{ "id": 4745427, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMMY LEE WALKER", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Walker", "decision_date": "1987-06-02", "docket_number": "No. 398A86", "first_page": "651", "last_page": "655", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "319 N.C. 651" } ], "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": "240 N.C. 516", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8603731 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0516-01" ] }, { "cite": "271 S.E. 2d 368", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "378" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 N.C. 243", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565819 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "258" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/301/0243-01" ] }, { "cite": "333 S.E. 2d 278", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "286" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "314 N.C. 202", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4697149 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "215" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/314/0202-01" ] }, { "cite": "272 S.E. 2d 852", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "855" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 N.C. 695", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570135 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "697" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/301/0695-01" ] }, { "cite": "268 S.E. 2d 173", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 610", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564153 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0610-01" ] }, { "cite": "333 S.E. 2d 245", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "253" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "314 N.C. 232", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4696763 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "245" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/314/0232-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 S.E. 2d 762", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 516", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8603731 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0516-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 598, "char_count": 10186, "ocr_confidence": 0.822, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.885110300479423e-08, "percentile": 0.5350431627480985 }, "sha256": "e29de01436a3eb2dc65d09456b682441c5d03d538dd5d96d92ea8770fd4a8c20", "simhash": "1:8feaf6a6d76b00f5", "word_count": 1687 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:01.553874+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMMY LEE WALKER" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MITCHELL, Justice.\nThe defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motions for a mistrial because, during cross-examination of the defendant\u2019s wife, the prosecutor \u201cpersistently injected incompetent and prejudicial innuendo into the trial.\u201d We disagree and hold that the trial court did not err.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that the defendant, Jimmy Lee Walker, visited Tony Philbeck several times a week, sometimes with a mutual acquaintance, Lisa Splawn, to use cocaine. Usually, the defendant had the cocaine with him. When he did not, he would give Philbeck the necessary money and have Philbeck purchase cocaine for him.\nJerry Lee White, an automobile parts salesman and admitted drug dealer, testified that he owned a .380 caliber semi-automatic pistol, but had arranged for it to be pawned on 24 October 1984. Wishing to retrieve the pistol, White asked to borrow the necessary money from the defendant on 3 November 1984. White had been \u201cpretty close friends\u201d with the defendant for about fifteen years. The defendant told White he would pick up the gun and hold it until White could pay him. The defendant claimed the gun on 3 November 1984 and bought fifty rounds of Federal .380 caliber ammunition.\nThe defendant and his wife were in a bad financial situation. He had lamented in late October that he had spent all his money on cocaine, was \u201churting\u201d for money, and had made unsuccessful attempts to borrow money. He was thinking about selling a trailer and a couple of his houses. On 6 November 1984, his wife was denied a $3,000 consumer loan from a local bank. The bank informed him of its decision that afternoon.\nThat night, 6 November 1984, the defendant came to Phil-beck\u2019s house around 8:00 or 8:30 p.m. He said he \u201cneeded money real bad\u201d because he was \u201cwanting to get high and was behind on his payments and all.\u201d The defendant believed that his automobile body repair shop business was down because people thought he was informing on drug users.\nAbout 9:30 p.m., the defendant told Philbeck he wanted to \u201ccheck something out\u201d and proceeded to drive by Alvin Walker\u2019s home. A car was in Alvin\u2019s driveway. The defendant told Philbeck that, when the car left the residence, he wanted Philbeck to drive and let him out at Alvin\u2019s so the defendant could rob him. The defendant was Alvin Walker\u2019s cousin and knew that he always carried a large amount of money. The defendant was carrying a .380 caliber handgun.\nPhilbeck became scared and told the defendant to take him home so he could go to work. The defendant took Philbeck home around 10:00 or 10:30 p.m.\nOn Tuesday, 6 November 1984, Alvin Walker\u2019s son, Mark Walker, got off work and went to his father\u2019s house to watch the election returns on television. Larry Walker, Alvin\u2019s brother, also came by around 10:30 p.m. for about fifteen minutes. Alvin was alone when Mark left around 11:30 p.m.\nAlvin always carried a billfold full of cash. Larry estimated Alvin\u2019s billfold was one and one-half inches to two inches thick and contained over 100 green bills. Larry and Mark both saw Alvin\u2019s billfold and saw him put it in his pocket on the night of 6 November 1984.\nThe defendant knocked on Alvin\u2019s door around 1:00 or 1:30 a.m. on 7 November 1984. He shot Alvin, but Alvin kept coming toward him, so he shot him again. The defendant stole Alvin\u2019s billfold and went home. The defendant then took his son\u2019s car and drove to a bridge where he threw away the gun he had used to kill Alvin Walker. The defendant twice told Philbeck what he had done.\nAlvin Walker was found dead, lying face down on his front porch, on 7 November 1984. His billfold was gone. He had three bullet wounds: to the right shoulder, the right forearm, and the center of the chest. He also had a laceration on the top of his head over a small skull fracture. The wound to the right forearm possibly was inflicted by the same bullet that struck his chest. He had been shot at close range by a .380 caliber gun. The bullets were manufactured by Federal Firearms.\nThe defendant did not testify, but offered an alibi defense. His wife and son said that he was at home at 10:30 p.m. on the night Alvin Walker was killed and did not go out again on that night. The defendant also offered testimony which disputed Phil-beck\u2019s statement that the defendant had told him about the murder by telephone after 8:30 a.m. and again in person around 9:30 a.m. on 7 November 1984.\nDuring the defendant\u2019s presentation of evidence at trial, the prosecutor cross-examined the defendant\u2019s wife as follows:\nQ. Did you know of his dealings in the marijuana or cocaine business?\nMR. HARRIS: OBJECTION.\nTHE COURT: SUSTAINED. Members of the jury, you\u2019re not to consider the implications of that question.\nQ. Was he dealing in the marijuana or cocaine business\u2014 . . . [objection sustained].\nTHE COURT: Just a minute. Motion [to strike] ALLOWED. Members of the jury, you\u2019re not to consider the implications of the question of the District Attorney.\nThe prosecutor then asked the defendant\u2019s wife whether she knew if the defendant associated with Greg Burleson, Doc Lamb, Troy Brown, or Danny Roach. The defendant\u2019s objections were sustained. The defendant\u2019s motion for mistrial was denied, and curative instructions were given. The prosecutor continued, asking if the wife knew Levi Arrowwood or of her husband\u2019s association with Lisa Splawn, Tammy Chapman, Connie Bradley, or Patty Beard. The defendant\u2019s objection was sustained, but his motion for mistrial was denied. The witness each time denied knowledge.\nThe defendant contends that the trial court should have granted his motions for a mistrial, because the prosecutor\u2019s questions portrayed him by innuendo as a drug dealer with wide-ranging illicit associations. He asserts that the trial court\u2019s rulings were too mild when compared to the damage done. He suggests that the trial court should have intervened more forcefully by forbidding the prosecutor from further improper cross-examination or by giving the jury a stronger admonition and instructing them that there was no evidence the defendant was a drug dealer.\nThe defendant places great reliance upon State v. Phillips, 240 N.C. 516, 82 S.E. 2d 762 (1954), in which we ordered a new trial because of improper conduct by the prosecutor who purposely and persistently asked improper questions of the defendant and his witnesses which asserted in advance the untruth of their denials. In Phillips, the trial court overruled the defendant\u2019s objections to many of the improper questions. Here, the trial court sustained the defendant\u2019s objections as to all such questions and gave curative instructions to the jury. Additionally, the defendant in Phillips specifically requested the trial court put an end to the line of improper questioning on the ground that it was tantamount to the prosecutor giving testimony. Here, the defendant made no such request for further curative instructions or additional remedial action. See State v. Blackstock, 314 N.C. 232, 245, 333 S.E. 2d 245, 253 (1985).\nThe trial court properly denied the defendant\u2019s motions for mistrial in the present case, especially since it had promptly sustained the defendant\u2019s objections and instructed the jury that it was not to consider the implications of the prosecutor\u2019s questions. The law assumes that jurors will follow their instructions and act in a rational fashion. State v. McCraw, 300 N.C. 610, 268 S.E. 2d 173 (1980). When a court withdraws incompetent evidence and instructs the jury not to consider it, any prejudice is ordinarily cured. State v. Smith, 301 N.C. 695, 697, 272 S.E. 2d 852, 855 (1981). Because such steps had been taken in the present case, the trial court\u2019s refusal to grant a mistrial was not an abuse of discretion. State v. Primes, 314 N.C. 202, 215, 333 S.E. 2d 278, 286 (1985). Accord, State v. Bright, 301 N.C. 243, 258, 271 S.E. 2d 368, 378 (1980).\nAlthough the prosecutor persisted in the challenged line of questioning after several objections had been sustained, he did not do so in nearly so persistent or damaging a manner as the prosecutor in Phillips. Evidence of the defendant\u2019s drug use and purchases of drugs had already been introduced during the State\u2019s case-in-chief without objection from the defendant. The questions complained of here did not result in \u201csubstantial and irreparable prejudice,\u201d considering the weight of the evidence against the defendant. See State v. Smith, 301 N.C. 695, 272 S.E. 2d 852 (1981); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1061 (1983). Therefore, the trial court properly denied the defendant\u2019s motions for a mistrial.\nThe defendant received a trial free from error.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "MITCHELL, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Barry S. McNeill, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, by Louis D. Bilionis, Assistant Appellate Defender, for the defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMMY LEE WALKER\nNo. 398A86\n(Filed 2 June 1987)\nCriminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 128.1, 102.5\u2014 improper questions \u2014 objections sustained and jury instructed \u2014 no mistrial\nThe trial court did not err in a murder prosecution by denying defendant\u2019s motion for a mistrial, even though the prosecutor\u2019s questions had portrayed defendant by innuendo as a drug dealer with wide-ranging illicit associations, because the trial court had promptly sustained defendant\u2019s objection and instructed the jury that it was not to consider the implications of the prosecutor\u2019s questions; although the prosecutor persisted in the challenged line of questioning, he did not do so in nearly so persistent or damaging a manner as the prosecutor in State v. Phillips, 240 N.C. 516; and evidence of defendant\u2019s drug use and purchase of drugs had already been introduced during the State\u2019s case in chief without objection from defendant.\nAPPEAL by the defendant from judgment entered by Long, J., at the 24 February 1986 Criminal Session of Superior Court, RUTHERFORD County. The defendant was indicted for first degree murder. The jury found him guilty under a felony-murder theory. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and appealed to the Supreme Court as a matter of right. Heard in the Supreme Court 13 April 1987.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Barry S. McNeill, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nMalcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, by Louis D. Bilionis, Assistant Appellate Defender, for the defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0651-01", "first_page_order": 683, "last_page_order": 687 }