{
  "id": 139504,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARLTON EUGENE ANDERSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Anderson",
  "decision_date": "1997-05-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 129A96",
  "first_page": "158",
  "last_page": "161",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "346 N.C. 158"
    }
  ],
  "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": "372 S.E.2d 572",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "323 N.C. 350",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2560790
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/323/0350-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "353 S.E.2d 375",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "380"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 N.C. 152",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4743860
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "158"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/319/0152-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "406 S.E.2d 579",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "587"
        },
        {
          "page": "589"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "329 N.C. 466",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2557180
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "479"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/329/0466-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 455,
    "char_count": 7792,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.751,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.6698174718350046e-08,
      "percentile": 0.35315997187480813
    },
    "sha256": "ba8bce6af54b54452a6cf1d54753e0dceda9fea03843274f2455af10e7641833",
    "simhash": "1:f2beddcfc2fbd63b",
    "word_count": 1338
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:00.247328+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARLTON EUGENE ANDERSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WEBB, Justice.\nThe defendant contends that the evidence in this case was insufficient to submit to the jury the charge of first-degree murder on the basis of murder by torture. He argues that because he left the residence several days before the victim died, there is no causal link between his actions and the death of the victim. He also argues that the victim died from an intervening cause of death when the others involved bound and gagged him and confined him in the closet. This assignment of error has no merit.\nThe elements of the offense of murder by torture are that the defendant intentionally tortured the victim and that the torture was a proximate cause of the victim\u2019s death. State v. Crawford, 329 N.C. 466, 479, 406 S.E.2d 579, 587 (1991). The trial judge in Crawford defined torture as \u201cthe course of conduct by one or more persons which intentionally inflicts grievous pain and suffering upon another for the purpose of punishment, persuasion, or sadistic pleasure.\u201d Id. at 484, 406 S.E.2d at 589. He defined course of conduct as \u201cthe pattern of the same or similar acts, repeated over a period of time, however short, which established that there existed in the mind of the defendant a plan, scheme, system or design to inflict cruel suffering upon another.\u201d Id. This Court found no error. Id. Where a murder is accomplished by torture, \u201cthe presence or absence of premeditation, deliberation and specific intent to kill is irrelevant.\u201d State v. Evangelista, 319 N.C. 152, 158, 353 S.E.2d 375, 380 (1987). In determining whether there was sufficient evidence to support the charge of first-degree murder by torture, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and with all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. State v. Scott, 323 N.C. 350, 372 S.E.2d 572 (1988).\nThe defendant contends that the victim died as the result of being locked in the closet and that the defendant had not been in the trailer for six days when this happened. For that reason, the defendant says, he is not responsible for the killing. We disagree. It is true that the immediate cause of death came as a result of being locked in the closet, but that was part of the torture in which the defendant actively participated.\nThe evidence in this case showed that during the time the defendant was at the trailer, he beat the victim, used a soldering iron on the victim\u2019s arm, used an aerosol torch on the victim\u2019s genital area, carved a derogatory term into the victim\u2019s arm, and otherwise participated in the torture of the victim that had begun a few days before the defendant arrived. The group, including the defendant, also discussed possible ways to kill the victim. After the defendant left the trailer, the torture continued for a few more days until the victim ultimately died after being bound, gagged, and locked in a closet while the others went out for pizza. The defendant\u2019s actions were thus part of a course of conduct that resulted in the victim\u2019s death. As such, it was not error for the court to submit torture as the theory supporting the defendant\u2019s first-degree murder charge.\nNO ERROR.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WEBB, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Melanie L. Vtipil, Associate Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Frank G. Queen for the defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARLTON EUGENE ANDERSON\nNo. 129A96\n(Filed 9 May 1997)\nHomicide \u00a7 261.1 (NCI4th)\u2014 first-degree murder by torture\u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient to show that defendant\u2019s actions of torture of the victim were part of a course of conduct that resulted in the victim\u2019s death so as to support defendant\u2019s conviction of first-degree murder by torture where it tended to show that a group of persons living in a trailer began to beat and torture the victim; after defendant arrived at the trailer several days later, he beat the victim, used a soldering iron on the victim\u2019s arm in an attempt to burn off a tattoo, used an aerosol torch on the victim\u2019s genital area, carved a derogatory term on the victim\u2019s arm with a knife, and otherwise participated in the torture of the victim; defendant and members of the group living in the trailer discussed possible ways to kill the victim; and after defendant left the trailer, the torture continued for a few more days until the victim ultimately died after being bound, gagged, and locked in a closet while the others went out for pizza.\nAm Jur 2d, Homicide \u00a7 48.\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 Hyatt, J., at the 21 August 1995 Criminal Session of Superior Court, Jackson County, upon a verdict of guilty of first-degree murder. Heard in the Supreme Court 19 March 1997.\nThe defendant was indicted for first-degree murder and was tried noncapitally to a jury. The State\u2019s evidence tended to show that in March of 1994, Vickie Fox, Thomas York, Michelle Vinson, Mike Hagedorn, Robert Trantham, and the victim lived together in Vickie\u2019s trailer. On or about 17 or 18 March 1994, the group turned against the victim, who had allegedly molested Vickie\u2019s daughter and given Michelle\u2019s son a soapy bottle. The group beat and kicked the victim, cut his hair to his scalp, and otherwise physically degraded the victim.\nOn 20 March 1994, Thomas, Robert, Mike, and Michelle went to a game room in Sylva to get the defendant, who had lived with the group in the past and was familiar with them. When the defendant arrived at the trailer, the victim had his head wrapped in a towel, and his face was black and blue. After Vickie told the defendant what had happened, the defendant asked the victim why he had done what he did. The defendant, Robert, and Thomas then began beating the victim in the face and chest. Vickie later noticed that her name was tattooed on the victim\u2019s arm and said she wanted it removed. After unsuccessful attempts to scrape the tattoo off with a knife, the defendant used a heated soldering iron to burn off the tattoo. Later, the defendant and Thomas used a knife to carve \u201cfag\u201d on the victim\u2019s arm. The victim was also made to ingest his own urine and ejaculate and was forced to sleep in the bathroom.\nThe defendant spent the night at the trailer, and he and the others discussed killing the victim. The next day, the defendant used an \u201caerosol torch\u201d to burn the victim\u2019s upper leg and genital area. The defendant left the trailer at approximately 4:00 or 4:30 that afternoon and did not return. The others continued to beat the victim for a few days. The beatings stopped for two days so that the victim\u2019s face could heal enough to allow him to cash his unemployment check. The victim died on 26 March 1994, after having been bound, gagged, and locked in a small closet while the group used the money from the victim\u2019s check to purchase pizza. The group discovered that the victim was dead when they returned from their outing. The following morning, the entire group drove the victim\u2019s body to Toccoa, Georgia, and dumped his body in the woods. Robert Trantham led police to the body.\nA forensic pathologist testified that the cause of the victim\u2019s death was gagging and positional asphyxia as a result of being placed in a position in which \u201cthe mechanics of his breathing would have been interfered with.\u201d The pathologist also testified that pneumonia in the victim\u2019s left lung could have contributed to his death.\nThe jury found the defendant guilty of first-degree murder on the basis of murder by torture, assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, and misdemeanor assault inflicting serious injury. The trial judge sentenced the defendant to the mandatory term of life imprisonment for the murder conviction and arrested judgment on the assault convictions.\nThe defendant appealed.\nMichael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Melanie L. Vtipil, Associate Attorney General, for the State.\nFrank G. Queen for the defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0158-01",
  "first_page_order": 196,
  "last_page_order": 199
}