to gain their early attention and cooperation and that he faked two telephone calls to the Sheriff\u2019s office to pacify his mother and grandmother.\nRufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by James E. Magner, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nRoland C. Braswell, Attorney for Defendant." }, "file_name": "0169-01", "first_page_order": 201, "last_page_order": 217 }