{ "id": 2486332, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD FRANKLIN BALL", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ball", "decision_date": "1989-03-02", "docket_number": "No. 250A88", "first_page": "233", "last_page": "238", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "324 N.C. 233" } ], "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": "229 S.E. 2d 163", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "174" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "291 N.C. 37", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8557269 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "54" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/291/0037-01" ] }, { "cite": "337 S.E. 2d 786", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "804" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4715685 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "33" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/315/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "364 S.E. 2d 341", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "346", "parenthetical": "error infringing upon a defendant's constitutional rights entitles him or her to a new trial unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 392", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2568444 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "400", "parenthetical": "error infringing upon a defendant's constitutional rights entitles him or her to a new trial unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0392-01" ] }, { "cite": "367 S.E. 2d 618", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "623-24" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "322 N.C. 229", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2517321 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "238-39" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/322/0229-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 L.Ed. 2d 78", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "469 U.S. 839", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11992065, 11991511, 11991589, 11992134, 11991687, 11991848, 11991914, 11991307, 11991372, 11991758, 11991442, 11991091, 11991990, 11991158 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/469/0839-13", "/us/469/0839-06", "/us/469/0839-07", "/us/469/0839-14", "/us/469/0839-08", "/us/469/0839-10", "/us/469/0839-11", "/us/469/0839-03", "/us/469/0839-04", "/us/469/0839-09", "/us/469/0839-05", "/us/469/0839-01", "/us/469/0839-12", "/us/469/0839-02" ] }, { "cite": "311 S.E. 2d 256", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "264" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "310 N.C. 245", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2399643 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "256" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/310/0245-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 L.Ed. 2d 133", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "479 U.S. 1077", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6549932, 6549836, 6549806, 6549711, 6549744, 6549978, 6549687, 6550010, 6550043, 6549885 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/479/1077-07", "/us/479/1077-05", "/us/479/1077-04", "/us/479/1077-02", "/us/479/1077-03", "/us/479/1077-08", "/us/479/1077-01", "/us/479/1077-09", "/us/479/1077-10", "/us/479/1077-06" ] }, { "cite": "343 S.E. 2d 814", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "827" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "317 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4779521 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "23" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/317/0001-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 586, "char_count": 12939, "ocr_confidence": 0.802, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0347037317752841e-07, "percentile": 0.5491414750435257 }, "sha256": "8a9238702d3e2da0b2360849b9906a8811026ddb2537db8713c8f224afa49228", "simhash": "1:2fc350b56674895e", "word_count": 2192 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:53.264050+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD FRANKLIN BALL" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WHICHARD, Justice.\nIn a capital trial, defendant was convicted of the first degree murder of Joyce Ball. At the sentencing hearing, the jury found no aggravating circumstances and recommended a sentence of life imprisonment. We find no error.\nThe State\u2019s evidence, in pertinent summary, showed the following:\nDefendant and his wife, Joyce Ball, separated in April 1986. Defendant moved to Florida and Ms. Ball continued to live in Wake County with their child.\nAround 19 October 1986 defendant returned to Wake County looking for his wife. During the following week they talked on the telephone several times and they met to talk once. Defendant was upset and angry that she was living with another man.\nOn 24 October 1986, sometime after 5:30 p.m., witnesses saw Ms. Ball running across the parking lot of Raleigh Community Hospital. Defendant was running after her. Ms. Ball ran through the front door of the hospital. She screamed, \u201c[C]all the police, call the police, help, help, oh, my God, he\u2019s got a gun and he\u2019s going to shoot me.\u201d She ran around a desk and crouched behind it, screaming, \u201c[P]lease don\u2019t kill me, please don\u2019t shoot me, please, please.\u201d As she screamed, defendant held the gun with both hands, pointed it at her back and fired a shot. She screamed. Defendant fired three more shots into her back, pausing a couple of seconds between the shots. Ms. Ball died from bullet wounds to her heart.\nDefendant left the hospital and went to a building under construction beside the hospital. During a police search of that building, defendant gave himself up to police officers. Defendant told the officers, \u201cI\u2019m the one you\u2019re looking for. I shot her.\u201d\nDefendant made a post-arrest statement to police. He said that he made up his mind around 10:00 a.m. on the day of the shooting that he was going to kill his wife. He also said that at the time he and his wife were sitting in her car together he had made up his mind to kill her and then kill himself. Defense counsel introduced this statement at trial.\nDefendant testified in his own behalf. He stated that he was upset and angry that his wife was living with another man. On 24 October 1986, at about 10:00 a.m., he decided to kill his wife and himself. He wrote a letter to Ms. Ball\u2019s mother saying, \u201cI made my mind up to be with her forever.\u201d He testified that he meant by this that he planned to kill his wife and kill himself.\nDefendant testified that he met his wife at about 5:30 p.m. He had a loaded semi-automatic pistol in his back pocket and intended to kill her, then kill himself. Defendant and his wife parked their cars in the parking lot of Raleigh Community Hospital. Defendant got in his wife\u2019s car. After they had been in her car for a while, he took the pistol out of his pocket and told her that he intended to kill her and to kill himself. Defendant testified that they talked for about thirty to forty minutes and that he told her he could not kill her because he loved her and did not want things to end that way. Sometime thereafter, Ms. Ball jumped out of the car and ran. He ran after her into the hospital. Defendant testified that he shot her but did not intend to kill her.\nDefendant first contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to dismiss the first degree murder charge. He argues that the State\u2019s evidence failed to show premeditation and deliberation.\nPremeditation and deliberation are necessary elements of first degree murder based upon premeditation and deliberation (rather than felony murder). State v. Jackson, 317 N.C. 1, 23, 343 S.E. 2d 814, 827 (1986), vacated on other grounds, 479 U.S. 1077, 94 L.Ed. 2d 133 (1987). Premeditation means that the defendant thought out the act beforehand for some length of time, however short. Id. \u201cDeliberation means an intent to kill, carried out in a cool state of blood, in furtherance of a fixed design for revenge or to accomplish an unlawful purpose and not under the influence of a violent passion, suddenly aroused by lawful or just cause or legal provocation.\u201d Id. The State may prove the elements of premeditation and deliberation by circumstantial evidence as well as by direct evidence. Id. Among the circumstances to be considered in determining whether a defendant acted after premeditation and deliberation are the want of provocation by the victim, the defendant\u2019s conduct and statements before and after the killing, threats and declarations by the defendant before and during the course of the occurrence giving rise to the death of the victim, and the nature and number of the victim\u2019s wounds. Id.\nThe evidence in this case shows that at 10:00 a.m. on the day of the shooting defendant decided to kill the victim and himself. He wrote a letter to the victim\u2019s mother saying that he had made up his mind \u201cto be with her forever,\u201d meaning that he was going to kill the victim and himself. Defendant met his wife that afternoon. He was carrying a loaded semi-automatic pistol when he got into her car. He removed the gun from his pocket and told her that he was going to kill them both. Sometime later, Ms. Ball jumped from the car and ran into the hospital, screaming that defendant had a gun and was going to shoot her. As she crouched behind a desk, begging him not to shoot her, defendant fired at least three shots into her back, pausing between shots. When defendant surrendered to police, he told them that he was the one who had shot her. This evidence is sufficient to support a jury finding of premeditation and deliberation. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nDefendant next contends that the trial court erred in denying his request to admit his post-arrest statement to the police prior to his testimony. After the State presented evidence, the trial court considered defendant\u2019s request to introduce his post-arrest statement into evidence prior to defendant\u2019s taking the stand. Defense counsel stated:\nWe intend to call the police officers first and put the statement in evidence, and then listen to the tapes, and what we will do from there we don\u2019t know, but we don\u2019t intend to call the defendant first, but I can assure the Court, as far as it can be assured, that the defendant is planning to testify. He wants to testify.\nI have no reason to believe he won\u2019t.\nAs you know, and as everybody knows, . . ., it\u2019s his decision, but I have absolutely no reason to believe that he won\u2019t testify and I know at least at this point he wants to and we are planning to.\nThe court asked defendant whether he intended to testify in his own behalf. He answered \u201c[y]es, sir.\u201d The court ruled that it would allow defendant\u2019s post-arrest statement to come in for corroborative purposes, but that defendant would have to testify prior to the admission of the statement.\nDefendant argues that his post-arrest statement was admissible as substantive evidence under Rule 803(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence. He also argues that by requiring him to testify as a prerequisite to introducing his statement, the court violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.\nThis Court has held that \u201c[t]here is no right to corroboration in advance\u201d of the testimony of a witness. State v. Hinson, 310 N.C. 245, 256, 311 S.E. 2d 256, 264, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 839, 83 L.Ed. 2d 78 (1984). Even if defendant had that right, he has not shown prejudicial error. To show prejudicial error, defendant must show that there is a reasonable possibility that had the error not been committed, a different result would have been reached at trial. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1443(a) (1988); State v. Martin, 322 N.C. 229, 238-39, 367 S.E. 2d 618, 623-24 (1988). Defendant has not shown that a reasonable possibility exists that a different result would have been reached had he been allowed to introduce his statement before taking the stand. Further, even assuming that the court infringed upon defendant\u2019s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Autry, 321 N.C. 392, 400, 364 S.E. 2d 341, 346 (1988) (error infringing upon a defendant\u2019s constitutional rights entitles him or her to a new trial unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt). The record shows that defendant wanted to testify and intended to testify. The court did not force defendant to testify, nor did it refuse to allow him to introduce his post-arrest statement into evidence. Defendant got both his post-arrest statement and his testimony before the jury. He has not shown how a different order of presentation, or the admission of his statement as substantive rather than corroborative evidence, would have aided his case. His contention therefore has no merit.\nFinally, defendant contends that the trial court erred in its guilt phase instructions to the jury by failing to give defendant\u2019s requested instructions on malice, intent to kill, and premeditation and deliberation. The trial court instead gave the pattern jury instructions on these elements of first degree murder. See N.C.P.I. Crim. 206.10 (1987). Defendant does not argue that the instructions given were erroneous, but that his requested instructions are more complete and \u201cin keeping with appellate authorities.\u201d We have held that a trial court is not required to give a requested instruction verbatim. Rather, when the request is correct in law and supported by the evidence, the court must give the instruction in substance. State v. Avery, 315 N.C. 1, 33, 337 S.E. 2d 786, 804 (1985); State v. Monk, 291 N.C. 37, 54, 229 S.E. 2d 163, 174 (1976). We have examined defendant\u2019s requested instructions and the instructions given here. Because the trial court gave defendant\u2019s requested instructions in substance, we find no error.\nFor the reasons stated, we find that defendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "WHICHARD, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by William, Farrell, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.", "Narley L. Cashwell and Cheryl M. Swart for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD FRANKLIN BALL\nNo. 250A88\n(Filed 2 March 1989)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 21.5\u2014 first degree murder \u2014 sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation\nThe State\u2019s evidence of premeditation and deliberation was sufficient to support defendant\u2019s conviction of first degree murder of his estranged wife where it tended to show that at 10:00 a.m. on the day of the shooting, defendant decided to kill his wife and himself; he wrote a letter to the wife\u2019s mother saying that he had made up his mind \u201cto be with her forever,\u201d meaning that he was going to kill his wife and himself; defendant met his wife that afternoon and was carrying a loaded semi-automatic pistol when he got into her car; he removed the gun from his pocket and told her that he was going to kill them both; some time later, the wife jumped from the car and ran into a nearby hospital, screaming that defendant had a gun and was going to shoot her; as the wife crouched behind a desk, begging him not to shoot her, defendant fired at least three shots into her back, pausing between shots; and when defendant surrendered to the police, he told them that he was the one who had shot his wife.\n2. Criminal Law 8 89.2; Constitutional Law 8 75\u2014 post-arrest statements \u2014 testimony by defendant required before admission \u2014 self-incrimination\u2014harmless error\nThe trial court in a murder case did not err in the denial of defendant\u2019s request to admit his post-arrest statements to the police prior to his testimony because there is no right to corroboration in advance of the testimony of a witness. Even if the trial court infringed upon defendant\u2019s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by requiring him to testify as a prerequisite to introducing his statement, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the record shows that defendant wanted and intended to testify; defendant got both his post-arrest statement and his testimony before the jury; and defendant has not shown how a different order of presentation, or the admission of his statement as substantive rather than corroborative evidence, would have aided his case.\n3. Homicide 8 25\u2014 first degree murder \u2014 failure to give requested instructions\u2014 pattern jury instructions sufficient\nThe trial court in a first degree murder case did not err by failing to give defendant\u2019s requested instructions on malice, intent to kill, and premeditation and deliberation where the court gave defendant\u2019s requested instructions in substance by giving the pattern jury instructions on those elements of first degree murder.\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 Stephens, J., at the 19 January 1988 Criminal Session of Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court 13 February 1989.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by William, Farrell, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.\nNarley L. Cashwell and Cheryl M. Swart for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0233-01", "first_page_order": 271, "last_page_order": 276 }