{ "id": 2491303, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DUANE LEE BROWN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Brown", "decision_date": "1989-10-05", "docket_number": "No. 612A87", "first_page": "427", "last_page": "428", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "325 N.C. 427" } ], "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": "191 S.E.2d 368", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "16 N.C. App. 174", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549478 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/16/0174-01" ] }, { "cite": "369 U.S. 506", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6169152 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "515" }, { "page": "77" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/369/0506-01" ] }, { "cite": "374 S.E.2d 240", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "242, 244" }, { "page": "245" }, { "page": "244" }, { "page": "244" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "323 N.C. 574", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2563520 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "577, 579" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/323/0574-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 258, "char_count": 3259, "ocr_confidence": 0.738, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.3729030477128624e-08, "percentile": 0.3368792929626399 }, "sha256": "9d6a6d293d8c33beece327f7550fda7f8babb11d50fee0b1097835eb7469fd89", "simhash": "1:4a29015665218dca", "word_count": 539 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:51:09.974518+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DUANE LEE BROWN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PER CURIAM.\nDefendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. Prior to trial, upon finding that defendant was indigent, the district court appointed Arthur Vann of the Durham County Bar to represent him. Mr. Vann was the only licensed attorney who represented defendant at trial. The record establishes, and the State does not dispute, that upon Mr. Vann\u2019s motion Judge James Beaty did not appoint \u201cassistant counsel\u201d to appear for defendant, but instead allowed a paralegal to aid Mr. Vann \u201cin legal research and filing defense motions.\u201d\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-450(bl) provides, in pertinent part: \u201cAn indigent person indicted for murder may not be tried where the State is seeking the death penalty without an assistant counsel being appointed in a timely manner.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-450(bl) (1986). We have noted that this statute \u201creflects a special concern for the adequacy of legal services received by indicted indigents who face the possibility of the death penalty,\u201d and have held that it is \u201cclearly mandatory.\u201d State v. Hacks, 323 N.C. 574, 577, 579, 374 S.E.2d 240, 242, 244 (1988). The failure to appoint additional counsel \u201cviolate[s] the mandate of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-450(bl) and [is] prejudicial error per se.\u201d Id. at 581, 374 S.E.2d at 245. Where this statutory mandate is violated, we do not engage in harmless error analysis. Id. at 580, 374 S.E.2d at 244.\nAssuming, without deciding, that a defendant in a capital trial may waive the right to assistant counsel, he may do so only \u201cif the waiver is made knowingly and intelligently.\u201d Id. at 580, 374 S.E.2d at 244. Further, waiver of counsel may not be presumed from a silent record. Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 515, 8 L.Ed.2d 70, 77 (1962); State v. Moses, 16 N.C. App. 174, 191 S.E.2d 368 (1972). See also N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-457 (1986) (indigent defendant may waive counsel \u201cif the Court finds of record\u201d that the defendant \u201cacted with full awareness of his rights and of the consequences of the waiver\u201d); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-603 (1988). The record here is silent as to whether defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to assistant counsel provided by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-450(bl). We thus cannot conclude that a waiver \\ occurred.\nAccordingly, defendant must be awarded a new trial.\nNew trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "PER CURIAM." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Thomas J. Ziko, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "Thomas F. Loflin III for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DUANE LEE BROWN\nNo. 612A87\n(Filed 5 October 1989)\nConstitutional Law \u00a7 40 (NCI3d)\u2014 capital case \u2014 indigent defendant-failure to appoint assistant counsel\nThe trial court committed prejudicial error in failing to appoint assistant counsel to represent an indigent defendant in a capital trial instead of merely allowing a paralegal to aid defendant\u2019s appointed attorney \u201cin legal research and filing defense motions.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-450(bl).\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 976, 977.\nAPPEAL of right by defendant from a judgment entered by Allen, J., at the 19 October 1987 Criminal Session of Superior Court, DURHAM County, sentencing him to death upon his conviction for the offense of first degree murder. Decided in the Supreme Court upon the record and briefs, without oral argument, pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 30(f).\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Thomas J. Ziko, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nThomas F. Loflin III for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0427-01", "first_page_order": 453, "last_page_order": 454 }