{
  "id": 2531222,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROLAND DOUGLAS SMITH",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1994-01-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 247A92",
  "first_page": "539",
  "last_page": "543",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "335 N.C. 539"
    }
  ],
  "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": "392 S.E.2d 362",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 N.C. 792",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        5309049
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/326/0792-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 ALR4th 602",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 S.E.2d 250",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "311 N.C. 734",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4683093
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/311/0734-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 S.E.2d 628",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 N.C. 311",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572735
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/294/0311-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 S.E.2d 553",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "554"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 N.C. 286",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560962
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/290/0286-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 429,
    "char_count": 9362,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.759,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.246195549489026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2690925223825791
    },
    "sha256": "1dd2d5b69170d0d5103da8dda957b775b42d626d40631afc50980488699fb8fd",
    "simhash": "1:d769766bf24a8fe9",
    "word_count": 1596
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:54:49.870550+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROLAND DOUGLAS SMITH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WEBB, Justice.\nThe defendant first assigns error to the court\u2019s refusal to let his attorney make certain arguments to the jury. We believe this assignment of error has merit. The following occurred during the closing argument by the defendant\u2019s attorney:\nWhat does it mean to sit in this man\u2019s chair right here and be innocent? You didn\u2019t do it. Take the next step. What does it mean to spend the rest of your life in a cage?\nMR. DELLINGER: Objection.\nThe COURT: Sustained. Ladies and gentlemen, I would instruct you at this point that, in the event the defendant is convicted of murder in the first degree, the Court will conduct a separate sentencing proceeding to determine punishment. And it will be conducted as soon as possible following any return of a verdict.\nIf that time comes you will receive separate sentencing instructions. However, at this time, your only concern is to determine whether defendant is guilty of the crime charged, or not guilty. You may proceed.\nMr. LYLES: What does it mean to be punished for something you didn\u2019t do? What does it mean to go to jail for life for something you didn\u2019t do? What does it mean to go to the gas chamber\u2014\nMR. DELLINGER: Objection.\nMr. Lyles- \u2014for something you didn\u2019t do.\nTHE COURT: Sustained. Mr. Lyles, you will not pursue that line of argument.\nHow do you choose between two \u2014 two competing theories or explanations of the evidence? You don\u2019t. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means the State must exclude every reasonable explanation of the evidence except that Mr. Smith is guilty. Before you\u2019re allowed to go back to the jury room and decide whether he goes to jail for life or whether he goes to the gas chamber, before you go back to decide that, you have to decide that there\u2019s only one reasonable explanation for the evidence.\nMR. DELLINGER: Objection.\nTHE COURT: Sustained. Mr. Lyles, you will not argue punishment in this part of the proceeding. .\nLadies and gentlemen, you will not consider any arguments regarding punishment. You will only reach that stage if you return a verdict of guilty of first degree murder.\nMr. LYLES: In order to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, you must \u2014 you must exclude every reasonable explanation except that he is guilty.\nNow, ladies and gentlemen, I contend that you cannot\u2014 you cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that when Sheila Young says that Gary Rudisill told her he killed R. C. Johnson, you cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt \u2014 you cannot exclude the possibility that that is the truth.\nMr. DELLINGER: Objection.\nThe COURT: Sustained. Members of the jury, I will instruct you on the law.\nIt is a reasonable conclusion from this evidence, ladies and gentlemen, as long as you live you cannot ignore the facts and you cannot exclude the possibility that Roland Smith is wholly and 100% innocent\u2014\nMR. DELLINGER: Objection.\nThe COURT: Sustained. Ladies and gentlemen, I will instruct you on the law in this case.\nIt is apparent from the above that at certain places in the closing argument of the defendant\u2019s counsel, the court refused to let him argue to the jury the severity of the sentence for a conviction of first degree murder and to argue that the defendant was not guilty. A defendant\u2019s attorney in a jury trial may argue \u201cthe whole case as well of law as of fact[.]\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 84-14 (1985). He may also \u201con the basis of his analysis of the evidence, argue any position or conclusion with respect to a matter in issue.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1230(a) (1988). N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-176.5 provides that in a capital case \u201ceither party in its argument to the jury may indicate the consequences of a verdict of guilty[.]\u201d\nIt was error not to allow the defendant\u2019s attorney to argue these two parts of the case. The State contends it was not error to deny the defendant\u2019s attorney the right to argue the punishment that would result from a conviction, because the jury had been informed of the punishment by the court during jury selection and by the defendant\u2019s attorney in other parts of his argument. The State says the argument \u201cwas clearly an attempt by the defense to suggest to the jury that they should return a verdict of not guilty because the potential punishment was so severe.\u201d In State v. McMorris, 290 N.C. 286, 225 S.E.2d 553 (1976), we said that a defendant\u2019s attorney should not be permitted to argue that a defendant should be acquitted because of the severity of the punishment or to question the appropriateness of the punishment. We said it is proper for a defendant\u2019s attorney to advise the jury of the possible consequences following conviction \u201cto encourage the jury to give the matter its close attention and to decide it only after due and careful consideration.\u201d Id. at 288, 225 S.E.2d at 554. We believe the argument of the defendant\u2019s counsel is in the latter category. It does not question the appropriateness of the punishment or suggest that the defendant should be acquitted because of the severity of the punishment. It does encourage the jury to give careful consideration to the case because of the severity of the punishment. It was error not to let the defendant\u2019s attorney make the argument. See State v. Walters, 294 N.C. 311, 240 S.E.2d 628 (1978).\nThe State argues that the objection to the argument that a witness should be believed was sustained because the attorney was personally vouching for the credibility of the witness contrary to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1230(a). See also State v. Riddle, 311 N.C. 734, 319 S.E.2d 250 (1984). The State does not say why the defendant\u2019s attorney was vouching for the witness and we cannot see how he did so. The State also contends that the court did not err in sustaining the objections to this portion of the argument because the defendant\u2019s counsel misstated the law. Again, the State does not say how the attorney misstated the law and we do not see how he did so.\nThe State argues that if there was error in preventing the defendant\u2019s attorney from arguing these matters, the error was harmless because of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant\u2019s guilt. State v. Walters, 294 N.C. 311, 240 S.E.2d 628. We cannot hold that not allowing the defendant\u2019s attorney to argue that the defendant was not guilty in combination with the refusal to allow him to argue the severity of the punishment was harmless.\nWe do not discuss the defendant\u2019s other assignments of error, as the questions they raise may not recur at a new trial.\nNEW TRIAL.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WEBB, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by John H. Watters, Special Deputy 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. ROLAND DOUGLAS SMITH\nNo. 247A92\n(Filed 28 January 1994)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 454 (NCI4th)\u2014 murder \u2014 closing argument\u2014 severity of sentence \u2014 argument not allowed \u2014 error\nThe trial court erred in a murder prosecution by not allowing defendant\u2019s attorney to argue to the jury the severity of the sentence where the argument did not question the appropriateness of the punishment or suggest that the defendant should be acquitted because of the severity of the punishment, but did encourage the jury to give careful consideration to the case. Although the State argued that any error was harmless because of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, the Supreme Court could not hold that this error, combined with not allowing defendant\u2019s attorney to argue the defendant was not guilty, was harmless.\nAm Jur 2d, Trial \u00a7 229.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 444 (NCI4th)\u2014 murder \u2014 closing argument by defendant \u2014objections erroneously sustained\nThe trial court erred in a murder prosecution by sustaining the State\u2019s objections to portions of defense counsel\u2019s argument in which the State contended that the attorney was personally vouching for the credibility of a witness and misstating the law. The State did not say why the defense attorney was vouching for the witness or how he was misstating the law and the Supreme Court could not see how he did so. Although the State argued that any error was harmless because of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, the Supreme Court could not hold that this error, combined with not allowing the defense attorney to argue the severity of the sentence, was harmless.\nAm Jur 2d, Trial \u00a7\u00a7 225 et seq.\nPropriety and prejudicial effect of comments by counsel vouching for credibility of witnesses \u2014 state cases. 45 ALR4th 602.\nAppeal as of right pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27(a) from a judgment imposing a sentence of death entered by Fulton, J., at the 1 June 1992 Criminal Session of Superior Court, Burke County. The defendant\u2019s motion to bypass the Court of Appeals as to an additional conviction as a habitual felon was allowed 28 September 1993. Heard in the Supreme Court 13 October 1993.\nThe defendant has previously been convicted of first degree murder in this case and has received the death penalty. He was granted a new trial. State v. Smith, 326 N.C. 792, 392 S.E.2d 362 (1990). The defendant was retried and found guilty of first degree murder, felonious breaking or entering, and being an habitual felon. The jury recommended the death penalty. The court arrested judgment on the charge of breaking or entering, sentenced the defendant to death on the murder charge, and sentenced him to life in prison for being an habitual felon. The defendant appealed.\nMichael F. Easley, Attorney General, by John H. Watters, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.\nMalcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, by Staples Hughes, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0539-01",
  "first_page_order": 573,
  "last_page_order": 577
}