{
  "id": 2506183,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENNETH ODELL HUCKS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hucks",
  "decision_date": "1992-11-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 157A92",
  "first_page": "650",
  "last_page": "653",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "332 N.C. 650"
    }
  ],
  "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": "223 S.E.2d 311",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 N.C. 531",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571014
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/289/0531-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 S.E.2d 241",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "311 N.C. 222",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4684489
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/311/0222-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "383 S.E.2d 911",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "325 N.C. 389",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2491642
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/325/0389-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 L. Ed. 2d 232",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "402 S.E.2d 600",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 N.C. 337",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2539893
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/328/0337-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "374 S.E.2d 240",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "323 N.C. 574",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2563520
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/323/0574-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 440,
    "char_count": 6596,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.739,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.0011153170616546e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31433048799370156
    },
    "sha256": "689d08b5366ba9ebac0c20e471d4a7c1564099254889f8363d4ba8d29fd62481",
    "simhash": "1:a377bf0a9473949f",
    "word_count": 1124
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:54:56.199642+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENNETH ODELL HUCKS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MITCHELL, Justice.\nThis is the defendant\u2019s second appeal of this case. On his first appeal, this Court ordered a new trial for errors committed in the trial court. State v. Hucks, 323 N.C. 574, 374 S.E.2d 240 (1988). Thereafter, the defendant was retried in a non-capital trial upon a proper bill of indictment charging him with murder and entered a plea of not guilty. The jury found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree and the trial court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. The defendant appealed to this Court as a matter of right.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show inter alia that the victim, Earl Allen, owned and operated a jewelry store in St. Pauls, North Carolina. He left home to go to the store at approximately 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, 5 October 1985. During that day, he called his wife several times to check on her because she was recuperating from a heart attack. She last talked with him around 3:45 p.m.\nPeggy Holloman Owens entered the jewelry store on 5 October 1985 to have her watch repaired. While she was there, the defendant and another man entered the store and looked around before going back outside. As Owens left, she saw the defendant and the other man go back into the jewelry store.\nMildred Durham Couthen and Mike Hicks entered Earl Allen\u2019s jewelry store at approximately 3:45 p.m. on 5 October 1985 to pick up a watch and bracelet. They saw the defendant and another man behind the jewelry counter. The defendant said, \u201cbye, see you later,\u201d as he came out from behind the counter and left the store.\nAfter the two men left the store, Mildred Couthen realized that something was wrong and called out for Earl Allen. When he did not answer, she stepped out of the store onto the sidewalk and saw the defendant and the other man start running. One of the men was carrying a brown paper bag.\nMildred Couthen reentered the store and found Earl Allen lying on the floor behind the counter with blood on his face. She told Mike Hicks that Allen had been shot and ran next door to call an ambulance. An ambulance arrived and took Allen to a hospital, where he died. Dr. Bob Barcus Andrews, a pathologist, performed an autopsy on the body of the victim. He identified the cause of death as a gunshot wound to the victim\u2019s head.\nA search of the defendant\u2019s residence pursuant to a search warrant yielded several watches from the victim\u2019s jewelry store. When the defendant was arrested, he stated that the watch he was wearing was one of the watches that came from the robbery. Extensive additional evidence was introduced for the State. In light of the issues presented by the defendant on appeal, however, it is unnecessary to review that evidence here. The jury found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, and the trial court entered judgment sentencing him to life imprisonment.\nBy an assignment of error, the defendant contends that the medical condition of Melba Allen on the day her husband was murdered was irrelevant and immaterial to any issue arising during the trial of this case. He argues that the admission of this evidence was error tending to incense the jury against him and worked to his substantial prejudice.\nEvidence is \u201crelevant\u201d if it has \u201cany tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.\u201d N..C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 401 (1988). The evidence in the present case tending to show that the victim\u2019s wife had recently suffered a heart attack was relevant and admissible for the purpose of showing why she and the victim had communicated with each other by telephone, causing her to know that he was killed after 3:45 p.m. See State v. Roper, 328 N.C. 337, 402 S.E.2d 600, cert. denied, \u2014 U.S. \u2014, 116 L. Ed. 2d 232 (1991); State v. Whiteside, 325 N.C. 389, 383 S.E.2d 911 (1989). This assignment of error is without merit.\nBy another assignment of error, the defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to conduct a voir dire hearing to determine whether the identification of the defendant at trial by witness Linda McGee was the result of unconstitutionally suggestive pretrial identification procedures. The defendant candidly acknowledges that he failed to challenge this evidence by one of the methods provided in Article 53 of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes. His failure to do so constitutes a waiver of any right to contest the admissibility of the evidence in question on constitutional grounds. State v. Maccia, 311 N.C. 222, 316 S.E.2d 241 (1984). Accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled.\nThe defendant has brought forward other assignments of error on appeal but has not supported them with argument or authority. As a result, those assignments are deemed abandoned under Rule 28(b)(5) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. State v. Wilson, 289 N.C. 531, 223 S.E.2d 311 (1976).\nFor the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the defendant\u2019s trial was free of prejudicial error.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MITCHELL, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Jeffery P. Gray, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Donald W. Bullard for the defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENNETH ODELL HUCKS\nNo. 157A92\n(Filed 19 November 1992)\n1. Evidence and Witnesses \u00a7 84 (NCI4th)\u2014 murder victim\u2019s wife\u2014 recent heart attack \u2014 relevancy\nEvidence tending to show that a murder victim\u2019s wife had recently suffered a heart attack was relevant and admissible for the purpose of showing why she and the victim had communicated with each other by telephone, causing her to know that he was killed after 3:45 p.m. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 401.\nAm Jur 2d, Evidence \u00a7 253.\n2. Evidence and Witnesses \u00a7 621 (NCI4th)\u2014 identification testimony \u2014waiver of right to contest on constitutional grounds\nDefendant waived the right to contest the admissibility of a witness\u2019s identification of defendant at trial on the ground that it was the result of unconstitutionally suggestive pretrial identification procedures by failing to challenge this evidence by one of the methods provided in N.C.G.S. Ch. 15A, Art. 53.\nAm Jur 2d, Appeal and Error \u00a7\u00a7 601, 602; Trial \u00a7\u00a7 405, 406.\nAppeal of right pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27(a) from judgment entered by Bowen, J., on 4 December 1991, in the Superior Court, Robeson County, sentencing the defendant to life imprisonment for murder in the first degree. Submitted to the Supreme Court on 8 October 1992 without oral argument, by motion of the parties, pursuant to Rule 30(d) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Jeffery P. Gray, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nDonald W. Bullard for the defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0650-01",
  "first_page_order": 678,
  "last_page_order": 681
}