{ "id": 2521132, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDOLPH WILSON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wilson", "decision_date": "1994-11-03", "docket_number": "No. 282A93", "first_page": "244", "last_page": "261", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "338 N.C. 244" } ], "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": "40 L. Ed. 2d 886", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "88 ALR4th 8", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "329 N.C. 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2554884 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/329/0239-01" ] }, { "cite": "314 N.C. 460", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4685694 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/314/0460-01" ] }, { "cite": "354 S.E.2d 446", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "452" }, { "page": "452" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "319 N.C. 228", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4742893 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/319/0228-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 L. Ed. 2d 268", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "496 U.S. 905", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12130850, 12131043, 12131491, 12132165, 12132518, 12130508, 12131821, 12131342, 12131183, 12131987, 12132344, 12130682, 12131645 ], "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/496/0905-03", "/us/496/0905-04", "/us/496/0905-07", "/us/496/0905-11", "/us/496/0905-13", "/us/496/0905-01", "/us/496/0905-09", "/us/496/0905-06", "/us/496/0905-05", "/us/496/0905-10", "/us/496/0905-12", "/us/496/0905-02", "/us/496/0905-08" ] }, { "cite": "386 S.E.2d 418", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "325 N.C. 607", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2487602 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/325/0607-01" ] }, { "cite": "396 S.E.2d 309", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "327 N.C. 439", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2494725 ], "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/327/0439-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 L. Ed. 2d 704", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "410 U.S. 968", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11995906, 11996675, 11996741, 11996551, 11996072, 11996392, 11996315, 11996175, 11996017, 11996242, 11996471, 11996120, 11995963 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/410/0968-01", "/us/410/0968-12", "/us/410/0968-13", "/us/410/0968-11", "/us/410/0968-04", "/us/410/0968-09", "/us/410/0968-08", "/us/410/0968-06", "/us/410/0968-03", "/us/410/0968-07", "/us/410/0968-10", "/us/410/0968-05", "/us/410/0968-02" ] }, { "cite": "191 S.E.2d 598", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 147", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562998 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0147-01" ] }, { "cite": "337 S.E.2d 497", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "501" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 N.C. 249", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4715737 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/315/0249-01" ] }, { "cite": "307 S.E.2d 156", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "309 N.C. 421", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4766681 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/309/0421-01" ] }, { "cite": "364 S.E.2d 410", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 520", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2566165 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0520-01" ] }, { "cite": "314 S.E.2d 300", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "68 N.C. App. 305", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527138 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/68/0305-01" ] }, { "cite": "316 S.E.2d 64", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 291", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4684945 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0291-01" ] }, { "cite": "357 S.E.2d 615", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "320 N.C. 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4725450 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/320/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "404 S.E.2d 668", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "670" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "102 L. Ed. 2d 235", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "488 U.S. 900", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1494036 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/488/0900-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 S.E.2d 833", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "842" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "291 N.C. 480", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558733 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "494" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/291/0480-01" ] }, { "cite": "365 S.E.2d 587", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "595" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 594", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2567442 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "607" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0594-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E.2d 93", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "97" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 665", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573255 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "672" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0665-01" ] }, { "cite": "407 S.E.2d 805", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "813", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Self, 280 N.C. 665, 672, 187 S.E.2d 93, 97 (1972)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "329 N.C. 709", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2556521 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "722", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Self, 280 N.C. 665, 672, 187 S.E.2d 93, 97 (1972)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/329/0709-01" ] }, { "cite": "428 S.E.2d 150", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "155" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "333 N.C. 501", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2548206 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/333/0501-01" ] }, { "cite": "214 S.E.2d 433", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "287 N.C. 261", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562016, 8561954, 8561926, 8561903, 8561981 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/287/0261-05", "/nc/287/0261-03", "/nc/287/0261-02", "/nc/287/0261-01", "/nc/287/0261-04" ] }, { "cite": "212 S.E.2d 208", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "24 N.C. App. 717", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554633 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/24/0717-01" ] }, { "cite": "272 S.E.2d 128", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 N.C. 407", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567847 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/301/0407-01" ] }, { "cite": "373 S.E.2d 874", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "323 N.C. 479", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2561346, 2562408, 2565201, 2562581, 2561461 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/323/0479-05", "/nc/323/0479-03", "/nc/323/0479-02", "/nc/323/0479-04", "/nc/323/0479-01" ] }, { "cite": "371 S.E.2d 711", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "91 N.C. App. 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525059 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/91/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "696 S.E.2d 649", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 3635674 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga/287/0445-01" ] }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 62", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560587 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0062-01" ] }, { "cite": "386 S.E.2d 187", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "325 N.C. 693", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2488940 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/325/0693-01" ] }, { "cite": "356 S.E.2d 340", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "319 N.C. 620", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4747769 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/319/0620-01" ] }, { "cite": "273 S.E.2d 716", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "302 N.C. 137", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564083 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/302/0137-01" ] }, { "cite": "329 N.C. 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2554884 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/329/0239-01" ] }, { "cite": "326 S.E.2d 873", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "880" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "313 N.C. 132", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4722198 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/313/0132-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 S.E.2d 574", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561289 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "307 S.E.2d 304", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "309 N.C. 326", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4760257 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/309/0326-01" ] }, { "cite": "392 S.E.2d 609", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "618" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 662", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5306539 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "676" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0662-01" ] }, { "cite": "334 S.E.2d 741", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1191, "char_count": 40480, "ocr_confidence": 0.728, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.0398781926905053e-07, "percentile": 0.8551890477012366 }, "sha256": "d2712c40f907b76d7feb49d1c0ed0483d13a791ba892b7f4a8bb0989c557ee58", "simhash": "1:8f6f457b043b9470", "word_count": 6745 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:54:51.848235+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDOLPH WILSON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MEYER, Justice.\nDefendant was charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and first-degree burglary. He was tried noncapitally at the 4 January 1992 Criminal Session of Superior Court, Warren County, and was found guilty as charged. The trial court found aggravating and mitigating factors and sentenced defendant to two consecutive life sentences for the murder and burglary convictions plus thirty years for the conspiracy conviction. On appeal, defendant raises seven assignments of error. For the reasons discussed herein, we find no error in defendant\u2019s conviction and sentence for first-degree murder but remand for resentencing on defendant\u2019s conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree burglary convictions.\nThis case surrounds the conspiratorial murder of Calvin Hargrove. Implicated in the murder were defendant, Jeremiah Royster, Shannon Norris, Hashim O\u2019Neal, Rofae Davis, and Lamont Alston. On 27 May 1991, Royster engaged in a crack cocaine transaction with his cousin, Calvin Hargrove. An argument ensued over the cocaine. Later that day, Royster approached Hargrove with a gun and threatened to kill him. Hargrove reported this to his mother, his brother, and his girlfriend (Debra). Hargrove decided to take out a warrant for the arrest of Royster, and he spoke with Deputy Davis of the Warren County Sheriff\u2019s Department at 10:30 p.m. After being told that he would have to go to the magistrate\u2019s office, which closed at 11:00 p.m., Hargrove decided to wait until the next day. When the police arrived at Royster\u2019s house, he flushed the cocaine down a toilet.\nSome of Royster\u2019s friends (Davis and O\u2019Neal and two others) noticed the police cars at Royster\u2019s house. They went to defendant\u2019s trailer and, with defendant and Alston, went back to Royster\u2019s house to investigate the matter. Royster told them that Hargrove had \u201ccalled the police on him.\u201d According to Davis and Alston, defendant asked Royster what he wanted to do about it, and Royster said, \u201cI want to kill him because he violated.\u201d Alston stated that defendant asked Royster if that was really what he wanted, and Royster said yes. O\u2019Neal testified for the defendant that it was Norris who asked Royster what he wanted done. According to Davis\u2019 statement to an officer, defendant acted as though he did not want to kill Hargrove, but Royster told him it had to be done to prevent others from \u201cmessing with\u201d them. There was some discussion about burning Hargrove\u2019s house down, but this idea was rejected. They returned to defendant\u2019s trailer in Norlina.\nDavis testified that at defendant\u2019s trailer, defendant handed O\u2019Neal a sawed-off shotgun and told him to \u201cgo do that.\u201d Further, defendant ordered Davis to go with O\u2019Neal, and O\u2019Neal handed Davis a shotgun shell. When Davis indicated that he did not want to kill Hargrove, defendant threatened that if he refused he would end up dead like Hargrove. Defendant then handed Davis a .22 pistol. O\u2019Neal testified that after they returned to the trailer, defendant smoked \u201creefer\u201d and drank beer until he passed out. It was then that Davis, O\u2019Neal, and Norris discussed the situation further. Norris got a shotgun, gave it to O\u2019Neal, and told O\u2019Neal and Davis to kill Hargrove. According to Norris, O\u2019Neal and Davis left and then returned. They said they were going to \u201ccatch a body.\u201d O\u2019Neal and Davis then left again. According to Davis, they went to Royster\u2019s house, where Royster got his ,9-mm gun and headed for Hargrove\u2019s.\nO\u2019Neal, Davis, and Royster went through a window of Hargrove\u2019s home, and either O\u2019Neal or Davis shot Hargrove, who died of a shotgun wound to the head. Davis testified that O\u2019Neal shot him, and O\u2019Neal testified that Davis shot him. They then returned to defendant\u2019s trailer. Norris, who was still at the trailer, testified that Davis and O\u2019Neal said they had killed someone.\nNorris testified that O\u2019Neal walked outside to get rid of the shotgun. Defendant asked if \u201cthey\u201d wanted to go to a hotel that night and they went. Davis testified that defendant told everyone to pack their clothes and hide the shotgun. Davis, at defendant\u2019s request, took defendant and O\u2019Neal to various bus stations. Defendant told Davis to throw the shell out of the window and he did so. Davis dropped O\u2019Neal and defendant off and returned to Warrenton. According to O\u2019Neal, Norris suggested that they go to the motel. O\u2019Neal testified that he and defendant went to New York afterward. Davis testified that O\u2019Neal and defendant called from New York a couple of days later to find out what happened. The shell was later found, and the shotgun was found behind defendant\u2019s trailer.\nI.\nIn his first assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in prohibiting defendant from introducing evidence regarding his presence in Warren County. Defendant contends that he was thereby deprived of his right to confront the witnesses against him and present a defense, in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 19 and 23 of the North Carolina Constitution.\nOne of the State\u2019s theories was that defendant came down from New York to orchestrate a drug ring in North Carolina. The State sought to show that defendant was the ringleader of the drug operation and thus was responsible for the shooting of Calvin Hargrove. Defendant complains that during the cross-examination of Shannon Norris, a witness for the State, he was not allowed to elicit testimony that defendant had relatives in Warren County. Defendant sought to present the jury with a legitimate reason for his relocating to North Carolina other than to start a drug business. After the State objected to the testimony, the trial judge excused the jury and allowed defendant to perform a voir dire of the witness. Norris\u2019 testimony as brought out by defense counsel was as follows:\nQ. The question is, do you know for a fact that this defendant had relatives in Warren County? Question one.\nA. Yes.\nQ. And do you know that he has \u2014 from the time that you\u2019ve known him do you know for a fact that he had come to Warren County to visit his relatives?\nA. I can\u2019t really say because I was locked up in New York. When I came out of jail up there, that\u2019s when I first came down here, but I heard, you know, that he had came down here to visit his people down here before.\nQ. Heard he had what?\nA. Had came down here to visit his family.\nThe trial judge sustained the State\u2019s objection without further argument by counsel or comment.\nThe trial court erred in excluding Norris\u2019 response to defense counsel\u2019s question, \u201cdo you know for a fact that this defendant had relatives in Warren County?\u201d Norris\u2019 testimony in response to this question was based on his personal knowledge and thus was competent under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 602. Further, the testimony, albeit weak, was relevant to establish that defendant had a motive other than selling drugs in moving to Warren County. \u201c \u2018Relevant evidence\u2019 means evidence having any 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 (1992). Since the State\u2019s theory of the case was that defendant had moved to Warren County to act as the leader of a drug ring, and as such had ordered a \u201chit\u201d on the victim, evidence demonstrating that defendant may have had alternative motivations in moving to Warren County was relevant. The testimony may have had the tendency to make the State\u2019s theory less plausible than it would have been without the testimony.\nHowever, the trial court did not err in excluding Norris\u2019 further testimony that \u201che had heard . . . that [defendant] had . . . c[o]me down here [to. Warren County] to visit his family.\u201d Norris lacked personal knowledge and thus was incompetent to respond to defense counsel\u2019s question, \u201cdo you know for a fact that [defendant] had come to Warren County to visit his relatives?\u201d Further, the basis of Norris\u2019 information was clearly hearsay. The testimony was being offered to establish the truth of the matter asserted \u2014 that defendant had visited his family in Warren County before. The statement does not fit within any exception to the general rule that hearsay is not admissible. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 802 (1992).\nThe question thus becomes whether the trial court\u2019s error as to defense counsel\u2019s first question was harmless error. The error involved a ruling on the evidence and does not implicate a right arising under the federal or state Constitution. Therefore, the test is whether there is a reasonable possibility that had the error not occurred, a different result would have been reached at trial. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1443(a) (1993); State v. Milby, 302 N.C. 137, 273 S.E.2d 716 (1981). Applying this test, we find that the error is harmless. Two of the State\u2019s witnesses, Shannon Norris and Lamont Alston, testified that defendant had come down from New York to sell drugs. The only evidence improperly excluded by the trial court whs the testimony that Norris knew that defendant had family in North Carolina. Even if the jury believed that defendant had family here, it would not directly rebut the State\u2019s evidence since it only leads to the possibility that defendant had a mixed motive in coming to North Carolina. It does not negate in any way the State\u2019s evidence.\nTherefore, we conclude that had the evidence been admitted, there is no reasonable possibility that a different result would have been reached at trial. This assignment of error is overruled.\nII.\nIn his second assignment of error, defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to persuade a rational trier of fact that the defendant was guilty of first-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The State\u2019s theory was that the defendant was an accessory before the fact. To be an accessory before the fact, the defendant must have: (1) counseled, procured, commanded, encouraged, or aided the principal to murder the victim; (2) the principal must have murdered the victim; and (3) defendant must not have been present when the murder was committed. State v. Davis, 319 N.C. 620, 356 S.E.2d 340 (1987).\nThe State\u2019s evidence in this case that best supports the theory of accessory before the fact is the testimony of Rofae Davis. Davis testified that after the argument Royster had with Hargrove, who had called the police, defendant asked Royster what he wanted to do about it. Royster said that he wanted to kill Hargrove. Davis testified that later, at the trailer in Norlina, defendant handed O\u2019Neal a sawed-off shotgun and told him to \u201cgo do that.\u201d Further, defendant ordered Davis to go with O\u2019Neal and threatened that if he refused he would end up dead like Hargrove.\nDefendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to show that he was an accessory before the fact. He argues that the actions of Davis, Royster, and O\u2019Neal were independent of anything defendant said or did. Calvin Hargrove would have been murdered without any involvement by the defendant. Defendant further argues that even though Davis testified that he (Davis) was forced by defendant to go to Hargrove\u2019s, Davis said he did not shoot Hargrove. Defendant argues that the gun was not his and that he did not organize or plan the killing. Moreover, his statement \u201cgo do that\u201d is ambiguous.\nWhen ruling on defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss, the trial court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Davis, 325 N.C. 693, 386 S.E.2d 187 (1989). The State is entitled to every reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence presented. Id. Evidence favorable to the State is to be considered as a whole, and the test of sufficiency to withstand the motion to dismiss is the same whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or both. State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62, 696 S.E.2d 649 (1982). In viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find that it was sufficient to persuade a rational trier of fact that the defendant was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt as an accessory before the fact.\nDefendant also contends that all of the people who perpetrated the killing pled guilty to second-degree murder, so it is as though they were acquitted of first-degree murder. Therefore, defendant\u2019s conviction of murder based on an accessory before the fact cannot stand since his cohorts were effectively acquitted.\nThe State concedes that a person may not be convicted of an offense such as accessory before the fact if all of the principals in the first-degree murder are acquitted. State v. Robey, 91 N.C. App. 198, 371 S.E.2d 711, disc. rev. denied & appeal dismissed, 323 N.C. 479, 373 S.E.2d 874 (1988). The primary difference between an accessory before the fact and a principal is that the former was not present at the scene of the crime when it was committed. State v. Small, 301 N.C. 407, 272 S.E.2d 128 (1980). Therefore, if the only principal is \u201cacquitted\u201d of first-degree murder but is found guilty of second-degree murder, the most an accessory before the fact could be convicted of is second-degree murder.\nIn this case, the principals plea bargained for second-degree murder. The State maintains and we agree that a plea bargain is not the same as an acquittal. In State v. Cassell, 24 N.C. App. 717, 212 S.E.2d 208, cert. denied & appeal dismissed, 287 N.C. 261, 214 S.E.2d 433 (1975), the Court of Appeals determined that the defendant could properly be tried for second-degree murder as an aider and abettor even though the State had previously allowed the actual perpetrator to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter. Because the principals here were not acquitted of first-degree murder, we find that this defendant can be found guilty of first-degree murder. Accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled.\nIH.\nIn his third assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury as to flight. The trial court gave the following pattern jury instruction on flight:\nIn this case, the State contends that the defendant fled. Evidence of flight may be considered by you, together with all of the facts and circumstances in this case, in determining whether the combined circumstances amount to an admission or show consciousness of guilt.\nHowever, proof of this circumstance is not sufficient in itself to establish the defendant\u2019s guilt. Further this circumstance has no bearing on the question of whether the defendant acted with premeditation or deliberation. Therefore, it must not be considered by you as evidence of premeditation and deliberation.\nDefendant argues that it is improper to give such an instruction because it tends to emphasize that particular evidence to the exclusion of other evidence, presents an implication that the trial court has an opinion about the evidence of flight, and lessens the State\u2019s burden of proving each essential element beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant further argues that the instruction is confusing because the jury was not instructed as to which offense the evidence of flight should apply.\nDefendant concedes that this issue was recently raised and decided by this Court in State v. Jeffries, 333 N.C. 501, 428 S.E.2d 150. In Jeffries, we held that the flight instruction is a correct statement of the law and was appropriate to give to the jury. Id. at 511, 428 S.E.2d at 155.\nFurthermore, we believe that the evidence in this case supports a finding by the jury that the defendant was in flight. Here, the jury received testimony from Davis that as soon as the defendant heard that Calvin Hargrove had in fact been murdered, he told everyone to pack up and go to a motel. Defendant also decided that O\u2019Neal and he were going to leave town. Davis testified that the defendant ordered him to drive them to the bus station the next day, where they boarded a bus for New York. \u201c \u2018[F]light from a crime shortly after its commission is admissible as evidence of guilt.\u2019 \u201d State v. Tucker, 329 N.C. 709, 722, 407 S.E.2d 805, 813 (1991) (quoting State v. Self, 280 N.C. 665, 672, 187 S.E.2d 93, 97 (1972)). A trial court may properly instruct on flight \u201c \u2018[s]o long as there is some evidence in the record reasonably supporting the theory that defendant fled after commission of the crime charged.\u2019 \u201d State v. Green, 321 N.C. 594, 607, 365 S.E.2d 587, 595 (quoting State v. Irick, 291 N.C. 480, 494, 231 S.E.2d 833, 842 (1977)), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 900, 102 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1988). We hold that the evidence in. this case supports the instruction on flight.\nDefendant further argues that O\u2019Neal testified that it was not the defendant, but someone else, who decided that they would go to a motel. O\u2019Neal stated that defendant had to be awakened to accompany them. Thus, defendant maintains that this was evidence to rebut the State\u2019s inference of flight. We disagree. It was for the jury to decide whether these facts, together with all other facts and circumstances, supported the State\u2019s contention that defendant had fled. The trial court appropriately told the jury that evidence of flight \u201cmay\u201d be considered. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not err in giving the flight instruction.\nIV.\nIn his fourth assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding as factors in aggravation of the offenses of conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree burglary (1) that defendant induced others to participate in the commission of the offense and (2) that defendant occupied a position of leadership or dominance. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.4(a).\nDefendant first argues that the evidence did not support the finding of these factors. He relies on State v. Nobles, 329 N.C. 239, 404 S.E.2d 668 (1991), to support his argument that in order to induce others, the idea to commit a crime must \u201coriginate\u201d with the defendant. Defendant argues that there is insufficient evidence in this case to show that the idea to kill Hargrove originated with the defendant and that he then induced others to go along with him. Although in Nobles we did find that the idea to commit the crime originated with the defendant, that case does not stand for the proposition that the idea must originate with the defendant. Id. at 242, 404 S.E.2d at 670. The State must show only that the participants would not have engaged in the activity but for the inducement by the defendant. State v. Hager, 320 N.C. 77, 357 S.E.2d 615 (1987); State v. Payne, 311 N.C. 291, 316 S.E.2d 64 (1984). To support the second aggravating factor, the State must show that the defendant was in a position of dominance or leadership. State v. Gore, 68 N.C. App. 305, 314 S.E.2d 300 (1984). These findings in aggravation must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Canty, 321 N.C. 520, 364 S.E.2d 410 (1988).\nThere is sufficient evidence in this case to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant induced the others to participate in the commission of the offense and that the defendant occupied a position of leadership or dominance. Davis testified that the defendant handed O\u2019Neal the shotgun with the order for O\u2019Neal to kill Hargrove. Davis also stated that the defendant ordered him to accompany O\u2019Neal or be killed himself. In addition, Davis, Alston, and Norris all described the defendant as the leader of the group.\nNext, defendant argues that the same evidence used to convict him was used to support the aggravating factors that he induced others to participate in the commission of the offense and that he occupied a position of leadership or dominance. Evidence necessary to prove an element of the offense may not be used to prove any factor in aggravation. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.4(a)(1) (1993); State v. Thompson, 309 N.C. 421, 307 S.E.2d 156 (1983).\nHere, the trial court considered these aggravating factors only as to the offense of conspiracy to commit murder and the offense of first-degree burglary. In the trial judge\u2019s instructions to the jurors, he stated that they had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant \u201cknowingly advised and encouraged\u201d the other persons to commit the offenses. The State argues that knowingly advising and encouraging others to commit an offense does not require \u201cinducing\u201d as an element of proof, nor does it require that the defendant occupy a position of leadership or dominance of other participants. A person can advise and encourage an act without inducing the act. Furthermore, one can advise and encourage without being a leader or in a dominant position. We agree with the State that the same evidence used to support defendant\u2019s convictions was not necessary to prove the aggravating factors.\nV.\nIn his fifth assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding as factors in aggravation of the offenses of conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree burglary (1) that the offenses were committed to disrupt the lawful exercise of the enforcement of the laws and (2) that the offenses were committed to hinder the lawful exercise of the enforcement of the laws. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.4(a) (emphasis added). Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support these findings. He maintains that the State\u2019s theory was that Hargrove was killed in order to protect the drug ring. Defendant argues that the evidence does not show a drug ring, but rather the occasional use of drugs. Moreover, the State\u2019s evidence showed that Royster was upset with Hargrove because he had complained to the police that Royster had pointed a weapon at him and threatened his life. Davis testified that Royster said he wanted to kill Hargrove because \u201che violated,\u201d meaning he had \u201ccalled the police on him.\u201d Defendant argues that this evidence shows that the killing was motivated by revenge.\nFor this argument, defendant relies on State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 249, 337 S.E.2d 497 (1988). In Parker, defendant complained that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the aggravating factor that the murder was committed to escape the processes of the law. The State\u2019s evidence showed that the defendant participated in a robbery of the victim. After the robbery, which included stabbing the victim, the defendant went up the road to act as a look-out. The codefendants then tied the victim to a tree, and he bled to death. Further evidence tended to show that defendant participated in the murder because of ill will harbored toward the victim because the victim had accused him of other break-ins and had reported his brother to the police. Also, defendant had planned to leave town because he thought he would be arrested for failing to appear in court for fishing violations. We determined that this evidence did not support the finding that the murder was committed to escape the processes of the law. Id. at 256-57, 337 S.E.2d at 501.\nParker is not applicable here. There is sufficient evidence in this case to support the aggravating factors. Norris testified that he and the defendant were in Warren County from New York and that they made their living selling drugs. Lamont Alston testified that Jeremiah Royster was selling drugs for the defendant. Alston further testified that the argument between Hargrove and Royster was over two rocks of crack cocaine and that Hargrove had called the police. Royster was angry and wanted Hargrove dead. Davis testified that Royster said that he wanted to kill Hargrove because \u201che violated.\u201d Further, Davis told an officer that Royster told Davis he had to aid in the murder so that no one else would \u201cmess with\u201d them. We believe this evidence is sufficient to lead to the inference that Hargrove was killed to get rid of a \u201csnitch\u201d and also to deter others from reporting the drug activity of the gang.\nAlthough we find that the aggravating factors are supported by the evidence, we are nonetheless concerned by their duplicity. Defendant failed to address this issue in his brief. However, where an error appears on the face of the record, this Court can deal with it whether it was raised by the parties or not. State v. McLean, 282 N.C. 147, 191 S.E.2d 598 (1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 968, 35 L. Ed. 2d 704 (1973).\nIt is well settled that the same evidence may not be used to prove more than one aggravating circumstance. State v. Jones, 327 N.C. 439, 396 S.E.2d 309 (1990); State v. Davis, 325 N.C. 607, 386 S.E.2d 418 (1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 905, 110 L. Ed. 2d 268 (1990); State v. Green, 321 N.C. 594, 365 S.E.2d 587 (1988); State v. Quesinberry, 319 N.C. 228, 354 S.E.2d 446 (1987). In Quesinberry, defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder by premeditation and deliberation. We held that the trial court erred by submitting as aggravating circumstances both that the murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of an armed robbery and that it was committed for pecuniary gain. On the facts in Quesinberry, we concluded that submission of both circumstances was impermissibly duplicative. \u201cAlthough the pecuniary gain factor addresses motive specifically, the other cannot be perceived as conduct alone, for . . . the motive of pecuniary gain provided the impetus for the robbery itself.\u201d 319 N.C. at 238, 354 S.E.2d at 452. In Quesinberry, \u201c[n]ot only [was] it illogical to divorce the motive from the act. . ., but the same evidence [was underlying] proof of both factors.\u201d Id. at 239, 354 S.E.2d at 452.\nWe believe that like Quesinberry, the aggravating factors in this case, that the offense was committed to disrupt the lawful exercise of the enforcement of the laws and that the offense was committed to hinder the lawful exercise of the enforcement of the laws, are based on the same evidence and are inherently duplicative. Both factors involve the drug activity of the gang.\nWhen the trial judge errs in finding an aggravating factor and imposes a sentence in excess of the presumptive term, the case must be remanded for a new sentencing hearing. State v. Hayes, 314 N.C. 460, 334 S.E.2d 741 (1985). On the conspiracy conviction, defendant was sentenced to the maximum term of thirty years. On the first-degree burglary conviction, defendant was sentenced to the maximum term of life. The terms imposed for each offense exceeded the presumptive terms set out in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1340.4(f). Therefore, defendant is entitled to resentencing on his convictions for conspiracy to commit murder and for first-degree burglary.\nVI.\nIn his sixth assignment of error, defendant contends that the prosecutors\u2019 closing argument to the jury was grossly improper and should have been stricken ex mero motu in that it placed facts not in evidence before the jury and was calculated solely to inflame the jury.\nDefendant submits that the prosecutors\u2019 closing argument was grossly improper in that: (1) they compared defendant to Hitler, (2) the jury was told that the killing was the most brutal in this country or in any land, (3) the jury was informed that the case was being tried because Calvin Hargrove had been denied his constitutional rights, and (4) the status of the economy and the future of the war on drugs was dependent on the jury\u2019s verdict.\nDefendant acknowledges that he failed to object to any of these statements at trial. Ordinarily, an objection to portions of the State\u2019s final argument to the jury should be made before the case is submitted to the jury. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, may take cognizance of grossly improper remarks ex mero mo tu to preserve defendant\u2019s constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial. State v. King, 326 N.C. 662, 392 S.E.2d 609 (1990); State v. Oliver, 309 N.C. 326, 307 S.E.2d 304 (1983).\nThis Court has held that counsel must be allowed wide latitude in the argument of a hotly contested case. King, 326 N.C. at 676, 392 S.E.2d at 618. The present case was hotly contested in that it focused upon the credibility of witnesses. Although the closing argument was vigorous and aggressive, we do not believe that it was grossly improper. As a result, the trial court did not err by failing to intervene ex mero motu during the final argument. This assignment of error is overruled.\nVII.\nIn his final assignment of error, which defendant raised by a motion to amend his brief filed with this Court and which we allowed on 31 January 1994, defendant contends that the conviction for conspiracy to commit murder merges with the conviction of first-degree murder.\nDefendant was found guilty of first-degree murder based on his conduct as an accessory before the fact of the actual murder of Hargrove. To be an accessory before the fact, the defendant must have: (1) counseled, procured, commanded, encouraged, or aided the principal to murder the victim; (2) the principal must have murdered the victim; and (3) the defendant must not have been present when the murder was committed. State v. Davis, 319 N.C. 620, 356 S.E.2d 340. The State\u2019s evidence supporting this theory was that the defendant handed O\u2019Neal a shotgun and told him to \u201cgo do that.\u201d In addition, when Davis told the group that he did not want to kill anyone, the defendant told him to go or he would end up dead like Hargrove.\nDefendant was also found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. A conspiracy to commit murder requires an agreement with at least one other person to commit murder and that the defendant and at least one other person intended at the time of the agreement that murder would in fact be carried out. State v. Woods, 307 N.C. 213, 297 S.E.2d 574 (1982). Defendant argues that the State used the same evidence to show defendant conspired with O\u2019Neal and Royster to kill Hargrove as it used to show defendant was an accessory before the fact. Therefore, the conviction for conspiracy and the conviction for first-degree murder should merge because the same evidence is used to prove both offenses. We disagree.\nWe addressed this exact issue in State v. Gallagher, 313 N.C. 132, 326 S.E.2d 873 (1985). In Gallagher, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by permitting the jury to return guilty verdicts for both conspiracy to commit murder and accessory before the fact to murder. Defendant Gallagher maintained that conspiracy to commit murder was a lesser included offense of murder, and therefore she could not be convicted and sentenced for both. This Court disagreed, stating: \u201cIt is sufficient to note that each of these offenses contains an essential element not a part of the other.\u201d Id. at 142, 326 S.E.2d at 880. We stand by our decision in Gallagher and therefore overrule this assignment of error.\nIn summary, we find no error in defendant\u2019s first-degree murder conviction but remand for resentencing as to defendant\u2019s convictions for conspiracy to commit murder and for first-degree burglary.\n91CRS1215, FIRST-DEGREE MURDER: NO ERROR;\n91CRS1239, CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER: REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING;\n91CRS1240, FIRST-DEGREE BURGLARY: REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.", "type": "majority", "author": "MEYER, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Robert J. Blum, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.", "Nora Henry Hargrove for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDOLPH WILSON\nNo. 282A93\n(Filed 3 November 1994)\n1. Evidence and Witnesses \u00a7 2878 (NCI4th)\u2014 first-degree murder \u2014 purpose of defendant\u2019s presence in county\u2014 admissibility\nThe trial court did not err in a prosecution for first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and first-degree burglary by prohibiting defendant from introducing evidence regarding his presence in Warren County where one of the State\u2019s theories was that defendant came down from New York to orchestrate a drug ring in North Carolina and defendant complains that he was not allowed to elicit testimony that defendant had relatives in Warren County. The trial court erred in excluding the witness\u2019s response to the question, \u201cdo you know for a fact that this defendant had relatives in Warren County?\u201d because the witness\u2019s response to that question was based on his personal knowledge and it was relevant to establish that defendant had a motive other than selling drugs in moving to Warren County. However, there was no error in excluding further testimony that defendant had come to Warren County to visit family because the witness lacked personal knowledge and there was no prejudice from excluding the first question because it leads only to the possibility that defendant had a mixed motive in coming to North Carolina and does not negate the State\u2019s evidence.\nAm Jur 2d, Witnesses \u00a7\u00a7 484 et seq.\n2. Homicide \u00a7 371 (NCI4th)\u2014 accessory to murder \u2014 evidence sufficient\nThere was sufficient evidence of accessory before the fact to murder where there was testimony that after an argument one Royster had with the victim, defendant asked Royster what he wanted to do about it and Royster said he wanted to kill the victim; defendant later handed another man a sawed-off shotgun and told him to \u201cgo do that\u201d; and defendant ordered the witness to go with the other man or he would wind up dead like the victim. Although defendant argued that the actions of the others were independent of anything he said or did and that the victim would have been murdered without any involvement by the defendant, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the State when ruling on a motion to dismiss and the evidence here was sufficient to persuade a rational trier of fact that the defendant was guilty as an accessory before the fact beyond a reasonable doubt.\nAm Jur 2d, Homicide \u00a7 445.\n3. Homicide \u00a7 17 (NCI4th)\u2014 first-degree murder \u2014 accessory before the fact \u2014 plea bargains by principals \u2014 not an acquittal\nDefendant could be found guilty of first-degree murder as an accessory before the fact where all of the people who perpetrated the killing pled guilty to second-degree murder. Although a person may not be convicted of an offense such as accessory before the fact if all of the principals are acquitted, a plea bargain is not the same as an acquittal.\nAm Jur 2d, Homicide \u00a7 28.\n4. Evidence and Witnesses \u00a7 1070 (NCI4th)\u2014 first-degree murder \u2014 flight\u2014evidence sufficient\nThe evidence in a prosecution for first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and burglary supports a finding by the jury that defendant was in flight, and the pattern jury instruction on flight was a correct statement of law, where the jury received testimony that defendant told everyone to pack up and go to a motel as soon as he heard that the victim had been murdered; defendant decided that he and another man were going to leave town; and defendant ordered the other man to drive them to the bus station, where they boarded a bus for New York. Although defendant contends that there was evidence to rebut the State\u2019s inference of flight, it was for the jury to decide whether all of the facts and circumstances supported the State\u2019s contention that defendant had fled and the trial court appropriately told the jury that evidence of flight \u201cmay\u201d be considered.\nAm Jur 2d, Evidence \u00a7\u00a7 532 et seq.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 1133 (NCI4th)\u2014 conspiracy to murder\u2014 first-degree burglary \u2014 aggravating factors \u2014 inducement of others \u2014 position of leadership or dominance\nThe trial court did not err by finding as aggravating factors for conspiracy to murder and first-degree burglary that defendant induced others to participate and that he occupied a position of leadership or dominance where there was testimony that defendant handed a shotgun to another with the order that that person kill the victim, defendant ordered another person to accompany the first or be killed himself, and all of the participants described defendant as the leader of the group. Although in State v. Nobles, 329 N.C. 239, it was found that the idea to commit the crime originated with defendant, that case does not stand for the proposition that the idea must originate with defendant; the State must show only that the participants would not have engaged in the activity but for the inducement by the defendant.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 598, 599.\n6. Criminal Law \u00a7 1098 (NCI4th)\u2014 conspiracy to commit murder \u2014 first-degree burglary \u2014 aggravating factors \u2014 use of elements of offense\nThere was no error in sentencing defendant for conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree burglary where the defendant contended that the same evidence used to convict him was used to support the aggravating factors that he induced others to participate in the commission of the offense and that he occupied a position of leadership or dominance. The jury was instructed that they had to find beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant \u201cknowingly advised and encouraged\u201d the other persons to commit the offenses. A person can advise and encourage without inducing, and one can advise and encourage without being a leader or in a dominant position.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 598, 599.\n7. Criminal Law \u00a7 1142 (NCI4th)\u2014 conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree burglary \u2014 aggravating factors\u2014 offenses committed to disrupt enforcement of laws and to hinder enforcement\nThere was sufficient evidence when sentencing defendant for conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree burglary to support the aggravating factors that the offenses were committed to disrupt the lawful exercise of the enforcement of the laws and to hinder the lawful exercise of the enforcement of the laws where the evidence was sufficient to lead to the inference that the victim was killed to get rid of a \u201csnitch\u201d and also to deter others from reporting the drug activity of the gang.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 598, 599.\n8. Criminal Law \u00a7 1100 (NCI4th)\u2014 conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree burglary \u2014 aggravating factors\u2014 offenses committed to disrupt enforcement of laws and to hinder enforcement \u2014 supported by same evidence\nA defendant was entitled to a new sentencing hearing for conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree burglary where the terms for each exceeded the presumptive and the aggravating factors that the offense was committed to disrupt the lawful exercise of the enforcement of the laws and that it was committed to hinder the lawful exercise of the enforcement of the laws were based on the same evidence concerning a gang\u2019s drug activity and were inherently duplicative.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 598, 599.\n9. Criminal Law \u00a7 439 (NCI4th)\u2014 accessory before the fact to murder, conspiracy, burglary \u2014 prosecutor\u2019s argument \u2014 not grossly improper\nThere was no gross impropriety in a prosecution for first-degree burglary, conspiracy to murder, and first-degree murder by being an accessory before the fact where the prosecutor\u2019s argument compared defendant to Hitler, told the jury that the killing was the most brutal in this country or in any land, told the jury that the case was being tried because the victim had been denied his constitutional rights, and told the jury that the status of the economy and the war on drugs was dependent on the jury\u2019s verdict. This case was hotly contested in that it focused on the credibility of witnesses and, although the closing argument was vigorous and aggressive, it was not grossly improper.\nAm Jur 2d, Trial \u00a7\u00a7 567 et seq., 648, 681, 682, 692 et seq.\nNegative characterization or description of defendant, by prosecutor during summation of criminal trial, as ground for reversal, new trial, or mistrial \u2014 modern cases. 88 ALR4th 8.\nSupreme Court\u2019s views as to what courtoom statements made by prosecuting attorney during criminal trial violate due process or constitute denial of fair trial. 40 L. Ed. 2d 886.\n10. Homicide \u00a7\u00a7 371, 374 (NCI4th)\u2014 conspiracy to commit murder \u2014 accessory before the fact \u2014 not merged\nConvictions for conspiracy to commit murder and for first-degree murder by being an accessory did not merge because the same evidence was used to prove both offenses, as defendant contended, because each offense contained an essential element not a part of the other.\nAm Jur 2d, Homicide \u00a7 445.\nAppeal as of right pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27(a) from a judgment imposing a sentence of life imprisonment entered by Hight, J., at the 4 January 1992 Criminal Session of Superior Court, Warren County, upon a jury verdict of guilty of first-degree murder. Defendant\u2019s motion to bypass the Court of Appeals as to the additional judgments imposed for conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree burglary was allowed 21 July 1993. Heard in the Supreme Court 2 February 1994.\nMichael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Robert J. Blum, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.\nNora Henry Hargrove for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0244-01", "first_page_order": 274, "last_page_order": 291 }