{ "id": 2562032, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JERRY LEWIS FORD", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ford", "decision_date": "1988-11-03", "docket_number": "No. 651A87", "first_page": "466", "last_page": "471", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "323 N.C. 466" } ], "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": "239 S.E. 2d 465", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "469" }, { "page": "469" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.C. 713", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567106 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "717" }, { "page": "717" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/293/0713-01" ] }, { "cite": "220 S.E. 2d 283", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "291" }, { "page": "291" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "288 N.C. 699", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570646 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "711" }, { "page": "711" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/288/0699-01" ] }, { "cite": "307 S.E. 2d 304", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "324" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "309 N.C. 326", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4760257 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "356" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/309/0326-01" ] }, { "cite": "252 S.E. 2d 237", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "238" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "40 N.C. App. 193", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549307 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "194" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/40/0193-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 S.E. 2d 75", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "79" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "270 N.C. 247", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566940 ], "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "253" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/270/0247-01" ] }, { "cite": "224 S.E. 2d 631", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "635" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "290 N.C. 16", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560084 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "23" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/290/0016-01" ] }, { "cite": "358 S.E. 2d 329", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "335", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Rhodes, 290 N.C. 16, 23, 224 S.E. 2d 631, 635 (1976)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "320 N.C. 404", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4729461 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "415", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Rhodes, 290 N.C. 16, 23, 224 S.E. 2d 631, 635 (1976)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/320/0404-01" ] }, { "cite": "301 S.E. 2d 395", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "decided under present N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1222" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 702", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566754, 8566786, 8566725, 8566694, 8566822 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "decided under present N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1222" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0702-03", "/nc/307/0702-04", "/nc/307/0702-02", "/nc/307/0702-01", "/nc/307/0702-05" ] }, { "cite": "296 S.E. 2d 664", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "667" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 N.C. App. 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526299 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "302" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/59/0298-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 59", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "63", "parenthetical": "decided under former N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-180" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 622", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573092 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "626-27", "parenthetical": "decided under former N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-180" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0622-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 581, "char_count": 9702, "ocr_confidence": 0.827, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.202363253177187e-08, "percentile": 0.47602949052242044 }, "sha256": "f617413c32921fbfc72a79384f06a65b6ea6d0cb7f602d26088d52372da73404", "simhash": "1:6f5dc33bdc2c015e", "word_count": 1665 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:25:25.148086+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JERRY LEWIS FORD" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WHICHARD, Justice.\nDefendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. We find no error.\nThe State\u2019s evidence, in pertinent summary, showed the following:\nThe victim, defendant\u2019s estranged wife, was a member of the United States Army Reserve. On 13 September 1986, shortly after the victim had completed a weekend drill, defendant was observed in the reserve unit parking lot driving fast and \u201cscreeching\u201d the tires on his car. He then parked near the victim and motioned or called for her to come to him. When the victim ignored him, defendant went to her and grabbed her by the collar. He released her upon the request of the owner of a van parked nearby.\nDefendant then went to his car and pulled out a shotgun. The reserve unit members standing nearby scattered. Defendant followed the victim. When the victim turned around, defendant pointed the shotgun at her. She asked defendant not to shoot her. Defendant said to her: \u201cI told you to come back,\u201d and \u201cI told you I was gonna [sic] get you[,] girl. I told you.\u201d Several witnesses then heard a gunshot. A witness heard someone say, \u201cI told you I was gonna [sic] get you, didn\u2019t I.\u201d\nSeveral people helped the victim to the ground. Defendant jumped in his car and drove rapidly and recklessly as he exited the parking lot. The victim died later that evening from a gunshot wound that entered her chest and abdomen.\nDefendant\u2019s testimony tended to establish an accident defense. A few days before the shooting he had looked through a window and seen the victim, dressed in night clothes, embracing a man later known to him as John Cathcart. The victim refused to open the door in response to defendant\u2019s knock. Defendant broke out the windows of Cathcart\u2019s car, then left and called the victim on the telephone. Cathcart took the phone and threatened defendant.\nTwo weeks later defendant went to the reserve unit parking lot and told the victim \u201call I want to do is just talk to you.\u201d He told her \u201csomething like, \u2018God will make you pay for the way you treat me.\u2019 \u201d She laughed at him, and he grabbed her. Defendant then looked around and saw people coming toward him, including Cathcart, who appeared to have a knife in his hand. Defendant went to his car and \u201cgot the gun out.\u201d He did not remember cocking it, and he \u201cdidn\u2019t never point the gun at\u201d the victim. He was pointing the gun toward the ground and trying to collect himself when Sgt. James Foust, Jr., jumped out of a van and grabbed the gun. The gun went off, and defendant heard the victim scream. He then ran to his car and left.\nDefendant read to the jury the following from a statement he made to law enforcement officers on the night of the shooting:\n... I didn\u2019t want her to get shot. I just wanted her to talk to me. I went out there to talk to her. She was standing with a group of people. I pulled her over to the front of the car. The man came up with a knife in his hand. I let her go. I went to my car and got my gun, . . . and a group of people got in a van. I went up to the van and a man grabbed my gun. . . . We wrestled with it \u2014 each other and the gun went off and shot her.\nDefendant first contends that the trial court erred by refusing to allow him to use the weapon from which the fatal shot was fired to demonstrate his testimony. He argues that the court had allowed seven State\u2019s witnesses to handle the weapon in the course of their testimony, and that its subsequent refusal to treat him likewise constituted an impermissible expression of opinion on his character and credibility.\nThe trial court may not express an opinion in the presence of the jury on questions the jury must decide. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1222 (1988). The credibility of a witness is such a question. See 1 Bran-dis on North Carolina Evidence \u00a7 8 (1988). \u201cIt is immaterial how such opinion is expressed or implied, whether in the charge of the court, in the examination of a witness, in the rulings upon objections to evidence or in any other manner.\u201d State v. Freeman, 280 N.C. 622, 626-27, 187 S.E. 2d 59, 63 (1972) (decided under former N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-180); see also State v. Wilhelm, 59 N.C. App. 298, 302, 296 S.E. 2d 664, 667 (1982), disc. rev. denied, 307 N.C. 702, 301 S.E. 2d 395 (1983) (decided under present N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1222).\nHowever, \u201c \u2018in the absence of controlling statutory provisions or established rules, all matters relating to the orderly conduct of the trial[,] or which involve the proper administration of justice in the court, are within [the court\u2019s] discretion.\u2019 \u201d State v. Smith, 320 N.C. 404, 415, 358 S.E. 2d 329, 335 (1987) (quoting State v. Rhodes, 290 N.C. 16, 23, 224 S.E. 2d 631, 635 (1976)). See also Shute v. Fisher, 270 N.C. 247, 253, 154 S.E. 2d 75, 79 (1967). \u201c[T]he power of the trial judge to maintain absolute control of his courtroom is essential to the maintenance of proper decorum and the effective administration of justice.\u201d Roberson v. Roberson, 40 N.C. App. 193, 194, 252 S.E. 2d 237, 238 (1979).\nThe orderly conduct of this trial included insuring, to the extent possible, the safety of those in the courtroom and the continued presence of the defendant. The trial court reasonably could have concluded that both might be jeopardized by placement of the weapon in defendant\u2019s hands during the course of trial. Defendant had not forewarned the court that he would request use of the weapon to demonstrate his testimony. He could have sought, in limine or on voir dire, to arrange conditions under which he could so use the weapon without raising substantial concern for courtroom security. He failed to do so, however; and absent such arrangements, courtroom security was a legitimate concern. Under these circumstances, we hold that the court acted well within its discretionary power to control the orderly conduct of the trial in not allowing defendant to handle the weapon in the course of his testimony, and that its ruling did not constitute an impermissible expression of opinion on defendant\u2019s character or credibility.\nDefendant further contends that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to state the following in closing argument:\nThe defendant tells you that Foust wrestled the gun away from him, but if it happened like the defendant said, and it was an accidental shot, and [the victim] was just over here (indicating) to the side, and he didn\u2019t have the gun right up to her, wouldn\u2019t there be satellite wounds from the shotgun pellets around this wound?\nDefendant did not object to this argument at trial. The standard of review thus is \u201cwhether the statements amounted to such gross impropriety as to require the trial judge to act ex mero motu.\u201d State v. Oliver, 309 N.C. 326, 356, 307 S.E. 2d 304, 324 (1983). We perceive no impropriety in the argument.\nCounsel may argue the facts in evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. State v. Britt, 288 N.C. 699, 711, 220 S.E. 2d 283, 291 (1975). \u201cIt is permissible for the prosecutor to draw the jury\u2019s attention to the failure of the defendant to produce exculpatory testimony from witnesses available to defendant.\u201d State v. Thompson, 293 N.C. 713, 717, 239 S.E. 2d 465, 469 (1977).\nThe only medical evidence presented established that \u201cthe decedent had approximately a two and a half inch oblong hole in the right side of her chest\u201d and \u201csurgical interventions on her body.\u201d There was no evidence of satellite wounds. Such evidence would have tended to be exculpatory because it would have supported defendant\u2019s accident defense. The absence of such evidence, contrastingly, supports an inference that the victim was shot at close range. The prosecutor thus properly could rebut defendant\u2019s accident defense by calling the jury\u2019s attention to defendant\u2019s failure to produce such evidence. State v. Thompson, 293 N.C. at 717, 239 S.E. 2d at 469; State v. Britt, 288 N.C. at 711, 220 S.E. 2d at 291.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "WHICHARD, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Doris J. Holton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, by Staples Hughes, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JERRY LEWIS FORD\nNo. 651A87\n(Filed 3 November 1988)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 103, 99.3\u2014 defendant not allowed to demonstrate murder weapon \u2014 no error\nIn a murder prosecution in which defendant relied on an accident defense, the trial judge did not express an opinion on defendant\u2019s character and credibility by refusing to allow defendant to use the murder weapon to demonstrate his testimony even though seven State\u2019s witnesses handled the weapon in the course of their testimony. Defendant had not forewarned the court that he would request use of the weapon to demonstrate his testimony, and, absent prior arrangements, courtroom security was a legitimate concern.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 102.6\u2014 murder \u2014 prosecutor\u2019s argument concerning absence of satellite shotgun wounds \u2014 no error\nThe prosecutor in a murder case could properly rebut defendant\u2019s accident defense by calling the jury\u2019s attention to defendant\u2019s failure to produce evidence of satellite wounds from the shotgun pellets where the only medical evidence presented established that the victim had approximately a two and one-half inch hole in the right side of her chest, there was no evidence of satellite wounds, and the absence of such evidence supports an inference that the victim was shot at close range.\nAppeal by defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27(a) (1986) from the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment upon his conviction of first degree murder before Rousseau, J., at the 24 August 1987 Criminal Session of Superior Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Supreme Court 11 October 1988.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Doris J. Holton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nMalcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, by Staples Hughes, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0466-01", "first_page_order": 498, "last_page_order": 503 }