{ "id": 2484315, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLIE THOMAS RIVERS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Rivers", "decision_date": "1989-06-27", "docket_number": "No. 562A88", "first_page": "573", "last_page": "576", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "324 N.C. 573" } ], "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": "124 S.E. 2d 108", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "256 N.C. 464", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573283 ], "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/256/0464-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 L.Ed. 2d 1210", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "428 U.S. 904", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6184738, 6185094, 6184392, 6185357, 6183598, 6183984, 6185553, 6184594, 6184179, 6183446, 6184922, 6183803 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/428/0904-08", "/us/428/0904-10", "/us/428/0904-06", "/us/428/0904-11", "/us/428/0904-02", "/us/428/0904-04", "/us/428/0904-12", "/us/428/0904-07", "/us/428/0904-05", "/us/428/0904-01", "/us/428/0904-09", "/us/428/0904-03" ] }, { "cite": "220 S.E. 2d 293", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "298" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "289 N.C. 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566449 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "25" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/289/0019-01" ] }, { "cite": "301 S.E. 2d 71", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "76", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Waddell, 289 N.C. 19, 25, 220 S.E. 2d 293, 298 (1975), death sentence vacated, 428 U.S. 904, 49 L.Ed. 2d 1210 (1976) (citations omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 169", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4710824 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "177", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Waddell, 289 N.C. 19, 25, 220 S.E. 2d 293, 298 (1975), death sentence vacated, 428 U.S. 904, 49 L.Ed. 2d 1210 (1976) (citations omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0169-01" ] }, { "cite": "376 S.E. 2d 430", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "438" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2485742 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "12" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "341 S.E. 2d 332", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "316 N.C. 306", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4695105 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/316/0306-01" ] }, { "cite": "368 S.E. 2d 613", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "322 N.C. 375", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2514980 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/322/0375-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 453, "char_count": 6931, "ocr_confidence": 0.806, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.759893364800935e-08, "percentile": 0.45598372723660724 }, "sha256": "6f89bda033b5fd1894b5a70819504582ccb86f4c3043a0e419349f4b2b4cbcc6", "simhash": "1:a31f333a43ff85f9", "word_count": 1200 }, "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. CHARLIE THOMAS RIVERS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MITCHELL, Justice.\nThe defendant was tried in a noncapital trial upon a proper indictment charging him with murder. The jury found the defendant guilty of first degree murder, and the trial court entered judgment sentencing him to imprisonment for life.\nOn appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court committed plain error requiring a new trial by failing to strike ex mero motu an answer given by a witness, during cross-examination by the defendant, tending to show that the defendant had made a threat to kill the victim sometime prior to the actual killing in this case. We do not agree.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that the victim Lee Mabe was shooting pool in a business called \u201cPedro\u2019s\u201d in Alamance County shortly before midnight on 23 December 1987. Lisa Mule who had lived with the victim for approximately one year was present. Mike Rivers, the defendant\u2019s adult son, was also present, as were others.\nSometime after 11:30 p.m., the defendant walked up to Lee Mabe and pointed a pistol at his head. Mabe retreated while asking the defendant to \u201ccalm down\u201d and saying, \u201cBo, what are you doing?\u201d The defendant then held the pistol close to Mabe\u2019s chest and shot him once in the heart causing his death.\nEvidence for the defendant tended to show that in April of 1987 he had become aware that his son had a cocaine problem, when his son was hospitalized for hepatitis. The defendant had sought to have his son treated for drug addiction. On one occasion, the defendant caused his son to be picked up by law enforcement officers and placed in a treatment program.\nOn the night of 23 December 1987, the defendant went into Pedro\u2019s because he saw his son\u2019s car parked outside. After entering Pedro\u2019s at approximately 9:15 p.m., the defendant had approximately three beers. During the evening, the defendant saw his son and the victim Lee Mabe go into the bathroom. When they returned, the defendant saw Lee Mabe hand the defendant\u2019s son a packet containing a white substance. The defendant believed it to be cocaine. The defendant testified that at that time, \u201cI knowed he had done sold him them drugs and that he was going to go off and do them, you know, and I just went all to pieces, lost my mind, you see. . . The defendant testified that he did not remember whether he had ever intended to reach for a weapon, nor did he recall saying anything to anyone. The defendant testified that he did not form a plan to kill anyone and expressed regret for what had happened.\nThe defendant assigns as error the trial court\u2019s failure to exclude ex mero motu testimony of a witness introduced during cross-examination by the defendant, which the defendant contends was impermissible hearsay. The testimony in question occurred during the defendant\u2019s cross-examination of Lisa Mule concerning a telephone conversation between the defendant and the victim before the night the victim was killed. During cross-examination for the defendant, the following exchange occurred:\nQ. A short time later there was a telephone call and it was Charlie Rivers, wasn\u2019t it?\nA. Correct.\nQ. He talked to Lee Mabe, not to you, isn\u2019t that correct?\nA. Correct.\nQ. You know that he begged him not to provide cocaine to Mike, didn\u2019t you?\nA. Yes. In fact, he said he would kill him if he knew Mike was over there doing drugs, that he would kill Lee.\nQ. Is that what he said to you?\nA. No, that\u2019s what Lee told me that he said to him, but Lee didn\u2019t worry about it because he wasn\u2019t selling drugs to him.\nQ. So you don\u2019t know what \u2014 in the conversation what all was said, do you?\nA. No, not for sure, I wasn\u2019t on the phone.\n(emphasis added).\nThe defendant, relying upon cases such as State v. Loftin, 322 N.C. 375, 368 S.E. 2d 613 (1988) and State v. Odom, 316 N.C. 306, 341 S.E. 2d 332 (1986), contends that the admission of this testimony constituted plain error entitling him to a new trial. We find it unnecessary, however, to engage in plain error analysis on the facts of the present case.\nIt appears that, during cross-examination of the witness, counsel for the defendant was attempting to show that the defendant had begged the victim not to sell any more drugs to the defendant\u2019s son. It further appears that this was part of an understandable trial strategy to arouse sympathy for the defendant with the jury by showing through various witnesses the extreme efforts the defendant had made to prevent the victim and others from selling drugs to his son. It is clear, in any event, that the testimony of which the defendant now complains was elicited by counsel for the defendant during his cross-examination of the witness and that he did not object to the testimony in any way or move to have it stricken at trial. \u201cAny error thus was invited and defendant cannot complain of such error on appeal. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1443(c) (1988).\u201d State v. Greene, 324 N.C. 1, 12, 376 S.E. 2d 430, 438 (1988). \u201c \u2018Defendant cannot invalidate a trial by . . . eliciting evidence on cross-examination which he might have rightfully excluded if the same evidence had been offered by the State. . . . Neither is invited error ground for a new trial.\u2019 \u201d State v. Chatman, 308 N.C. 169, 177, 301 S.E. 2d 71, 76 (1983) (quoting State v. Waddell, 289 N.C. 19, 25, 220 S.E. 2d 293, 298 (1975), death sentence vacated, 428 U.S. 904, 49 L.Ed. 2d 1210 (1976) (citations omitted)). See also State v. Burton, 256 N.C. 464, 124 S.E. 2d 108 (1962) (per curiam). The defendant\u2019s assignment of error is without merit and is overruled.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "MITCHELL, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Dennis P. Myers, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, by M. Patricia Devine, Assistant Appellate Defender, for the defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLIE THOMAS RIVERS\nNo. 562A88\n(Filed 27 June 1989)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 173\u2014 murder \u2014 threats by defendant \u2014 invited error\nThe trial court did not err in a prosecution for first degree murder by failing to strike ex mero motu an answer given by a witness during cross-examination by defendant tending to show that defendant threatened to kill the victim prior to the actual killing where counsel for the defendant was attempting to show that the defendant had begged the victim not to sell anymore drugs to the defendant\u2019s son. It is clear that the testimony of which defendant now complains was elicited by defense counsel during cross-examination and that he did not object to the testimony in any way or move to have it stricken at trial; any error was invited and defendant cannot complain of such error on appeal. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1443(c) (1988).\nAm Jur 2d, Homicide \u00a7\u00a7 316, 440, 536; Witnesses \u00a7\u00a7 471, 492.\nAPPEAL of right pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27 from judgment entered by Stephens, J., in the Superior Court, Alamance County, on 7 July 1988, sentencing the defendant to life imprisonment for murder in the first degree. Heard in the Supreme Court on 10 May 1989.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Dennis P. Myers, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nMalcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, by M. Patricia Devine, Assistant Appellate Defender, for the defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0573-01", "first_page_order": 611, "last_page_order": 614 }