{
  "id": 2572560,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CURTIS EUGENE SMITH",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1987-12-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 63A87",
  "first_page": "290",
  "last_page": "293",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "321 N.C. 290"
    }
  ],
  "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": "343 S.E. 2d 518",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 N.C. 100",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4779396
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/317/0100-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "345 S.E. 2d 217",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 N.C. 275",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4779755
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/317/0275-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "356 S.E. 2d 279",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        473513
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "315"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ga-app/182/0279-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 N.C. 465",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4748970
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "526"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/319/0465-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "334 S.E. 2d 741",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 N.C. 460",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4685694
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/314/0460-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 338,
    "char_count": 5807,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.831,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.552272050982335e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6748200377705418
    },
    "sha256": "b2215b0623ac49fc8795ad0ec78bb63a9409c2d9333fc309206324c5611541bc",
    "simhash": "1:b318e923572955f2",
    "word_count": 958
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:28.747837+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CURTIS EUGENE SMITH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WEBB, Justice.\nThe defendant assigns error to the court\u2019s failure to find two mitigating circumstances, the first being that \u201cprior to arrest or at an early stage of the criminal process, the defendant voluntarily acknowledged wrongdoing in connection with the offense to a law enforcement officer.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.4(a)(2)l.\nThe assignment of error brings to the Court the question of whether a defendant may use as evidence of the above mitigating circumstance the fact that he confessed at an early stage of the proceedings after he moves to suppress the confession. In State v. Hayes, 314 N.C. 460, 334 S.E. 2d 741 (1985), this Court held that a defendant could not use a confession to prove the mitigating circumstance after he had repudiated the confession. In State v. Robbins, 319 N.C. 465, 526, 356 S.E. 2d 279, 315 (1987), we said, \u201c[Defendant made a motion to suppress these statements. This Court has held that if a defendant repudiates his incriminatory statement, he is not entitled to a finding of this mitigating circumstance.\u201d We hold that when a defendant moves to suppress a confession, he repudiates it and is not entitled to use evidence of the confession to prove this mitigating circumstance. We believe this holding is consistent with the holdings of previous cases and is a better reasoned rule than that for which the defendant contends.\nThe defendant also contends it was error not to find as a mitigating circumstance that, \u201cThe defendant\u2019s immaturity or his limited mental capacity at the time of commission of the offense significantly reduced his culpability for the offense.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.4(a)(2)e. There was uncontradicted evidence that the defendant was 16 V2 years old at the time of the offense and that he had an I.Q. ranging from 60 to 65 which placed him in the bottom one percent of the population in intelligence. A psychiatrist testified he is \u201cmore like a ten year old\u201d than a sixteen year old.\nIt is true that the evidence is uncontradicted that the defendant is of limited mental capacity. The evidence is not uncontradicted, however, that this limited mental capacity significantly reduced his culpability for the offense. There was evidence that the defendant and Ross had discussed robbing the Paschall Oil Company two weeks before the offense at the suggestion of the defendant. They had planned to tell Mr. Hunt that a woman needed oil and wanted his address. They planned to hit him while he was writing his address for the fictitious woman. There was evidence that they carried out this plan. While Mr. Hunt was writing the address defendant hit him in the head with a stick. When Mr. Hunt grabbed Ross, defendant hit him again so hard that brains, blood, and bone flew from his head.\nWe do not believe we should hold that because the evidence shows a defendant is of limited mental capacity, a court has to find this mitigating circumstance. The evidence must also show this limited mental capacity significantly reduced the defendant\u2019s culpability. The evidence was in conflict on this part of the mitigating circumstance and it was not error for the court not to find it. See State v. Moore, 317 N.C. 275, 345 S.E. 2d 217 (1986).\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WEBB, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Isaac T. Avery, III, Special Deputy Attorney General and H. Julian Philpott, Jr., Associate Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, by Mark D. Montgomery, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CURTIS EUGENE SMITH\nNo. 63A87\n(Filed 2 December 1987)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 138.40\u2014 mitigating circumstance \u2014 acknowledgment of wrongdoing-effect of motion to suppress confession\nWhen a defendant moves to suppress a confession, he repudiates it and may not use evidence of the confession to prove the voluntary acknowledgment of wrongdoing mitigating circumstance set forth in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.4(a)(2)!.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 138.34\u2014 mitigating circumstance \u2014 limited mental capacity-finding not required\nThe trial court was not required to find as a mitigating circumstance for second degree murder that defendant\u2019s limited mental capacity significantly reduced his culpability for the offense where the evidence was uncontradicted that defendant had a limited mental capacity but was in conflict as to whether this limited mental capacity significantly reduced defendant\u2019s culpability. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.4(a)(2)e.\nAppeal by defendant from a life sentence imposed by Downs, Judge, at the 10 November 1986 session of Superior Court, GASTON County. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 November 1987.\nThe defendant pled guilty to first degree murder at the 24 May 1984 session of Superior Court of Gaston County. Before he entered the plea, he reserved the right to appeal an order overruling his motion to suppress the introduction of his confession. This Court in State v. Smith, 317 N.C. 100, 343 S.E. 2d 518 (1986), reversed the superior court and ordered a new trial.\nThe defendant then pled guilty to second degree murder. The evidence at the sentencing hearing showed that the defendant was I6V2 years of age at the time of the offense. He and Judson Lee Ross, an 18-year-old friend, entered the office of the Paschall Oil Company. The defendant struck Mr. Marvin Hunt, an employee of Paschall Oil Company, twice with a blunt object, spattering blood on three walls and the ceiling, fracturing Mr. Hunt\u2019s skull, and sending a piece of the skull to the floor. Defendant and Ross then robbed Mr. Hunt. Mr. Hunt remained in a coma until he died 39 days later.\nThe court found as an aggravating circumstance that the offense was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel. The court found no mitigating circumstances and enhanced the defendant\u2019s sentence to life in prison. The defendant appealed.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Isaac T. Avery, III, Special Deputy Attorney General and H. Julian Philpott, Jr., Associate Attorney General, for the State.\nMalcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, by Mark D. Montgomery, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0290-01",
  "first_page_order": 318,
  "last_page_order": 321
}