{
  "id": 798917,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM BRITT REEVES",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Reeves",
  "decision_date": "1996-04-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 350A96",
  "first_page": "111",
  "last_page": "113",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "343 N.C. 111"
    }
  ],
  "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": "33 ALR4th 301",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "320 N.C. 475",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4727612
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/320/0475-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "388 S.E.2d 429",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "435"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 N.C. 155",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        5305404
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "164-65"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/326/0155-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "358 S.E.2d 365",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "482"
        },
        {
          "page": "370"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "320 N.C. 475",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4727612
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/320/0475-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 388,
    "char_count": 6007,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.754,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0086549813324095e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5415423833590298
    },
    "sha256": "f4764b815ff6662f7d8d4b742835d5e7e67242e0a5a482bd4008f279d1e7b9a5",
    "simhash": "1:04ecf4ab55bf8416",
    "word_count": 987
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:14:44.802104+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM BRITT REEVES"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MITCHELL, Chief Justice.\nDefendant, William Britt Reeves, was indicted for the first-degree murder of Lorenzo Sorento France. He was tried noncapitally, found guilty as charged, and sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment.\nEvidence presented at trial tended to show that on the evening of 26 May 1994, defendant, Teron Tate, Antonio Gaither, and \u201cApache\u201d Byrd visited the apartment of Denise Martin to watch a film. Martin testified that defendant had a handgun with him at the time. When the film showed a man being shot, defendant brandished his gun and said, \u201cI want to lay a mother f-just like that.\u201d Later that evening, defendant went with Tate, Gaither, and Byrd to the house of Tommonoca Smith. While there, defendant learned that Lorenzo France, also known as \u201cMan,\u201d was involved with Latasha Brannon, a woman with whom defendant had been involved.\nShortly thereafter, defendant and the three other men went to Brannon\u2019s apartment. France was sitting on the front porch of the apartment with his head down as if he were sleepy. After asking France if he was \u201cMan,\u201d defendant hit France with the gun two or three times, grabbed him by the back of his jacket, and continued to hit him with the gun until France fell down. When France fell, defendant shot him in the left side of the back. France then ran behind the apartment building, where he was found dead a short time thereafter. An autopsy showed that the bullet had passed through France\u2019s stomach, spleen, liver, and heart. After shooting France, defendant got in a car with Tate, Gaither, and Byrd and went to a bowling alley, where the group ate and played video games. Defendant was arrested the next morning at Martin\u2019s apartment.\nDefendant first assigns error to the trial court\u2019s failure to exclude statements made by defendant during a telephone conversation with Latasha Brannon. He argues that Brannon\u2019s testimony that defendant said that \u201cif [defendant] ever got out he would go after the [murder victim\u2019s] parents\u201d should have been excluded because (1) defendant had no prior notice of the State\u2019s intention to use the statement, and (2) the statement was unfairly prejudicial.\nState v. Abbott, 320 N.C. 475, 358 S.E.2d 365 (1987), involved a situation similar to the case sub judice. In Abbott, the State did not disclose a witness\u2019s oral statement that had not been reduced to writing. Although he did not make a motion for discovery, the defendant relied upon the \u201copen-file\u201d policy of the district attorney, arguing that the open-file policy was implicitly founded on a standing motion to disclose all discoverable material. This Court rejected the defendant\u2019s argument, holding that a prosecutor\u2019s open-file policy does not grant a defendant a standing motion for discovery. Id. at 482, 358 S.E.2d at 370. A defendant is not entitled to discovery of materials in the State\u2019s possession unless he makes a motion to compel discovery. Id.\nIn this case, defendant makes the same argument that we rejected in Abbott. He contends that, despite the open-file policy, trial counsel was not made aware of an incriminating statement that defendant made to a witness and that to allow the prosecutor to introduce this statement circumvents the intent of the discovery statute. Defendant has not offered any compelling reason for this Court to abandon its prior precedent. Accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant next assigns error to the trial court\u2019s action in instructing the jury on flight. For the trial court to instruct a jury on flight, there must be \u201csome evidence in the record reasonably supporting the theory that defendant fled after commission of the crime charged.\u201d State v. Levan, 326 N.C. 155, 164-65, 388 S.E.2d 429, 435 (1990). In this case, there was evidence tending to show that defendant, after shooting the victim, ran from the scene of the crime, got in a car waiting nearby, and drove away. This is sufficient evidence of flight to warrant the instruction. This assignment of error is without merit.\nFor the foregoing reasons, we conclude that defendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.\nNO ERROR.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MITCHELL, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Clarence J. DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Warren Sparrow for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM BRITT REEVES\nNo. 350A96\n(Filed 4 April 1996)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 113 (NCI4th)\u2014 statement by defendant to witness \u2014 not disclosed \u2014 open file policy \u2014 admissible\nThe trial court did not err in a noncapital first-degree murder prosecution by admitting a statement by defendant that if he ever got out he would go after the victim\u2019s parents where defendant argued that trial counsel was not made aware of the incriminating statement that defendant made to a witness, despite the open file policy, and that to allow the prosecutor to introduce this statement circumvents the intent of the discovery statute. That argument was rejected in State v. Abbot, 320 N.C. 475, and defendant has not offered any compelling reason to abandon prior precedent.\nAm Jur 2d, Depositions and Discovery \u00a7\u00a7 427, 431.\nExclusion of evidence in state criminal action for failure of prosecution to comply with discovery requirements as to statements made by defendants or other nonexpert witnesses \u2014 modern cases. 33 ALR4th 301.\n2. Evidence and Witnesses \u00a7 222 (NCI4th)\u2014 flight \u2014 evidence sufficient\nThe trial court did not err in a noncapital first-degree murder prosecution by giving an instruction on flight where there was evidence tending to show that defendant, after shooting the victim, ran from the scene of the crime, got in a car waiting nearby, and drove away.\nAm Jur 2d, Evidence \u00a7 532; Trial \u00a7\u00a7 1333-1335.\nAppeal as of right by defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27 from a judgment imposing a sentence of life imprisonment entered by Wood, J., on 4 April 1995 in Superior Court, Forsyth County, upon a jury verdict of guilty of first-degree murder. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 February 1996\nMichael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Clarence J. DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nWarren Sparrow for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0111-01",
  "first_page_order": 159,
  "last_page_order": 161
}