{ "id": 8568658, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEVEN DOUGLAS SCHNEIDER", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Schneider", "decision_date": "1982-07-13", "docket_number": "No. 24A82", "first_page": "351", "last_page": "357", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "306 N.C. 351" } ], "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": "226 S.E. 2d 353", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "290 N.C. 349", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561482 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/290/0349-01" ] }, { "cite": "283 S.E. 2d 732", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 N.C. 201", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567383 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/304/0201-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 S.Ct. 2413", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "60 L.Ed. 2d 1070", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "441 U.S. 964", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1780288, 1779971, 1780516, 1780261, 1780134, 1780169, 1780142, 1779793, 1780497, 1780533, 1780183, 1779993 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/441/0964-05", "/us/441/0964-09", "/us/441/0964-07", "/us/441/0964-02", "/us/441/0964-04", "/us/441/0964-11", "/us/441/0964-06", "/us/441/0964-12", "/us/441/0964-03", "/us/441/0964-08", "/us/441/0964-01", "/us/441/0964-10" ] }, { "cite": "250 S.E. 2d 263", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 344", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566021 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0344-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 511", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572796 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "212 S.E. 2d 92", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 442", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568818 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0442-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 U.S. 436", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12046400 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0436-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 799, "char_count": 14828, "ocr_confidence": 0.789, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.6389872550684478e-07, "percentile": 0.6907732844656195 }, "sha256": "76282dfb1815e75f921bc2df594717880a00dedac0761c843d4d64b7e6266065", "simhash": "1:b9eb676f888a10b9", "word_count": 2424 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:30:26.892112+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEVEN DOUGLAS SCHNEIDER" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MITCHELL, Justice.\nThe defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence his confession to the crimes charged and in refusing to continue the trial or postpone sentencing. After careful review of the record and briefs, we find the defendant received a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that, on the evening of 26 June 1981, Mrs. Elizabeth Philyaw was home with her two children at their rural residence near Comfort, North Carolina. After putting the children to bed, she retired to her bedroom around midnight. For some inexplicable reason, she felt anxious. She picked up a glass rabbit from her bedside table and continued to grasp it until she fell asleep.\nSuddenly she awoke. She sensed a presence in her bedroom. Reaching out, she touched a face. Upon feeling a moustache, she said, \u201cLinwood, you scared me. That\u2019s not funny.\u201d She realized as she felt his clean-shaven chin that the man was not her husband.\n\u201cWho are you? What are you doing in my house?\u201d she shouted.\nThe man then made a comment indicating he was going to have sexual intercourse with her. He spoke with a sharp northern accent. She cringed. As she drew back, she felt the glass rabbit beneath her. She swung it at him as hard as she could and hit him on the head.\n\u201cDon\u2019t do that!\u201d He spoke rapidly. \u201cIt makes me angry. I have got a knife and I will kill your children and I will kill you.\u201d\nShe went limp, dropping the rabbit. \u201cPlease don\u2019t hurt my babies,\u201d she begged. Turning to her right, she noticed in his hand a long shiny knife similar to those she knew people used for hog killings. \u201cI will do anything you want if you won\u2019t hurt my babies.\u201d\nThe man then forced Mrs. Philyaw to perform fellatio. As he backed away, she leaned to her right and spat as hard as she could. He made her roll over on her stomach. Fearing she had angered him, she tried to decide which window to try to use for escape. She then realized that he had left the room. After waiting a few moments, she ran to the front door.\nShe unlocked the door and ran out across an open field to her neighbor\u2019s house. She awakened her neighbor Clifton \u201cClick\u201d Philyaw, his wife Florence, and their son Craig. Craig took down a twelve-gauge shotgun from the gun rack and ran outside. He heard a car crank. A part-time mechanic, he recognized it as having a four cylinder engine. He got in his pickup truck and shouted for his father. They pursued taillights down the road toward Trenton.\nThe car they were following had one taillight brighter than the other. They kept in sight. When it passed another car, they also passed and swung in behind it. The car was a red Datsun B-210 with black stripes and was occupied by a white male. Click Philyaw copied the car\u2019s license number, VYZ-586, on the truck\u2019s fogged-up windshield. He later copied the license number on a Sugar Mountain guest parking ticket.\nAfter the men left, Elizabeth Philyaw put on one of Florence Philyaw\u2019s housecoats. As she dressed, she realized she had a hair in her mouth. She removed the hair and put it on the kitchen counter.\nAgent Larry W. Smith of the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation investigated the crime. He took from the crime scene bloody sheets and pillowcases, the glass rabbit, and the hair Mrs. Philyaw found in her mouth. He ascertained by means of the Department of Motor Vehicles that the license number VYZ-586 was assigned to a Datsun registered to the defendant, Steven Douglas Schneider of 2 Edith Drive, Jacksonville.\nOn the afternoon of 27 June 1981, Agent Smith visited the defendant at his residence. He observed a red Datsun B-210, license number VYZ-586, in the driveway. He asked the defendant about the car and the defendant admitted that the car had been in the Trenton area the night before. In response to further questioning the defendant stated that he knew nothing about a burglary on Highway 41 and that he had not received any injuries to his head.\nAgent Smith asked the defendant to pull back the hair over his forehead. Agent Smith then realized the defendant was wearing a hairpiece.\nLater that evening, the defendant came to the Onslow County Sheriff\u2019s Department. At Agent Smith\u2019s request, he removed his hairpiece. He had a fresh cut and bump on top of his head.\nAgent Smith then advised the defendant of his constitutional rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966). The defendant stated that he would answer questions without an attorney present. Agent Smith asked several questions regarding the time the defendant arrived in Trenton the preceding morning. His fourth question was, \u201cMr. Schneider, explain to me what you were doing on Highway 41 at 1:30 in the morning.\u201d The defendant was silent, so he repeated the question. The defendant stated: \u201cI\u2019m guilty.\u201d Agent Smith asked him what he was guilty of, and the defendant replied that he had broken into a house on Highway 41. He gave further details indicating it was the Philyaw residence. He also admitted he made the victim perform fellatio upon him. Agent Smith informed the defendant that he was under arrest for first-degree sexual offense. The interview ended at 7:15 p.m.\nAgent Smith took the defendant to Onslow County Memorial Hospital. With the defendant\u2019s consent, a blood sample was taken from his arm.\nThe defendant was transported to the Jones County Sheriff\u2019s Department at approximately 9:30 or 10:00 p.m. After being allowed to eat fried chicken and french fries, the defendant was once again advised of his constitutional rights. He signed a rights waiver form. When asked for a written statement, the defendant replied that he could not write, but stated that he did not object to Agent Smith writing down his answers. The defendant repeated his story and signed the statement as transcribed by Agent Smith. The statement, which substantially comported with the defendant\u2019s previous oral confession, was signed at 12:26 a.m. on 28 June 1981.\nAt trial, the defendant\u2019s written confession was introduced and Agent Smith testified as to the substance of the defendant\u2019s oral confession. Scientific evidence was admitted which indicated that the hair found in Mrs. Philyaw\u2019s mouth was microscopically consistent with the defendant\u2019s pubic hair. Further evidence indicated that the blood found on the sheets, pillowcases, and glass rabbit was consistent with that of the defendant and inconsistent with that of Mrs. Philyaw.\nThe defendant presented no evidence.\nThe defendant first assigns as error the denial of his motion to suppress his confessions and the subsequent introduction of these confessions into evidence at his trial. The standard for judging the admissibility of a defendant\u2019s confession is whether it was given voluntarily and understandingly. State v. Pruitt, 286 N.C. 442, 212 S.E. 2d 92 (1975). Voluntariness is to be determined from consideration of all circumstances surrounding the confession. State v. Bishop, 272 N.C. 283, 158 S.E. 2d 511 (1968). The defendant generally objects that the totality of the circumstances surrounding his confession indicates oppression or coercion and specifically characterizes as suspect two actions of Agent Smith.\nWith regard to the defendant\u2019s contentions concerning the two specific actions of Agent Smith, we hold both such practices to be constitutionally valid. Failure to advise a defendant of the nature of the charge about which he was being questioned does not render his confession inadmissible. State v. Carter, 296 N.C. 344, 250 S.E. 2d 263, cert. denied, 441 U.S. 964, 60 L.Ed. 2d 1070, 99 S.Ct. 2413 (1979). Neither is a defendant\u2019s statement inadmissible on grounds that it was written by an officer and merely signed by the defendant. Although this was not the most accurate and objectively neutral method of transcribing the defendant\u2019s statement, the defendant was provided adequate opportunity and in fact did thoroughly cross-examine Agent Smith in regard to the accuracy of the transcription.\nIn regard to the defendant\u2019s general objection, we also find no reversible error. The size of the room and number of officers present involved circumstances closely analogous to those in State v. Rook, 304 N.C. 201, 283 S.E. 2d 732 (1981). Further facts surrounding the confession and supporting a finding of its volun-tariness have previously been set forth in this opinion. It suffices to say that the record is devoid of threats, promises, or other inducements proffered to obtain the defendant\u2019s statements, and nowhere does the record indicate, suggest, or even hint that the conduct of any law enforcement officer was anything but exemplary. The defendant\u2019s confessions were properly admitted as evidence.\nThe defendant next assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to grant his motion for continuance made after the jury was selected. The decision whether to grant a motion for continuance is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge and, absent an abuse of such discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Tolley, 290 N.C. 349, 226 S.E. 2d 353 (1976). Prior to impanelment of the jury, defense counsel moved for a continuance, stating that his client should have a neurological examination. Counsel contended that the defendant had suffered from severe headaches and insomnia for approximately three weeks preceding the trial. Counsel argued that, according to a Dr. Sonic of the Neuse Mental Health Clinic in New Bern, the original psychiatric evaluation of the defendant at Dorothea Dix Hospital should have included a neurological examination. Yet defense counsel further stated that Dr. Sonic had told him that such a neurological examination would not likely reveal any tumor, malignant or benign. The defendant had been determined by psychiatric evaluation to be capable of proceeding with trial. Defense counsel neither disputed this finding nor argued that the defendant\u2019s capacity would be improved by a continuance. Defense counsel admitted that the defendant was capable of communication with his attorney and did not argue that this capability would be facilitated by a neurological examination. The sole basis for the motion, in the words of the defense attorney, was that \u201cthis is a stone that needs to be turned before we proceeded further in this case.\u201d In view of these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the defendant\u2019s motion to continue.\nThe defendant\u2019s third assignment of error is that the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss or reduce the charges at the close of the State\u2019s evidence and at the close of all evidence on grounds of insufficiency of the State\u2019s evidence to prove the defendant\u2019s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant concedes in his brief that if this Court finds the defendant\u2019s statement to be admissible as voluntarily and understandingly given, then the evidence would be sufficient to carry the case to the jury. For the reasons previously enunciated, we so find.\nThe defendant\u2019s final assignment of error is that the trial court denied the defendant a postponement of sentencing. The defendant contends that he was entitled to a pre-sentence diagnostic study, neurological examination, and a full-scale plenary hearing. As applicable to this case, the law mandated life imprisonment upon conviction of first-degree sexual offense. The sentence imposed for the first-degree burglary ran concurrently with the sentence for the first-degree sex offense. Because the defendant could not have received a shorter sentence, he was not prejudiced by the failure to postpone sentencing. Additionally, the record is devoid of any evidence tending to indicate that a postponement of sentencing for further examinations would have revealed anything not already disclosed by the previous psychiatric evaluation of the defendant. As previously indicated, the evidence was to the contrary.\nFor the reasons enunciated herein, we find the defendant to have had a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "MITCHELL, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by William W. Melvin, Deputy Attorney General and William B. Ray, Assistant Attorney General for the State.", "John T. Carter, Jr., Attorney for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEVEN DOUGLAS SCHNEIDER\nNo. 24A82\n(Filed 13 July 1982)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 75\u2014 confession \u2014 properly admissible\nFailure to advise a defendant of the nature of the charge about which he is being questioned does not render his confession inadmissible. Neither is a defendant\u2019s statement inadmissible on grounds that it was written by an officer and merely signed by the defendant. Therefore, where the record is devoid of threats, promises, or other inducements proffered to obtain the defendant\u2019s statements, and where the record does not indicate, suggest, or even hint that the conduct of any law enforcement officer was anything but exemplary, the defendant\u2019s confessions were properly admitted as evidence.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 91.1\u2014 denial of motion for continuance on ground defendant should have neurological examination\nThe trial court did not err in failing to grant defendant\u2019s motion for continuance made after the jury was selected but prior to impanelment where the reason for the motion was that defendant should have a neurological examination but where defendant had been determined by psychiatric evaluation to be capable of proceeding with trial and defense counsel neither disputed this finding nor argued that the defendant\u2019s capacity would be improved by a continuance.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 134.2\u2014 denial of postponement of sentencing \u2014 no prejudicial error\nWhere defendant was convicted of a first-degree sexual offense and first-degree burglary, and where defendant could not have received a shorter sentence, he was not prejudiced by the failure to postpone sentencing for a pre-sentence diagnostic study, neurological examination, and a full scale plenary hearing.\nAPPEAL by the defendant from judgments imposed by Judge Henry L. Stevens, III, presiding at the 23 September 1981 Criminal Session of Superior Court, Jones County.\nThe defendant was charged in bills of indictment, proper in form, with first-degree sexual offense and first-degree burglary. He entered pleas of not guilty and was tried before a jury which found him guilty of each offense as charged. From the judgment sentencing him to life imprisonment for the commission of first-degree sexual offense in violation of G.S. 14-27.4, the defendant appeals to this Court as of right pursuant to G.S. 7A-27. From the judgment sentencing him to imprisonment for 20 years to 30 years for the commission of first-degree burglary in violation of G.S. 14-51, the defendant appeals to this Court on allowance of his motion to bypass the Court of Appeals, entered 19 February 1982.\nRufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by William W. Melvin, Deputy Attorney General and William B. Ray, Assistant Attorney General for the State.\nJohn T. Carter, Jr., Attorney for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0351-01", "first_page_order": 379, "last_page_order": 385 }