{ "id": 4727239, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ERIC GLENN LOCKLEAR", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Locklear", "decision_date": "1987-10-07", "docket_number": "No. 92A87", "first_page": "754", "last_page": "762", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "320 N.C. 754" } ], "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": "38 S.E. 2d 531", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1946, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 N.C. 458", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621224 ], "year": 1946, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/226/0458-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 L.Ed. 2d 707", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "365 U.S. 830", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6203232, 6202818, 6202405, 6203045, 6202223, 6202580 ], "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/365/0830-06", "/us/365/0830-04", "/us/365/0830-02", "/us/365/0830-05", "/us/365/0830-01", "/us/365/0830-03" ] }, { "cite": "116 S.E. 2d 429", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "253 N.C. 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622810 ], "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/253/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "238 S.E. 2d 493", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.C. 532", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565412 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/293/0532-01" ] }, { "cite": "235 S.E. 2d 63", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "292 N.C. 642", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572085, 8572215, 8572187, 8572061, 8572126 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/292/0642-02", "/nc/292/0642-05", "/nc/292/0642-04", "/nc/292/0642-01", "/nc/292/0642-03" ] }, { "cite": "233 S.E. 2d 663", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "32 N.C. App. 608", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552731 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/32/0608-01" ] }, { "cite": "263 S.E. 2d 711", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575234 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0445-01" ] }, { "cite": "256 S.E. 2d 686", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "256 S.E. 2d 683", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 N.C. 652", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573566 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/297/0652-01" ] }, { "cite": "141 S.E. 2d 27", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "264 N.C. 134", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571421 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/264/0134-01" ] }, { "cite": "333 S.E. 2d 245", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "251" }, { "page": "252" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "314 N.C. 232", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4696763 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/314/0232-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 684, "char_count": 16210, "ocr_confidence": 0.837, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.2018260558435533e-07, "percentile": 0.775241143402569 }, "sha256": "95ce924980f5352c425089597a89e156a2dacb81f88c374699bcf01f161a9154", "simhash": "1:42a9cd21f436305a", "word_count": 2669 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:33:25.134905+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ERIC GLENN LOCKLEAR" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "EXUM, Chief Justice.\nIn this appeal defendant\u2019s assignments of error pertain to the sufficiency of the state\u2019s evidence and to rulings by the trial court on various evidentiary matters. We find no reversible error in defendant\u2019s trial.\nAt trial the state\u2019s evidence tended to show that Michelle Oxendine, the prosecuting witness, was staying overnight at the home of her brother and sister-in-law in Robeson County. Ms. Oxendine had dated the defendant for approximately nine months, but had ended the relationship two weeks before the morning of 13 August 1986. On that morning at approximately 7:30 a.m., Ms. Oxendine awoke to find the'defendant standing in the doorway of her bedroom. He ordered Ms. Oxendine to get out of bed; and, clad only in her undergarments, she walked to the adjacent bedroom to get dressed.\nAccording to Ms. Oxendine\u2019s testimony, the defendant tore her clothes off, threw her to the bed, pinned her hands down and struck her repeatedly in the face. She testified that although she attempted to resist, he forced her to have vaginal and oral intercourse with him and that she was bleeding and in pain.\nAfterward, she followed defendant\u2019s order that she gather some clothes and go with him. The defendant then drove Ms. Oxendine to the hospital. They arrived there approximately three hours after the incident had occurred, and Ms. Oxendine was taken to the trauma room for treatment. During the ensuing twenty-four hours, she received stitches for an injury to her lip and underwent surgery for a broken jaw.\nThe defendant presented evidence tending to show that, although he struck Ms. Oxendine with his fist, he carried her to a living room couch when he realized she was injured. Further, he testified that after a short discussion and his apology they returned to the bedroom and had consensual intercourse.\nBy his first assignment of error defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the first degree rape charge for insufficiency of the evidence.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-27.2 (1986) defines first degree rape in pertinent part as follows:\n(a) A person is guilty of rape in the first degree if the person engages in vaginal intercourse:\n(2) With another person by force and against the will of the other person, and:\nb. Inflicts serious personal injury upon the victim or another person ....\nDefendant correctly asserts that in order to convict of first degree rape under the evidence in this case, the state must rely on proof that defendant inflicted a serious personal injury upon the victim. Defendant argues there is no evidence that the injury relied upon by the state, the fracture of Ms. Oxendine\u2019s jaw, was inflicted to overcome her resistance to his sexual advances.\nThere is clearly no merit to defendant\u2019s argument. The state\u2019s evidence, through the testimony of Ms. Oxendine, is that defendant fractured her jaw while she was resisting his sexual advances. This evidence is ample to support the state\u2019s theory of the case that the fractured jaw was inflicted for the purpose of overcoming Ms. Oxendine\u2019s resistance.\nFurthermore, there is no requirement under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-27.2(a)(2)(b) that the serious personal injury be inflicted upon a rape victim during the period of time when the victim\u2019s resistance is being overcome. State v. Blackstock, 314 N.C. 232, 333 S.E. 2d 245 (1985). In Blackstock, we held that the legislature intended that \u201cthe element of infliction of serious bodily injury would no longer be limited to the period of time when the victim\u2019s resistance was being overcome or her submission procured . . . .\u201d Id. at 241, 333 S.E. 2d at 251. We concluded that the element of infliction of serious injury upon the victim was satisfied when there was a series of incidents \u201cforming one continuous transaction between the rape and the infliction of the serious personal injury.\u201d Id. at 242, 333 S.E. 2d at 252.\nClearly the evidence here supports the serious injury element under the rationale of Blackstock. The state\u2019s evidence is that defendant repeatedly struck Ms. Oxendine in the face immediately before he forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. Even if the blows were not intended by the defendant to overcome Ms. Oxendine\u2019s resistance, they were still one link in a continuous chain of events which culminated in the act of intercourse. Thus, the blows formed \u201cone continuous transaction between the rape and the infliction of the serious personal injury.\u201d Id.\nAccordingly, we find this assignment of error to be without merit.\nBy his next assignment of error defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the felonious breaking or entering charge for insufficiency of the evidence.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-54 (1986) defines both felonious and nonfelonious breaking or entering in pertinent part as follows:\n(a) Any person who breaks or enters any building with intent to commit any felony or larceny therein shall be punished as a Class H felon.\n(b) Any person who wrongfully breaks or enters any building is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable under G.S. 14-3(a) ....\nThe trial judge instructed the jury that if they found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had entered the Oxendine home without consent, intending to commit rape, then they should find him guilty of felonious breaking or entering. He also submitted the lesser included charge of nonfelonious breaking or entering and instructed the jury that, as to this charge, there was no requirement that the state prove that defendant entered the Oxendine home with intent to commit rape. The jury found the defendant guilty of nonfelonious breaking or entering as provided in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-540)).\nIn order to convict under this section the state must show that defendant did break or enter a building unlawfully. State v. Jones, 264 N.C. 134, 141 S.E. 2d 27 (1965). Where defendant enters a building with the consent of the owner or anyone empowered to give effective consent to enter, such entry cannot be the basis for a conviction of breaking or entering. State v. Boone, 297 N.C. 652, 256 S.E. 2d 683 (1979). Conversely, a wrongful entry, i.e. without consent, will be punishable under this section. Id. at 655, 256 S.E. 2d 686.\nDefendant contends all the evidence shows he had Ms. Oxen-dine\u2019s permission to enter the home on 13 August 1986. We disagree.\nAlthough defendant presented evidence that permission to enter the home on 13 August 1986 was inferable because Ms. Oxendine expected him to return a pocketbook that she had left in his car, the state presented evidence to the contrary. The state\u2019s evidence showed no arrangements were made for the return of the pocketbook and defendant did not in fact have the pocketbook with him on the morning of the incident. Defendant admitted in a pretrial statement, offered against him by the state, that when he entered the Oxendine home that morning he \u201cwas not invited inside the house by anyone.\u201d\nOn a motion to dismiss the evidence must be taken in the light most favorable to the state and the state must be given the benefit of every reasonable inference deducible therefrom. State v. Hardy, 299 N.C. 445, 263 S.E. 2d 711 (1980). Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, we conclude there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant\u2019s entry into the home was nonconsensual and, therefore, wrongful. We overrule this assignment of error.\nDefendant complains further that the trial judge committed reversible error in admitting the testimony of medical personnel who were present when Ms. Oxendine was admitted to the hospital.\nFrances Prevatte, assistant director of nursing, testified that on the morning of 13 August 1986 Ms. Oxendine told her that she was afraid of the defendant and requested that the defendant not be allowed near her. Wanda Burns, a registered nurse, also testified that on 13 August 1986 Ms. Oxendine had stated that she was \u201cscared,\u201d but that she would not say why she was frightened. Defendant\u2019s objection to the testimony was overruled.\nDefendant asserts that the statements made to the medical personnel were inadmissible as hearsay. We disagree.\nN.C. R. Evid. 803 contains what is commonly known as the \u201cstate of mind\u201d exception to the hearsay rule and provides as follows:\nHearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial.\nThe following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:\n(3) Then Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. \u2014 A statement of the declarant\u2019s then existing state of mind [or] emotion ....\nThis rule is virtually identical to the federal rule. See Commentary, N.C. R. Evid. 803. Evidence tending to show a presently existing state of mind is admissible if the state of mind sought to be proved is relevant and the prejudicial effect of the evidence does not outweigh its probative value. State v. Dangerfield, 32 N.C. App. 608, 233 S.E. 2d 663, disc. rev. denied, 292 N.C. 642, 235 S.E. 2d 63 (1977); 1 Brandis on North Carolina Evidence \u00a7 162(a) (1982).\nWe are satisfied that Ms. Oxendine\u2019s statements to Nurses Prevatte and Burns were admissible under Rule 803(3); and we disagree with defendant\u2019s contention that the statements describe a past, rather than an existing, mental condition. The statements Ms. Oxendine made to Nurses Prevatte and Burns describe fear she was presently experiencing in the trauma room. Ms. Oxendine made the statements only three hours after she had been assaulted. She knew defendant was still present in the hospital, and she requested he be kept away from her. Finally, as Ms. Oxendine later testified, defendant had threatened to harm her if she told anyone what had actually happened.\nMs. Oxendine\u2019s state of mind in the trauma room was relevant to the issue of whether the sexual intercourse was committed by force and against her will. The statements, therefore, were admissible under the 803(3) exception to the hearsay rule.\nDefendant next challenges the admission of the testimony of Nurse Burns concerning a conversation she had with Ms. Oxen-dine on the day following the incident, 14 August 1986. According to Nurse Burns\u2019 testimony, Ms. Oxendine then stated that on 13 August 1986 she had been afraid to give a true account of what had happened because defendant had threatened her. Ms. Oxen-dine told Nurse Burns that defendant had entered her home without her knowledge, awakened her, assaulted her, had vaginal and oral intercourse with her and had then driven her to the hospital to get medical attention. Defendant\u2019s motion to strike this testimony was denied.\nDefendant argues that Nurse Burns\u2019 testimony regarding the conversation was inadmissible hearsay. Alternatively, he contends even if the testimony was used for the nonhearsay purpose of corroboration the statements were inadmissible because they were inconsistent with, and not corroborative of, the victim\u2019s testimony at trial.\nNurse Burns\u2019 testimony concerning the conversation and defendant\u2019s objections thereto are reported in the record as follows:\nQ. Did you have any conversation, then, about how she got in the condition she was in?\nObjection.\nOverruled.\nA. Yes.\nQ. What did she tell you had happened to her?\n[Nurse Burns]: I asked her why she couldn\u2019t tell me the day before that she had been raped and she said that Eric had threatened her life and that she was scared\u2014\nMOVE TO STRIKE.\n[Nurse Burns]: \u2014to tell anybody.\nDenied.\n[Nurse Burns]: I asked her to describe what he had done to her and she told me that he broke in the house . . . beat her . . . had sexual intercourse with her . . . and drove her to the emergency room, because he was afraid that he had hurt her bad enough that she needed medical care.\nMOVE TO STRIKE.\nDenied.\nThis evidence was properly admitted as being corroborative of Ms. Oxendine\u2019s trial testimony. One of the most widely used and well-recognized methods of strengthening the credibility of a witness is by the admission of prior consistent statements. State v. Carter, 293 N.C. 532, 238 S.E. 2d 493 (1977). If previous statements offered in corroboration are generally consistent with the witness\u2019s testimony, slight variations between them will not render the statements inadmissible. Such variations only affect the credibility of the evidence which is always for the jury. State v. Case, 253 N.C. 130, 116 S.E. 2d 429 (1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 830, 5 L.Ed. 2d 707 (1961); State v. Walker, 226 N.C. 458, 38 S.E. 2d 531 (1946).\nDespite defendant\u2019s contentions to the contrary, Ms. Oxen-dine\u2019s testimony at trial was practically identical to the statements attributed to her by Nurse Burns. Ms. Oxendine testified, \u201cEric [defendant] told me if I told them what happened, he would get me.\u201d She also described what defendant actually did to her on the morning of the incident. This description was almost identical to the statements Nurse Burns testified Ms. Oxendine made to her.\nTherefore, Nurse Burns\u2019 testimony was properly admitted for the nonhearsay purpose of corroborating Ms. Oxendine\u2019s testimony.\nIn defendant\u2019s trial we find no error.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "EXUM, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Marilyn R. Mudge, Assistant Attorney General, for the state.", "Arnold Locklear, for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ERIC GLENN LOCKLEAR\nNo. 92A87\n(Filed 7 October 1987)\n1. Rape and Allied Offenses \u00a7 5\u2014 first degree rape \u2014 infliction of serious personal injury\nThe infliction of serious personal injury element of first degree rape was shown by the State\u2019s evidence that defendant repeatedly struck the victim in the face and broke her jaw immediately before he forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. Even if the blows were not intended by defendant to overcome the victim\u2019s resistance, they were still one link in a continuous chain of events which culminated in the act of intercourse and were thus sufficient to satisfy the infliction of serious personal injury element. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-27.2 (a)(2)(b).\n2. Burglary and Unlawful Breakings \u00a7 5.11\u2014 breaking or entering \u2014 nonconsensual entry \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that defendant\u2019s entry into a home was nonconsensual so as to support his conviction of breaking or entering, notwithstanding defendant presented evidence that permission to enter the home was inferable because the victim expected him to return a pocketbook that she had left in his car, where the State\u2019s evidence tended to show that no arrangements were made for the return of the pocketbook and defendant did not have the pocketbook with him at the time of the incident in question, and that defendant admitted in a pretrial statement that he \u201cwas not invited inside the house by anyone.\u201d\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 73.3\u2014 statements concerning fear \u2014 state of mind exception to hearsay rule\nStatements made by a rape victim to nurses who were present when she was admitted to the hospital that she was afraid of defendant and did not want defendant to be allowed near her and that she was \u201cscared\u201d were relevant to the issue of whether the sexual intercourse was committed by force and against her will and were admissible under the \u201cstate of mind\u201d exception to the hearsay rule provided by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 803(3).\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 89.3\u2014 prior consistent statements \u2014 admissibility for corroboration\nA nurse\u2019s testimony concerning a conversation she had with a rape victim in which the victim described what defendant had done to her on the morning of the incident and stated that on the previous day she had been afraid to give a true account of what happened because defendant had threatened her was admissible to corroborate the victim\u2019s almost identical testimony at the trial.\nAppeal by defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27(a) from a judgment imposing a life sentence entered by Bowen, J., at the 3 November 1986 Criminal Session of Superior Court, ROBESON County, where defendant was convicted by a jury of first degree rape and nonfelonious breaking or entering. We allowed defendant\u2019s motion to bypass the Court of Appeals for review of his conviction for nonfelonious breaking or entering. Heard in the Supreme Court 8 September 1987.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Marilyn R. Mudge, Assistant Attorney General, for the state.\nArnold Locklear, for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0754-01", "first_page_order": 786, "last_page_order": 794 }