{
  "id": 8564740,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD LEE CRAWFORD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Crawford",
  "decision_date": "1980-10-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 25",
  "first_page": "212",
  "last_page": "215",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "301 N.C. 212"
    }
  ],
  "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": "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": "234 S.E. 2d 733",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "739"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 N.C. 543",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571372
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/292/0543-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "384 U.S. 436",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        12046400
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/384/0436-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 425,
    "char_count": 7684,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.736,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.432005644793175e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3420373156890614
    },
    "sha256": "8b2d6703297635c919d528a8296392a4a2bb667b295324ad5faa9b9a74a856e6",
    "simhash": "1:bfaba516cd0a8acf",
    "word_count": 1252
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:17:56.373032+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Justice Brock did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD LEE CRAWFORD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRANCH, Chief Justice.\nDefendant\u2019s only assignment of error was the trial court\u2019s admission of defendant\u2019s statements to Officer Ward after her question, \u201cWhy?\u201d Defendant answered the question, \u201cNone of your damn business,\u201d and then defendant went on, and Officer Ward was allowed to testify in court, \u201c[Defendant] said, \u2018I\u2019ll kill him if he lives\u2019 and \u2018I\u2019ll kill the m-f-.\u2019 \u201d\nStatements of a defendant made while he is being interrogated and while he is held in custody should be excluded from evidence if the defendant is not warned of and does not understanding^ waive his rights to remain silent and have an attorney present at questioning. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602. However, admission of such statements into evidence is not fatal and will not require reversal when the admission of the statements is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Siler, 292 N.C. 543, 234 S.E. 2d 733 (1977), citing, Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 17 L.Ed. 2d 705, 87 S.Ct. 824 (1967). In Siler this Court stated, \u201c[Bjecause in this case defendant\u2019s inadmissible first statement was in all material respects identical to his admissible second statement, we conclude the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d State v. Siler, supra at 552, 234 S.E. 2d at 739.\nAssuming, without deciding, that defendant\u2019s statements to Officer Ward rise to the protection of Miranda, we consider whether the statements were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Statements identical in all material respects were admitted without objection from three other sources. A bystander testified to the same matter that defendant seeks to have suppressed. Further, police officers Crenshaw and Overturf testified, on rebuttal, to almost identical statements made by defendant. Thus we hold that, even if the statements to Officer Ward were erroneously introduced into evidence, their effect was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.\nNo Error.\nJustice Brock did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRANCH, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by Grayson G. Kelley, Associate Attorney, for the State.",
      "Lyle J. Yurko, Assistant Public Defender, 26th Judicial District, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD LEE CRAWFORD\nNo. 25\n(Filed 7 October 1980)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 75.7\u2014 defendant\u2019s statements to officer - absence of Miranda warnings - harmless error\nAssuming, without deciding, that defendant\u2019s statements to an officer that \u201cI\u2019ll kill him if he lives\u201d and \u201cI\u2019ll kill the m-f-\u201d which were made after the officer asked him \u201cWhy?\u201d were erroneously admitted into evidence because defendant had not been given the Miranda warnings before the officer\u2019s question, the admission of such statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where statements by defendant which were identical in all material respects were admitted from three other sources without objection.\nJustice Brock did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by defendant from Howell, J., 13 December 1979 Criminal Session of Mecklenburg County Superior Court.\nDefendant was charged in an indictment proper in form with the murder of Alfred Woodrow Smith. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty.\nAt trial the State presented evidence tending to show that on the morning of 8 August 1979 defendant was talking with Thomas Jackson. Jackson said that defendant told him that before the day was out he would kill somebody. Defendant also told Jackson that somebody had testified in court against his son. Jackson said that defendant showed him a sawed-off shotgun he was carrying in a paper bag.\nShortly after this conversation, Jackson and another witness saw Alfred Woodrow Smith approach defendant. Each witness testified that Smith held his hand out to defendant and asked, \u201cHow are you doing?\u201d Neither witness saw Smith holding a gun or going for his pocket. Jackson testified that defendant answered Smith, \u201cI\u2019ll show you how I\u2019m doing,\u201d pulled the shotgun from the bag, and shot Smith. After the shooting, the witnesses said defendant went down the street with the shotgun. Another witness said that after the shooting defendant asked him to hide the shotgun in his house, but he refused. Police later found the gun in a local poolroom.\nOfficer Judy Ward was the first police officer on the scene. She testified that a crowd had formed around Smith who lay sprawled, but still alive, in the street. She asked the crowd who shot the victim, and she testified that defendant stepped from the crowd and said, \u201cI shot the s\u2014 of a b \u2014 .\u201d Officer Ward and other witnesses testified that defendant then went over to the victim and kicked him in the head. Jackson testified that he heard defendant say, \u201cI thought you.were dead.\u201d\nOfficer Ward testified that. after defendant kicked the victim in the head she pushed him toward her patrol car. Defendant objected to the admission of any other statements made by defendant to Officer Ward, contending that the admission of the statements would violate defendant\u2019s Miranda rights because he was in the custody of Officer Ward, was questioned and had not been read his rights. During the voir dire hearing, Officer Ward testified that, as she directed defendant to the patrol car and before reading him his rights, she asked him \u201cWhy?\u201d She said he answered, \u201cIt\u2019s none of your damn business.\u201d She said that she asked no further questions, but that defendant continued to make statements, including, \u201cI\u2019ll kill him if he lives. I\u2019ll kill the m-f- \u2014 .\u201d The trial judge, after making findings of fact, concluded that, although in his opinion the confrontation was not governed by Miranda, he would suppress defendant\u2019s immediate response to Officer Ward\u2019s question, but he would not suppress defendant\u2019s additional statements.\nWilliam Massey, who lives in the vicinity of the shooting, testified that he joined the crowd around the victim. He testified, without objection by defendant, that he heard defendant say that if the victim did not die, he would kill him when he got out.\nGentry Caudill, an Assistant District Attorney for Meck-lenburg County, testified that the victim had been a witness in a case against defendant\u2019s son. The State offered medical evidence tending to show that Smith died as a result of a gunshot wound to the abdomen.\nDefendant took the stand in his own defense. Defendant testified that when he met Smith that day he asked him why he had two boys rob defendant\u2019s home. Defendant said that Smith then reached into his pockets twice, and the second time pulled out a gun. Defendant testified he then shot Smith in self-defense. Defendant denied kicking the victim in the head, but said, \u201cI had on some soft-bottomed shoes. My foot slid beside his head.\u201d He denied seeing the State\u2019s witness Jackson on the day of the shooting or knowing that the victim had testified against his son. He also denied stating to Officer R.B. Crenshaw that he had intended to kill Smith and would go to the hospital to finish the job.\nOn rebuttal the State presented Officer Crenshaw and another officer who testified that defendant, after being advised of his Miranda rights, told them he hoped Smith would die and that if the victim did not he would go to the hospital to finish the job.\nThe trial judge submitted the possible verdicts of guilty of first-degree murder, guilty of second-degree murder, guilty of manslaughter, or not guilty. The jury returned a verdict finding defendant guilty of first-degree murder. After a hearing on the recommendation for punishment, the jury recommended a life sentence. The trial judge entered judgment imposing a sentence of life imprisonment. Defendant appealed.\nRufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by Grayson G. Kelley, Associate Attorney, for the State.\nLyle J. Yurko, Assistant Public Defender, 26th Judicial District, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0212-01",
  "first_page_order": 240,
  "last_page_order": 243
}