{ "id": 8563956, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES LEWIS JACKSON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Jackson", "decision_date": "1981-01-27", "docket_number": "No. 98", "first_page": "101", "last_page": "111", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "302 N.C. 101" } ], "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": "230 N.C. 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629214 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/230/0205-01" ] }, { "cite": "441 U.S. 929", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1780096, 1780311, 1780273, 1779959, 1779866 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/441/0929-05", "/us/441/0929-02", "/us/441/0929-01", "/us/441/0929-04", "/us/441/0929-03" ] }, { "cite": "126 S.E. 2d 126", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "133" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "257 N.C. 326", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567591 ], "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "335" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/257/0326-01" ] }, { "cite": "240 S.E.2d 449", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "294 N.C. 299", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572673 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/294/0299-01" ] }, { "cite": "203 S.E.2d 794", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 122", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562536 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0122-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 S.E.2d 294", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1949, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "230 N.C. 345", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629973 ], "year": 1949, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/230/0345-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 S.Ct. 2283", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 L.Ed.2d 859", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "403 U.S. 948", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12043280, 12043226 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/403/0948-02", "/us/403/0948-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 S.E.2d 241", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 288", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558608 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0288-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 S.Ct. 691", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "11 L.Ed.2d 622", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "376 U.S. 927", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 379491, 379206, 379272, 379529, 379689, 379182, 379838, 379612, 379870, 379487 ], "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/376/0927-08", "/us/376/0927-10", "/us/376/0927-02", "/us/376/0927-07", "/us/376/0927-04", "/us/376/0927-03", "/us/376/0927-06", "/us/376/0927-05", "/us/376/0927-09", "/us/376/0927-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 S.E.2d 805", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "256 N.C. 99", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571257 ], "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/256/0099-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 S.E.2d 207", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 N.C. 22", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622510 ], "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/228/0022-01" ] }, { "cite": "170 S.E.2d 627", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "6 N.C. App. 447", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548850 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/6/0447-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 S.E.2d 405", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "238 N.C. 560", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8613748 ], "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/238/0560-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 S.Ct. 547", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "34 L.Ed.2d 498", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "409 U.S. 1046", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6468673, 6468578, 6468425, 6468331, 6468140, 6468498, 6468915, 6468852, 6467924, 6468025, 6468765 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/409/1046-08", "/us/409/1046-07", "/us/409/1046-05", "/us/409/1046-04", "/us/409/1046-03", "/us/409/1046-06", "/us/409/1046-11", "/us/409/1046-10", "/us/409/1046-01", "/us/409/1046-02", "/us/409/1046-09" ] }, { "cite": "189 S.E.2d 216", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "220" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 564", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575634 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "569-70" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0564-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 S.E.2d 291", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "234 N.C. 612", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625084 ], "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/234/0612-01" ] }, { "cite": "116 S.E.2d 772", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "253 N.C. 318", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624818 ], "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/253/0318-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 S.E.2d 596", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 312", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572856 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0312-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 S.E.2d 190", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "193" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 558", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575622 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "563" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0558-01" ] }, { "cite": "245 S.E.2d 743", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "295 N.C. 399", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563314 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/295/0399-01" ] }, { "cite": "237 S.E.2d 728", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "734" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.C. 286", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563894 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "295" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/293/0286-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 S.E.2d 858", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 N.C. 673", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573885 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/298/0673-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 S.E.2d 908", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1949, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "913", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 S.E.2d 602", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "268 N.C. 648", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564565 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/268/0648-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 S.E.2d 32", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1942, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "222 N.C. 330", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630202 ], "year": 1942, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/222/0330-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 S.Ct. 2046", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "60 L.Ed.2d 657", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "245 S.E.2d 663", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "295 N.C. 327", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563082 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/295/0327-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 S.E.2d 189", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 29", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573221 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0029-01" ] }, { "cite": "390 U.S. 234", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6169464 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/390/0234-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 S.Ct. 3210", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "49 L.Ed.2d 1210", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "428 U.S. 904", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6184738, 6185094, 6184392, 6185357, 6183598, 6183984, 6185553, 6184594, 6184179, 6183446, 6184922, 6183803 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/428/0904-08", "/us/428/0904-10", "/us/428/0904-06", "/us/428/0904-11", "/us/428/0904-02", "/us/428/0904-04", "/us/428/0904-12", "/us/428/0904-07", "/us/428/0904-05", "/us/428/0904-01", "/us/428/0904-09", "/us/428/0904-03" ] }, { "cite": "219 S.E.2d 201", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "288 N.C. 417", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569555 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/288/0417-01" ] }, { "cite": "392 U.S. 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6167798 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/392/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "407 U.S. 143", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9137003 ], "weight": 7, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "145" }, { "page": "616-17" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/407/0143-01" ] }, { "cite": "394 U.S. 721", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6179734 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/394/0721-01" ] }, { "cite": "213 S.E.2d 305", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 549", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569898 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0549-01" ] }, { "cite": "234 S.E. 2d 587", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "292 N.C. 567", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571452 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/292/0567-01" ] }, { "cite": "239 S.E.2d 811", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "294 N.C. 45", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570812 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/294/0045-01" ] }, { "cite": "230 N.C. 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629214 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/230/0205-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1096, "char_count": 26720, "ocr_confidence": 0.76, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.126832590355445e-07, "percentile": 0.938857053055989 }, "sha256": "b91e90dbcf922ce85915ad294fa2c5b84ebba3d7dba522a471b649fee5e483e4", "simhash": "1:a32cda3065a815ca", "word_count": 4414 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:25:15.704346+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Justice Meyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this case." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES LEWIS JACKSON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HUSKINS, Justice:\nDefendant first assigns error to the finding by the trial court that defendant had sufficient capacity to stand trial. The amended record shows that a psychiatrist offered by the State, Dr. James F. Groce, found no evidence of psychosis. Defendant\u2019s psychiatrist, Dr. Milton F. Gipstein, testified at a hearing on defendant\u2019s motion prior to trial that he found defendant clearly psychotic.\nDefendant had been ordered evaluated at Dorothea Dix Hospital by Judge Paschal on 13 December 1979. The staff of that hospital reported him competent to stand trial on 19 December 1979. On hearing the evidence of both the State and defendant, Judge Brewer entered an order on 13 February 1980 finding defendant competent to stand trial. That same day, Judge Brewer also ordered defendant reevaluated apparently in light of Dr. Gip-stein\u2019s testimony that defendant did have mental problems. The staff of Dorothea Dix again found defendant competent on 7 March 1980.\nIn his order of 13 February 1980 finding defendant competent, Judge Brewer adopted in toto neither the report of the State\u2019s psychiatrist that defendant was fully competent nor the finding of defendant\u2019s psychiatrist that defendant was psychotic. Rather, Judge Brewer found defendant manifested some symptoms of mental illness but nonetheless had sufficient capacity to proceed to the trial.\nDefendant argues that because the court did not adopt the report by the State, any finding that defendant suffered some sort of mental disease was unsupported by the evidence. In effect, defendant argues that the trial court in this instance was required to adopt the psychiatric report of either the State or the defense but could not arrive at an independent conclusion. Such is not the law.\nThe test for capacity to stand trial is whether a defendant has capacity to comprehend his position, to understand the nature of the proceedings against him, to conduct his defense in a rational manner and to cooperate with his counsel so that any available defense may be interposed. State v. Bundridge, 294 N.C. 45, 239 S.E.2d 811 (1978). The issue maybe resolved by the trial court with or without the aid of a jury. State v. Willard, 292 N.C. 567, 234 S.E. 2d 587 (1977). When the trial judge conducts the inquiry without a jury, the court\u2019s findings of fact, if supported by competent evidence, are conclusive on appeal. State v. Cooper, 286 N.C. 549, 213 S.E.2d 305(1975).\nHere, the evidence offered by the State indicated defendant was fully capable of standing trial. Testimony for the defense by Dr. Gipstein was to the effect that in stressful situations the defendant manifested some symptoms of mental illness. But Dr. Gipstein also stated that in his opinion Jackson understood the nature of the proceedings against him. Based on the psychiatric evidence before the court, the finding of the trial judge that defendant was competent was clearly supported by competent evidence and is binding on appeal. State v. Cooper, supra.\nAs a second assignment, defendant asserts error in the trial court\u2019s denial of his motions to suppress various items of evidence. We will consider the two challenged rulings separately.\nPrior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress various items of evidence seized from his person following his arrest. Defendant contends he was unlawfully detained prior to his arrest, and, therefore, items seized incident to his arrest should have been suppressed.\nThe factual basis for defendant\u2019s allegation that he was unlawfully detained is found, according to defendant, in his being stopped by a Carrboro policeman who did not have probable cause to detain him. Rather, that officer responded to a request from the officer with whom the prosecutrix was riding that the defendant be detained.\nDetention on \u201cinvestigative custody\u201d-without probable cause to make a warrantless arrest is restricted by the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 22 L. Ed.2d 676, 89 S.Ct. 1394 (1969). Nevertheless, decisions both state and federal have recognized the need and the right of a police officer in the performance of his duties, and in limited circumstances, to detain a person who is not subject to lawful arrest. See, e.g., Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 32 L.Ed. 2d 612, 92 S.Ct. 1921 (1972); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (1968); State v. McZorn, 288 N.C. 417, 219 S.E.2d 201 (1975), death sentence vacated, 428 U.S. 904, 49 L.Ed.2d 1210, 96 S.Ct. 3210 (1976). The constitutional question here, simply put, is whether the detention of this defendant was reasonable. We hold that it was.\nFirst, we note that the detention was reasonable as to time. It occurred in the middle of the day after defendant was spotted walking along the road. It was also reasonable as to manner. The officer who stopped the defendant simply asked him to wait until the investigating officer arrived, a period of a few minutes. This the defendant willingly did. As the Supreme Court stated in Adams v. Williams, supra, 407 U.S. at 145, 32 L.Ed.2d at 616-17, 92 S.Ct. at 1923:\nThe Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape. On the contrary, Terry recognizes that it may be the essence of good police work to adopt an intermediate response.\nThis assignment is overruled.\nDefendant also filed a motion to suppress a knife found among his belongings, on the grounds that it was found during an illegal search. Apparently, after the arrest, a police officer and friend of defendant\u2019s family went to defendant\u2019s home to secure a change of clothing for defendant. The officer told defendant\u2019s mother of the arrest and the reason for the visit. The mother invited the officer into the kitchen, where defendant\u2019s clothing was in two bags. Defendant\u2019s mother opened one of the bags and a knife fell out. Upon request, the mother gave the knife to the officer.\nDefendant\u2019s primary argument is that his mother, by going through defendant\u2019s things, was an agent of the State and engaged in a warrantless search. See 68 Am. Jur. 2d, Searches and Seizures \u00a7 14. But the factual record shows defendant\u2019s mother was not asked to search her son\u2019s clothes, nor did the police officer intend to conduct a warrantless search. The sole purpose of the officer\u2019s visit was to secure a change of clothing for defendant. The officer was invited into the room where the bags were by the person in control of the house, the mother. There, when the knife fell into view, the officer had the right to take it under the \u201cplain view\u201d doctrine. Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067, 88 S.Ct. 992 (1968); State v. Hunter, 299 N.C. 29, 261 S.E.2d 189 (1980).\nDefendant next asks this Court to abandon its adherence to test of insanity established by the M\u2019Naghten rule in favor of the American Law Institute\u2019s Model Penal Code standard. See American Law Institute, Model Penal Code, Proposed Official Draft, \u00a7 4.01 (1962). Suffice it to say that we have adhered to the \u201cright and wrong\u201d M\u2019Naghten test for many years and are not disposed to depart from it now. See State v. Connley, 295 N.C. 327, 245 S.E.2d 663 (1978), vacated on other grounds, 441 U.S. 929, 60 L.Ed.2d 657, 99 S.Ct. 2046 (1979), and cases cited therein.\nAs his fourth assignment, defendant alleges error by the trial court in its refusal to afford him access to notes carried to the witness stand by the investigating officer. The notes which defendant sought were written by a gynecology resident as he interviewed the prosecutrix during her examination immediately after the rape. The trial court stipulated that the notes were included in the \u201cpacket of notes\u201d which the officer took to the stand. The record also shows the officer never referred to the notes during his testimony, and in fact never read the notes at all. Where a witness on the stand does not use or attempt to use the writings sought to be produced, even though the writings are under his control, opposing counsel cannot compel their production. Manufacturing Co. v. Railroad, 222 N.C. 330, 23 S.E.2d 32 (1942); 3 Wigmore, Evidence \u00a7 762 (Chad-bourn rev. 1970). If the witness had referred to the notes for the purpose of refreshing his recollection, defense counsel would have been entitled to examine them. State v. Carter, 268 N.C. 648, 151 S.E.2d 602 (1966). This assignment is overruled.\nDefendant next assigns as error-the admission of non-expert opinon testimony as to the similarity between the design on the sole of shoes taken from the defendant and shoeprints found at the scene of the crime. Defendant challenges, first, the competency of a lay witness to testify on this point and, second, that any comparison at all is inadmissible unless a foundation satisfying the three-pronged test of State v. Palmer, 230 N.C. 205, 52 S.E.2d 908 (1949), is laid before the testimony is heard.\nDefendant\u2019s contention that only an expert can properly testify as to identification of tracks is not the law in this State. State v. Atkinson, 298 N.C. 673, 259 S.E.2d 858 (1979).\nDefendant\u2019s second argument that lay testimony concerning the identification of shoeprints is not admissible unless it satisfies the three-pronged standard of State v. Palmer, supra, is also erroneous.\nIn Palmer, this Court considered only the question whether the trial court should have granted defendants\u2019 motion for judgment of nonsuit. The State\u2019s evidence clearly demonstrated that the deceased died by a criminal act. However, proof that the criminal act was committed by defendants was solely circumstantial. The evidence tending to identify defendants as perpetrators of the murder was shoeprints and automobile tracks found near the victim\u2019s body and evidence of a possible motive to kill the victim. In dealing with the evidence of shoeprints, Justice Ervin wrote:\nIn the nature of things, evidence of shoeprints has no legitimate or logical tendency to identify an accused as the perpetrator of a crime unless the attendant circumstances support this triple inference: (1) That the shoe-prints were found at or near the place of the crime; (2) that the shoeprints were made at the time of the crime; and (3) that the shoeprints correspond to shoes worn by the accused at the time of the crime. Similar criteria apply to evidence of automobile tracks offered to identify the owner of a motor vehicle as the perpetrator of an offense.\nMoreover, the bare opinon of a witness that a particular shoeprint is the track of a specified person is without probative force on the question of identification.\nId. at 213-14, 52 S.E. 2d at 913 (citations omitted). The State\u2019s evidence in Palmer provided no connection between the shoeprints or tiretracks and the crime itself or those accused of the crime. The evidence was held too tenuous and speculative to justify submitting the case to the jury.\nThe three circumstances enumerated in Palmer thus test the weight to be given such evidence and not its admissibility. We have given this interpretation to Palmer in the past. \u201cPalmer dealt with the weight to be assigned the evidence of the shoe print in determining a motion for nonsuit, not its admissibility.\u201d State v. Long, 293 N.C. 286, 295, 237 S.E.2d 728, 734 (1977); see also State v. Banks, 295 N.C. 399, 245 S.E.2d 743 (1978); State v. Willis, 281 N.C. 558, 563, 189 S.E.2d 190, 193 (1972); State v. Pinyatello, 272 N.C. 312, 158 S.E.2d 596 (1968); State v. Bass, 253 N.C. 318, 116 S.E.2d 772 (1960); State v. Tew, 234 N.C. 612, 68 S.E.2d 291 (1951).\nA body of case law also exists which cites Palmer for the proposition that the three factors stated therein are three prerequisites to admissibility of shoeprint evidence. State v. Atkinson, 298 N.C. 673, 259 S.E.2d 858 (1979); State v. Lewis, 281 N.C. 564,569-70, 189 S.E.2d 216, 220, cert. den., 409 U.S. 1046, 34 L.Ed.2d 498, 93 S.Ct. 547 (1972); McAbee v. Love, 238 N.C. 560, 78 S.E.2d 405 (1953); State v. Walker, 6 N.C. App. 447, 170 S.E.2d 627 (1969).\nThe use of the triple inference stated in Palmer as a test for admissibility of shoeprints is improper. The cited cases are no longer authoritative on this point. The principles stated in Palmer are to be applied where the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to withstand a motion for nonsuit is the question before the Court rather than the admissibility of shoeprint evidence. Evidence of shoeprints at the scene of the crime corresponding to those of the accused may always be admitted as tending more or less strongly to connect the accused with the crime. State v. Long, supra; State v. Pinyatello, supra; State v. Warren, 228 N.C. 22, 44 S.E.2d 207 (1947); 1 Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence \u00a7 85 (Brandis rev. 1973).\nIn the present case, evidence of shoeprints found in the driveway the day following the attack which corresponded with those of the accused was properly admitted as tending to connect defendant with the crime. The admissibility of such evidence is consistent with the rule of relevance which permits the introduction of any evidence which \u201chas any logical tendency however slight to prove the fact at issue in the case.\u201d 1 Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence \u00a777 (Brandis rev. 1973). Here, defendant\u2019s plea of not guilty placed upon the State the burden of proving every element of the crime charged, including identity. The shoeprint evidence was, therefore, admissible to corroborate the prosecuting witness\u2019s identification of defendant as her assailant. The weight to be given it was a matter for the jury since it was not the sole evidence connecting defendant with the crime. If the shoeprints were the only evidence connecting defendant to the crime, then a question of sufficiency of the evidence would arise and the three-pronged standard of Palmer would be applicable. However, the question raised in this assignment is admissibility of the evidence and in that respect there is no error.\nNor did the trial court err in admitting into evidence for illustrative purposes photographs of shoeprint impressions found in the victim\u2019s driveway. The photographs were properly admitted for the purpose of illustrating the witness\u2019s testimony. State v. Casper, 256 N.C. 99, 122 S.E.2d 805 (1961), cert. den., 376 U.S. 927, 11 L.Ed.2d 622, 84 S.Ct. 691 (1964). Defendant\u2019s companion assignment, that it was error to allow the jury to examine the photographs and the shoes seized from defendant, is also without merit. State v. Atkinson, 275 N.C. 288, 167 S.E.2d 241 (1969), death sentence vacated, 403 U.S. 948, 29 L.Ed.2d 859, 91 S.Ct. 2283 (1971); State v. Speller, 230 N.C. 345, 53 S.E.2d 294 (1949); 1 Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence \u00a7 118 (Brandis rev. 1973).\nDefendant\u2019s argument that the State failed to lay a proper foundation for the introduction of blood test results performed on the prosecutrix and the defendant is rebutted by the factual record. It is therefore overruled.\nDefendant next alleges that testimony by a State psychiatrist concerning the result of a psychiatric test given the defendant was impermissible hearsay. The witness testified that defendant was given the test \u201cunder my direction\u201d and that the test showed \u201cno evidence of any organic brain damage.\u201d Defendant argues that because the doctor did not personally administer the test this testimony was hearsay.\nWe find this argument unpersuasive. The cited testimony does not establish conclusively that Dr. Groce did not participate. But, even if the test was administered by an assistant, the doctor\u2019s evaluation of the test results is admissible. A diagnostic opinion is not incompetent even if based on information obtained from others. State v. DeGregory, 285 N.C. 122, 203 S.E.2d 794 (1974).\nBy his next assignment, defendant charges error to the denial of his motion for a mistrial. That motion was based on the discovery by defendant, on the fourth day of trial, of a previously undisclosed SBI lab report. The report revealed that an SBI expert had found insufficient characteristics present in the photographs of the shoe-prints to enable the examiner to render an opinion as to whether the shoes \u201ccould or could not have made the heel impressions\u201d shown in the photographs.\nTo begin with, the existence of that report in no way affects the competency of Officer Tripp\u2019s testimony concerning his personal observation of the shoeprints. Secondly, the defendant did not take advantage of the trial court\u2019s offer to assist in locating the SBI expert if the defendant thought his testimony would be helpful. Although defendant obtained possession of the report before the State rested its case, he made no effort to introduce the report into evidence. Finally, inasmuch as the report was prepared by the SBI in connection with the investigation of the case, the report was not statutorily discoverable except by voluntary disclosure. G.S. 15A-904(a).\nIn considering defendant\u2019s motions for dismissal, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the State, and the State is entitled to every reasonable inference to be drawn from it. State v. Lee, 294 N.C. 299, 240 S.E.2d 449 (1978). Applying that rule of law to the case sub judice, we find no error in the trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motions for dismissal.\nAs a final assignment of error, defendant challenges the admissibility of testimony at the sentencing hearing by a woman who recognized the defendant as the man who raped her on 24 November 1979. Apparently this witness had been unable to identify her assailant from a group of photographs, but recognized him when she came to observe this trial. Prior to her identification of defendant, this witness had been informed that his fingerprints had been found in her house, and that he was on trial for rape.\nTo begin with, under G.S. 15A-1334(b), formal rules of evidence do not apply at a sentencing hearing. Thus the fact that this testimony would not be admissible at the guilt phase of the trial does not bar its reception at the sentencing phase.\n\u201cA judgment will not be disturbed because of sentencing procedures unless there is a showing of abuse of discretion, procedural conduct prejudicial to defendant, circumstances which manifest inherent unfairness and injustice, or conduct which offends the public sense of fair play.\u201d State v. Pope, 257 N.C. 326, 335,126 S.E. 2d 126, 133 (1962). We find no reason to disturb the judgment here. The sentence of life imprisonment for the rape conviction was mandated by statute. G.S. 14-21 (repealed effective January 1, 1980). The sentence imposed on the conviction of second degree burglary was much less than the maximum the statute allows. G.S. 14-52(a). This assignment is overruled.\nOur examination of defendant\u2019s arguments and our own review of the record convince us that the defendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial error. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court must be upheld.\nNo error.\nJustice Meyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.", "type": "majority", "author": "HUSKINS, Justice:" } ], "attorneys": [ "Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by Barry S. McNeill, Associate Attorney, for the State.", "Barry T. Winston, attorney for-defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES LEWIS JACKSON\nNo. 98\n(Filed 27 January 1981)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 29\u2014 capacity to stand trial \u2014 sufficiency of court\u2019s findings\nThere was no merit to defendant\u2019s argument that because the court did not adopt the report by the State on defendant\u2019s capacity to stand trial, any finding that defendant suffered some sort of mental disease was unsupported by the evidence, nor was there merit to his argument that the trial court was required to adopt the psychiatric report of either the State or the defense but could not arrive at an independent conclusion, and the finding of the trial judge that defendant was competent to stand trial was clearly supported by the evidence where evidence offered by the State indicated defendant was fully capable of standing trial; testimony for the defense was to the effect that in stressful situations the defendant manifested some symptoms of mental illness; but defendant\u2019s expert witness also stated that in his opinion defendant understood the nature of the proceedings against him.\n2. Arrest and Bail \u00a7 3.1\u2014 warrantless detention \u2014 reasonableness\nThere was no merit to defendant\u2019s contention that he was unlawfully detained prior to his arrest because he was stopped by a policeman who did not have probable cause to detain him but who responded to a requestfrom the officer with whom the rape victim was riding that defendant be detained, since the detention was reasonable as to time, occurring in the middle of the day after defendant was spotted walking along a road, and it was also reasonable as to manner because the officer who stopped defendant simply asked him to wait until the investigating officer arrived, a period of a few minutes, and this defendant willingly did.\n3. Searches and Seizures\u00a7 5\u2014 knife in plain view \u2014 warrantless seizure proper\nIn a first degree rape case where the victim contended that her assailant executed the crime at knife point, the trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress a knife found among his belongings on the ground that it was found during an illegal search, since a police officer and friend of defendant\u2019s family went to defendant\u2019s home to secure a change of clothing for defendant; the officer told defendant\u2019s mother of the arrest and the reason for the visit; the mother invited the officer into the kitchen where defendant\u2019s clothing was in two bags; defendant\u2019s mother opened one of the bags and a knife fell out; and the officer had the right to take the knife under the \u201cplain view\u201d doctrine.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 87.3\u2014 notes carried by officer to witness stand \u2014 denial of access to defendant\nThe trial court did not err in refusing to afford defendant access to notes carried to the witness stand by the investigating officer, since the officer never referred to the notes during his testimony and in fact never read the notes at all, and where a'witness on the stand does not use or attempt to use the writings sought to be produced, even though the writings are under his control, opposing counsel cannot compel their production.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 61.2\u2014 shoeprints at crime scene \u2014 admissibility\nDefendant\u2019s contention that only an expert could properly testify as to identification of shoeprints is not the law in this State, nor was there merit to defendant\u2019s argument that lay testimony concerning the identification of shoeprints is not admissible unless it satisfies the.three-prong test of State v. Palmer, 230 N.C. 205, since the principles stated in that case are to be applied where the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to withstand the motion for nonsuit is the question before the court, rather than the admissibility of shoeprint evidence which was the question in this case.\n6. Criminal Law \u00a7 63\u2014 psychiatrist\u2019s testimony \u2014 admissibility\nThere was no merit to defendant\u2019s contention that testimony by a State psychiatrist concerning the result of a psychiatric test given defendant was impermissible hearsay because the psychiatrist did not personally administer the test, since the evidence did not establish conclusively that the psychiatrist did not participate in administering the test, and even iFthe test was administered by an assistant, the doctor\u2019s evaluation of the test results was admissible, since a diagnostic opinion is not incompetent even if based on information obtained from others.\n7. Criminal Law \u00a7 131\u2014 undisclosed SBI lab report \u2014 mistrial not required\nThe trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion for mistrial based on the discovery by defendant, on the fourth day of trial, of a previously undisclosed lab report which revealed that an SBI expert had found insufficient characteristics present in the photographs of shoeprints at the crime scene to enable the examiner to render an opinion as to whether defendant\u2019s shoes could have made the heel impressions shown in the photographs, since the existence of that report in no way affected the competency of the investigating officer\u2019s testimony concerning his personal observation of the shoeprints; defendant did not take advantage of the trial court\u2019s offer to assist in locating the SBI expert if defendant thought his testimony would be helpful; although defendant obtained possession of the report before the State rested its case, he made no effort to introduce the report into evidence; and inasmuch as the report was prepared by the SBI in connection with the investigation of the case, the report was not statutorily discoverable except by voluntary disclosure.\n8. Criminal Law \u00a7 138.7\u2014 sentencing hearing \u2014 testimony considered\nIn a first degree rape case there was no merit to defendant\u2019s contention that the trial court erred in admitting testimony at his sentencing hearing by a woman who recognized defendant as the man who raped her several days before the rape in question, though this testimony would not have been admissible at the guilt phase of the trial, since formal rules of evidence do not apply at a sentencing hearing, and there was no showing of abuse of discretion, as the sentence of life imprisonment for the rape conviction was mandated by statute.\nJustice Meyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAPPEAL by defendant from judgments of Brewer, J., entered at the 18 March 1980 Session of ORANGE Superior Court.\nDefendant was convicted of first degree rape of Kathleen Buck and second degree burglary of Buck\u2019s residence on the night of 11 December 1979. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the rape and fifteen to twenty years in prison for the burglary, to run consecutively.\nAt trial, evidence for the State tended to show that on 11 December 1979 the prosecutrix was confronted in her home by a black man armed with a knife. The knife appeared to be one owned by the victim. At knifepoint the intruder forced the prosecutrix to have sexual intercourse against her will. A short time later the assailant left the house on foot.\nOn 12 December 1979, the day following the incident, the prosecutrix was riding in a police car when she spotted defendant walking beside the road. She immediately identified him as her assailant. The police officer in the car radioed for the assistance of another^officer to detain defendant while he drove the prosecuting witness home. The investigating officer then returned and arrested defendant.\nWhere relevant, other facts will be discussed in the body of the opinon.\nRufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by Barry S. McNeill, Associate Attorney, for the State.\nBarry T. Winston, attorney for-defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0101-01", "first_page_order": 133, "last_page_order": 143 }