{ "id": 8567097, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ADNELL HUNT", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hunt", "decision_date": "1979-04-20", "docket_number": "No. 65", "first_page": "131", "last_page": "137", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "297 N.C. 131" } ], "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": "239 S.E. 2d 465", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.C. 713", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567106 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/293/0713-01" ] }, { "cite": "213 S.E. 2d 262", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 638", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570035 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0638-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S.E. 2d 424", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1955, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "429" }, { "page": "430" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "241 N.C. 650", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616136 ], "year": 1955, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "657" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/241/0650-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 660", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571369 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 S.E. 2d 615", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "250 N.C. 258", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622187 ], "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/250/0258-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 S.E. 2d 576", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 N.C. 690", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563327 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/276/0690-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 S.E. 482", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1937, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "484" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "212 N.C. 725", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8619002 ], "year": 1937, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "729" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/212/0725-01" ] }, { "cite": "237 S.E. 2d 843", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.C. 315", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563998 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/293/0315-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 751, "char_count": 14495, "ocr_confidence": 0.79, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.3967835174632784e-08, "percentile": 0.33755867620081326 }, "sha256": "01d3b8b5c031f6670914e100c10c938cc23238c0b869f178c4881b4a1f24b222", "simhash": "1:d76dd040f6d56fda", "word_count": 2509 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:00:46.792762+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Justices BRITT and BROCK took no part in the consideration or decision of this case." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ADNELL HUNT" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "SHARP, Chief Justice.\nDefendant\u2019s first assignment of error is that the trial judge permitted his case to be tried by jurors who, on the morning of his trial, had the opportunity to hear \u201ca number of pleas and sentences imposed\u201d in other and unrelated cases. Defendant argues that this situation violated the spirit of G.S. 15A-943 and \u201ccreated a jury biased against him.\u201d His thesis is that \u201cafter hearing police officers testify in three or four other cases in which there has been an admission of guilt\u201d jurors would be more inclined to credit the officers\u2019 testimony in cases in which the defendant\u2019s plea was not guilty, and might be inclined to desert their true function and become a vigilance committee. We find no merit in these contentions.\nG.S. 15A-943 has no application to this case. Subsections (a) and (c) of this statute deal with the calendaring of arraignments and subsection (b) only provides that no defendant may be tried during the week in which he is arraigned unless he consents. See State v. Shook, 293 N.C. 315, 237 S.E. 2d 843 (1977). Defendant does not suggest that he was arraigned the same week of his trial. Nor does the record disclose any reason to suspect that the jurors might have been prejudiced against defendant by anything they heard when the court disposed of \u201cthree or four\u201d unrelated cases upon pleas of guilty.\nThere is no way in which a criminal session of court can be held and jury trials conducted without exposing jurors to the courthouse environment. However, \u201cour system for the administration of justice through trial by jury is based upon the assumption that the trial jurors are men of character and of sufficient intelligence to fully understand and comply with the instructions of the court, and are presumed to have done so.\u201d State v. Ray, 212 N.C. 725, 729, 194 S.E. 482, 484 (1937). Defendant had ample opportunity during the selection of the jury to question the jurors about possible bias and to challenge those who indicated they had acquired any bias. See State v. Baldwin, 276 N.C. 690, 174 S.E. 2d 576 (1970); State v. Corl, 250 N.C. 258, 108 S.E. 2d 615 (1959). No evidence of bias was disclosed.\nDefendant next contends that the following incident which occurred during the cross-examination of defendant demonstrated bad faith on the part of the district attorney and was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial:\nQ. 1973, did you not get convicted of first-degree burglary and rape?\nObjection by defendant.\nA. No, Sir, I did not. Found me not guilty on it.\nWith reference to this question and answer we note: (1) No evidence in the record tends to show that the district attorney asked the question in bad faith or suggests that defendant attempted to develop such evidence. (2) Before the judge had time to rule on the objection defendant answered the question with a positive denial. See State v. McNair, 272 N.C. 130, 157 S.E. 2d 660 (1967). We find no error prejudicial to defendant in this exchange.\nThe third assignment which defendant brings forward attacks \u201cnumerous incidents in the argument of the district attorney as having such a prejudicial effect on the jury as to constitute reversible error when reviewed cumulatively.\u201d The arguments of both defense counsel and the district attorney are in the record, and we have carefully considered each in its entirety and in relation to the other. Having done so, we conclude that the district attorney\u2019s remarks did not exceed the bounds of legitimate argument and overrule this assignment also. Numerous decisions of this Court hold that the argument of counsel must be left largely to the control and discretion of the presiding judge whose discretion we will not review \u201cunless the impropriety of counsel was gross and well calculated to prejudice the jury.\u201d State v. Barefoot, 241 N.C. 650, 657, 86 S.E. 2d 424, 429 (1955). See State v. Stegmann, 286 N.C. 638, 213 S.E. 2d 262 (1975).\nThe conscientious trial judge carefully monitored the arguments of counsel in this case from beginning to end. During the course of the district attorney\u2019s speech to the jury he was interrupted twenty-five times by the objections of defense counsel. All but one were overruled. In sustaining the one, Judge Hobgood corrected the district attorney\u2019s misinterpretation of a totally irrelevant and inconsequential opinion expressed by defense counsel in her argument. This action by the judge removed any possible prejudice that might have been engendered by the misstatement. State v. Thompson, 293 N.C. 713, 239 S.E. 2d 465 (1977).\nAppropriate in this case is Justice Higgins\u2019 comment in State v. Barefoot, supra at 658, 86 S.E. 2d at 430, \u201cIn view of the evidence of this case it is difficult to see how the solicitor\u2019s argument could have influenced the verdict.\u201d So far as we know, conduct more bestial and depraved than that attributed to this defendant by the State\u2019s witnesses cannot be found in the pages of our Reports.\nDefendant\u2019s fourth and final assignment of error charges that his right of confrontation under N.C. Const., Art. I, \u00a7 23 was abridged when the court \u201cpermitted the witness, Lizzie Ann Edwards, to respond to the questioning of the district attorney in a narrative manner.\u201d As to this assignment, it suffices to say that in the record statement of this witness\u2019s evidence we perceive no irregularity in the manner in which she gave her testimony.\nIn the trial below we find\nNo error.\nJustices BRITT and BROCK took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.", "type": "majority", "author": "SHARP, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, and Thomas F. Mof-fitt, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "Adelaide G. Behan for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ADNELL HUNT\nNo. 65\n(Filed 20 April 1979)\n1. Constitutional Law \u00a7 56\u2014 jurors in courtroom during guilty pleas and evidence in other cases \u2014 G.S. 15A-943 \u2014 right to impartial jury\nThe fact that defendant was tried by jurors who, on the morning of his trial, had the opportunity to hear \u201ca number of pleas and sentences imposed\u201d in other and unrelated cases did not violate the spirit of G.S. 15A-943 and create a jury biased against defendant, since that statute dealt with calendaring of arraignments and was therefore inapplicable to defendant\u2019s case, and since there was no showing that the jurors acquired any bias because of anything they heard when the court disposed of three or four unrelated cases upon pleas of guilty.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 88.4\u2014 cross-examination of defendant \u2014 prior conviction \u2014 denial \u2014 no prejudice\nDefendant was not prejudiced by the district attorney\u2019s question on cross-examination as to whether defendant had been convicted of first degree burglary and rape since there was no evidence in the record tending to show that the district attorney asked the question in bad faith or that defendant attempted to develop such evidence, and since defendant answered the question with a positive denial before the judge had time to rule on defense counsel\u2019s objection.\nJustices Britt and Brock took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAPPEAL by defendant under G.S. 7A-27 from Hobgood, J., 5 April 1978 Session of the Superior Court of ROBESON. This case was docketed and argued as Case No. 63 at the Fall Term 1978.\nDefendant was convicted of an assault with the intent to commit rape and first-degree rape. He appeals concurrent sentences of fifteen years and imprisonment of life in the State Prison. Evidence for the State tended to show the following events:\nOn the evening of 11 November 1977 Jack Jacobs, Robert Hunt, Mrs. Margaret Louise Edwards (a prosecuting witness) and her two daughters, Lizzie Ann Edwards, aged 16 (a prosecuting witness), and Debra Lee Edwards, went to the home of Liza Mae Hunt where they joined others who had come to drink beer, listen to music and dance. All but Lizzie Ann and Debra drank some beer. While they were at Liza\u2019s house defendant Adnell Hunt, whom Lizzie had not known before, arrived and joined the party.\nWhen Mrs. Edwards and her daughters left Liza Mae\u2019s house Jack Jacobs drove them home and then went on his way. Although they had not been invited to do so, defendant and Robert Hunt followed the Jacobs car to the Edwards home and entered the house with them. Mrs. Edwards testified, \u201cI didn\u2019t tell them not to come in [and] I didn\u2019t ask them to come in.\u201d\nOnce inside, the group sat in the front room and listened to music for a while. The two men drank beer which they had brought with them; the women drank nothing. After a while Mrs. Edwards told the men to leave, that she wished to retire. Defendant said his car was hot and wouldn\u2019t crank until it had cooled off. When told to try it anyway, he made an unsuccessful effort to start the car and came back into the house. Mrs. Edwards retired to her bedroom and in about ten minutes the two men again went out to the car. Debra and Lizzie walked to the front porch with them, but when the car would not start they reentered the house.\nThe girls were in their mother\u2019s bedroom when they heard defendant go down the hall and into the kitchen. From the kitchen defendant entered the bedroom, closed the door, \u201csnatched out a knife\u201d from under his shirt, and said, \u201che wouldn\u2019t leave until he got to see what he wanted to see.\u201d Mrs. Edwards grabbed the knife and tried to take it from him. At that time the light, which \u201chad a string hanging down from it,\u201d went off. The two girls were screaming and Lizzie Ann \u201chollered\u201d to Robert Hunt, who was in the front room, to \u201ccall the law.\u201d Robert made a vain attempt to push the door open, and at that point the light came back on.\nLizzie Ann observed that Mrs. Edwards\u2019 hand had been cut, that there were four slits in the back of her bloody nightgown, and that defendant was holding the knife next to her neck. Defendant told Debra and Lizzie that if they did not have their clothes off in two minutes he would kill their mother. However, because it was cold in the bedroom, defendant directed everyone into the front room. When they went in they found that Robert Hunt had gone. Defendant then ordered Debra and Mrs. Edwards to return to the bedroom, and forced Lizzie to undress by threatening to kill her with the knife if she didn\u2019t do what he said. Immediately thereafter he proceeded to have sexual intercourse with her, all the while holding the knife against her back. After about 10 minutes he called Mrs. Edwards into the front room and told her to watch what he and Lizzie were doing. Both Lizzie and Mrs. Edwards were crying and defendant threatened to kill Lizzie if Mrs. Edwards didn\u2019t stop crying. Mrs. Edwards stopped. Lizzie testified that at all times during the events detailed herein defendant held the knife by the handle and the sharp side of the blade against her.\nAfter finishing with Lizzie, defendant ushered her and Mrs. Edwards back into the bedroom. Not seeing Debra he demanded to know where she was. Mrs. Edwards told him Debra had gone for help. With the knife at Lizzie\u2019s back he marched the two women out on the back porch and forced Lizzie to call Debra. When Debra did not answer he returned them to the bedroom where, at knife point, he again penetrated Lizzie and threatened to kill her unless Mrs. Edwards made oral contact with his scrotum. After three to five minutes of this he required Mrs. Edwards to have sexual intercourse with him and directed Lizzie to lie beside him. Some minutes later he required Mrs. Edwards to perform cunnilingus upon Lizzie and then fellatio upon him. All this time he had the knife at Lizzie\u2019s throat. In about ten minutes he told Mrs. Edwards to stop and again ordered Lizzie to mount him. Shortly thereafter he directed her to lie down beside him.\nHe was lying on the bed between the two women, the knife still on Lizzie, when they heard sirens approaching and cars stop in the yard. Defendant threatened the women if they moved or made a sound. Nobody moved until they heard the order from outside, \u201cBreak in the door!\u201d Defendant then leaned over Mrs. Edwards and put the knife on the floor. At that moment four uniformed officers came into the room. Defendant was arrested and the two women were taken to the emergency room of the Southeastern General Hospital. There they were examined by Dr. W. E. Neal, Jr., who testified that Mrs. Edwards had multiple superficial lacerations of the left hand, back and right side of the neck and that a pelvic examination revealed motile sperm in both the mother and daughter. Each one told the doctor that, at knife point and upon threat of death, defendant had forced her to have intercourse with him.\nDefendant, aged 29, testified in his own behalf and called three witnesses. The record states without further explanation that the testimony of these witnesses \u201cis omitted.\u201d Defendant\u2019s testimony tended to show:\nHe was among those present at the home of his cousin, Liza Mae Hunt, on the evening of 11 November 1977. While there he danced with Lizzie Edwards, and she asked him to go home with her. When the Edwards left the party, he and Robert Hunt followed them in defendant\u2019s car, which contained a case of beer. At the Edwards\u2019 home they listened to music, drank beer and danced. Then there came a time when Robert and Debra walked out of the house and Mrs. Edwards was not in the room, and that\u2019s when he and Lizzie \u201chad sexual intercourse but [he] didn\u2019t have it by no force.\u201d\nDefendant admitted he had sexual intercourse with Lizzie Ann three times that night, once in the front room and twice in the bedroom. However, he insisted it was all by consent. He said, \u201cI at no time threatened her. I don\u2019t recall threatening her at any time. I don\u2019t recall threatening her mother at any time. I don\u2019t recall threatening her sister.\u201d Defendant denied going into the kitchen, taking a knife into the bedroom, cutting Mrs. Edwards, and being in the bed with Mrs. Edwards. He insisted that the account which Lizzie and Mrs. Edwards gave of events transpiring in the bedroom that night was \u201call made up on him by somebody.\u201d His testimony was that Lizzie Ann was in the bedroom with him when the officers got there and he didn\u2019t know where her mother was.\nUpon cross-examination, defendant testified that he had been convicted of assaulting a police officer, disorderly conduct, assault on a female, carrying a concealed weapon, driving without a license, driving under the influence of an intoxicant, hit and run, assault with a deadly weapon, and that he had escaped while serving a six-month\u2019s sentence.\nRufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, and Thomas F. Mof-fitt, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nAdelaide G. Behan for defendant." }, "file_name": "0131-01", "first_page_order": 163, "last_page_order": 169 }