*1 SPRING TERM 1975 Young harmful effect of the evidence could not have been removed the Court’s instruction. For this reason defendant is entitled to a new trial. necessary do not deem it remaining to consider the
assignments probability they of error since in all will not recur at the next trial.
New trial. Copeland
Justice dissents. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RONNIE YOUNG
No. 46 (Filed 1975) 6 June — Jury — sequestration
1. 6—§ individual examination discre- tionary matter jurors individually, A motion collectively, to examine than rather possesses directed to the sound discretion which the trial court for regulating process; degree selection the trial' court in a first prosecution denying murder motion to did not abuse its discretion defendant’s sequester prospective jurors all so he could examine the prospective veniremen one at a time in the absence of all other jurors. selected — Jury regulation inquiry 2. § 6— of voir dire discretion of trial court Regulation inquiry of the manner and extent of the on voir dire largely judge’s seeking rests establish on the trial discretion and a defendant appeal the exercise of such discretion constitutes re- prejudice versible error must show harmful as well as clear abuse of discretion. — Jury purpose 6—
J. voir dire examination § prospective jurors The voir dire examination of serves a dual purpose: grounds to ascertain whether exists for intelligently cause and to enable counsel to exercise allowed law. — 101; Jury sequestration 4. prospective jurors Law § 5— § Criminal proper denial prejudicial Defendant failed to show error the trial court’s sequester prospective jurors denial his motion to and for the regarding to examine them what had read or heard about the case where the record failed to show the voir dire context any alleged prejudice resulting abuse of discretion or from court’s denial of defendant’s motion. IN THE SUPREME COURT *2 — — exception preservation Jury of disallowance 5. 7—§ exception rulings preserve on chal- an the court’s In order to to polls, appellant lenges chal- exhaust his to the and thereafter must juror. lenges an undertake to additional — admissibility photographs 43— victims 6. of murder § Criminal Law degree prosecution did not err court a first murder The trial in photographs bodies, allowing two color of the victims’ into evidence explain photographs were to illustrate and since such admissible testimony of witnesses. — admissibility Law 75—§ 7. Criminal confession support to trial court’s admission was sufficient Evidence police. of made to the confession defendant’s — — degree sufficiency of confession 8. 21— first murder § Homicide evidence clearly mur- heartless which brutal and Evidence established the they leaving employ- place two victims as were their of ders of the killings weapons to and which used ment and linked defendant committed, placed time at scene of crime at the it was him defendant, amply the confession suffi- considered with when judgment degree repel for a mur- motions of nonsuit in first cient prosecution. der Sharp Copeland dissenting Justice and Justices and Exum Chief sentence. death July- appeals judgments J., Ervin, from Defendant Superior Session, Mecklenburg “C” Criminal 1974 Schedule Court. indictment, upon separate was tried bills of Defendant degree form, charging him first
proper in with the murders August 1973 and Helton on 18 Steve Charles Sharon Williams Mecklenburg County. August that on evidence tends show State’s employed and at At Steve Helton Sharon Williams Burger ap- Charlotte, Restaurant North Carolina. Chef upon p.m., business, and proximately 11:30 the close of building employees picked up trash a two other left the for few Steve and Sharon then walked rear minutes. parked there. to enter Steve’s car which was establishment Stephenie Faye Bartlett, two Donna the other Strawser and parking employees, went their automobiles at front of the popping Stephenie and Donna saw and heard noises lot. flashes coming cannon,” “like from area around a sound Donna Bartlett saw a lot of smoke three car. and saw Steve’s TERM figures running dumpster from behind a situated near Steve’s ground lying “trying She then Helton vehicle. saw Steve on the get up brushing his hair back from his head.” He was back near the left rear wheel his car. Sharon Wil- right slumped was on liams front seat over toward the steering wheel. Wood, Mecklenburg
Dr. Hobart R. Medical Examiner County, examined the at bodies the scene about 12:45 a.m. on August 1973, pronounced them both dead. He thereafter performed autopsies testified that Sharon Williams had a shotgun large destructive wound in the side of the neck *3 addition, entry and, type large in a smaller made wound a jacketing fragment copper large of thin from bullet. The a right artery running wound severed the up common carotid practically the neck spine side of and severed the cervical and gunshot spinal cord. Steve Helton had a wound which en- the base of the left neck tered toward the shoulder. It severed spine spinal the cervical and cord. The remains of a mutilated jacket and lead upper core the bullet were in recovered opinion In Wood, back. of Dr. each victim died as a gunshot result wounds in neck. Agurs
Brenda and Ellen Barber Gilmore are sisters and live together Apartment They at 2725 Craddock Avenue. were 3. together August on 18 1973 at about 10 when a.m. gone up place he Gordon told them and Richard had to hold a they got people there there was “but when more there than supposed be, people. so he had killed some He said was green dumpster young a trash can he hid behind and when a empty out to trash he hid on man walked some said behind [he] can so he couldn’t see him and said when he went to the trash guy turn to walk back inside he shot the and said there was a girl guy girl a shot the car and when he screamed and her, guy he too. He said that there was he said blasted another shooting just up he He hit with him but air. didn’t high anything. my powered he Just He said had rifle. me and Young present were Ronnie made sister when those state- Her name is Ellen Gilmore.” ments. Agurs testified had known Ronnie Brenda further that she August
Young prior about two and one-half months 1973. Apartment 2 door in Gordon lived next about a Richard August guns year apartment and left in her prior some THE COURT IN SUPREME y. Young August prior 17. then stated: She two weeks closet about gun two or three with the case about Ronnie “I saw Friday night Burger days him the Chef case and saw before brought put it in the closet 12:00 it back and about that he August Friday, 17.” 12:30 gave evidence corroborative Barber Gilmore Ellen testimony sister, and, addition, that: testified “We of her why that he had been he them and he said him did kill asked they identify going him. He the store and could out of in and taking people and had from us all our lives been that white said them.” kill he would August 1973 at that on 21 Dale M. Travis testified Officer twenty-five police approximately went to officers 2 a.m. Apartments 2 and 3. and surrounded Avenue Craddock Apartment female a black were admitted officers a search room In a front was read to her. closet warrant 22), (State’s Marlin rifle Exhibit a sawed- a 30-30 found single shotgun, rifle and ammunition. Con- a .22 barrel off Apartment temporaneously, the defendant was arrested in Crump for the murders of Sharon Steve Williams Officer 47) Fingerprints palm prints (State’s Exhibit Helton. Defend- Marlin in the search. the 30-30 rifle seized from lifted palm prints fingerprints taken were thereafter ant’s 49) compared (State’s with Exhibit 47. Exhibit State’s *4 Randolph expert SBI, in the identifica- Jones of the an Steven fingerprints, picked points testified that he out sixteen of tion similarity Exhibit 49 State’s Exhibit 47 and State’s of between opinion impression the inked of defendant’s that in his and right palm the on Exhibit 49 is identical with shown State’s print, palm 47, lifted 30-30 State’s Exhibit from the latent rifle. Marlin expert Hurst, SBI, an in the Mark Jr. of the field Frederick comparison, and testified that in his identification
of firearms cartridge opinion Exhibit a 30-30 fired State’s Winchester approximately car on found five feet from Steve Helton’s case night murders, was fired from Exhibit 22. of State’s fragment Exhibit a re- also testified State’s bullet He moved from body Williams, of was fired from Sharon rifle. same testimony hearing Travis, Dale R. After Officers H. Larry Wayne Bumgardner
Thompson,
Shank, J. D.
and the
SPRING TERM 1975
defendant,
findings
the court made full
and
fact
concluded
(1)
properly
that defendant was
of his
advised
constitutional
rights in
Arizona,
accordance with Miranda
U.S.
16 L.Ed. 2d
(2)
knowingly orally waived his to counsel and both in writ- ing; freely, understandingly, knowingly that defendant and voluntarily, compulsion, duress, physical without abuse or promise leniency, made a full confession which the State is against entitled offer in evidence The him. then offered which, pertinent defendant’s confession part, as fol- reads lows: Sey- up
“Me and Richard Gordon were on the block at mour and people Creek where a Steel bunch were shoot- ing going talking up dice. them Some started about Burger robbing They the ing Chef and pull- me it. asked about job. I told them ‘no.’ Me and Richard left and you Richard asked me ‘do think we to do I it?’ said ought ‘no,’ forget ‘O.K., and he said went on down it’. We Richard’s house at 2725 Craddock Avenue and I started playing Ann, girlfriend. cards with who is Richard’s I left girl’s and went home about 10:30 left and went shotgun house named Pat. Pat told me where the was hid- grass. got shotgun caught den up I and ran and rifle; big with Richard and Zack. Zack had the rifle gotten I Roy- (R.Y.) Ray had -stele»- (R.Y.) from Thompson. pistol. Richard had the Burger up walked behind the Chef. We all big light
three dumpster. stood behind the place dumpster boy garbage up I went out. saw come stepped I and Richard. side left around to other hearing Zack and I started six I ran shots. back dumpster around Zack other side of the was standing in front of the I Zack at the man car. saw shoot stepped the trunk of his car. I out from behind the dumpster my shotgun Richard shot at the car. standing dumpster beside the when I came I around. turned *5 approxi- and ran and Richard was behind me. I heard mately caught up more two shots. Zack with us on the rail- boys Manager up road tracks. The on the told us the block parked he would be in the back and if did not come out money bag they a drop with they that would have amade before get supposed The one to closed. closest the car to was THE COURT IN SUPREME y. Young got money. we down Zack. the That would have been When not track, that there was on the Zack hollered and said shotgun money. emptied on the railroad I from the shell junk yard. house to Richard’s track went on down got gave guns Zack on the I and some water. We I porch them next door. front at and he took Richard’s then went home.” said his own He
Defendant testified as a witness in behalf. good and often smoked he Richard were friends and Gordon grass night question defendant had dropped and acid. On the drinking smoking grass apartment. been and at Gordon’s beer Zachery accompany him McCain Gordon asked guns bag. got Burger get money three Chef to a Gordon shotgun. closet, rifle, pistol three left from a a a and a shotgun, together. apartment the sawed-off Defendant had had the 30-30 pistol Richard Gordon McCain had the .32 rifle. Burger They walking on started toward the Chef big green weapon dumpster, a each with arrival stood behind a point in his hand. At that defendant said: finally myself and I told Richard “I had came to part it, no of this I that I didn’t want wanted out of get going going happen. were was I told him that we arguing. I threw started So ourselves trouble. So we gun going run and he told and I him I was down told going said, I no, you am me can’t run. ... He ‘You run guy place you.’ time a came out of to kill about that So standing girl car, I beside Rich- put he was and ard and Richard ran around and shot the front of car open. That is was And the door on the driver’s side him. when he shot girl I there was. and ran back over where Zachery on the other side At was the time McCain doing. I garbage heard what he can. I can’t recall where time he ran back around a I About that lot of shots. shotgun said, and he ‘You belt he had the in his was and everything.’ Said, ‘No, up get up You done messed there. going you part That when he took of it.’ I to make am me the shotgun He threw shot- from his belt and shot. run,’ run- gun said, on and let’s and we started ‘Come ning.” running while testified that Defendant further shotgun the railroad track. emptied from the shell
he *6 TERM 1975 383 Young State v. They apartment continued on to Richard Gordon’s de- where gun
fendant left the and went He he was arrested home. stated Tuesday morning 2 between and 3 a.m. in Richard Gordon’s apartment; upstairs that he was in bed with one Lori Ann “my girl Amy friend, Alexander and Carelock.” He said “Nigger,” officers called him kicked him while his arms back, pushed handcuffed his behind face head and into the wall, flashlight billy struck him pushed with stick and him out of the house. He further stated that an officer later snatched him out of the car and threw him in the mud and again struck him in the head. degree
Defendant was convicted of the first murder of both Steve Helton and Sharon The death was Williams. sentence pronounced case, appealed Supreme each and defendant assigning Court opinion. errors discussed in the Attorney George Boylan, Edmisten, General; L. W. Rufus Attorney Assistant General, the State North Carolina. for George Collie, Attorney appellant. C. defendant HUSKINS, Justice. pleading, quash Before defendant of in- moved bills grounds penalty applied
dictment on State violates the the death in this as Eighth Fifth, to to and Fourteenth Amendments the Constitution of the United he States. After verdict moved judgment grounds. arrest on similar Denial con- of both motions assignment stitutes defendant’s first of error. assignment argues (1)
Under this that he was process applied penalty denied due him because the death subjective arbitrary, capricious, in an manner due selective prosecutorial (2) to freakish exercise of discretion and that the penalty applied in death North unconstitutional Carolina is per se. These contentions have heretofore been considered rejected See, e.g., this Court numerous cases. State v. Vick, 37, (1975) ; Armstrong, 287 N.C. 213 2d 335 S.E. 60, (1975) ; Lowery, 287 212 2d 894 N.C. S.E. State v. 286 ; (1975) Simmons, 213 2d 255 State v. N.C. S.E. 286 N.C. (1975) ; Stegmann, 213 2d 280 State v. 286 S.E. N.C. ; Woods, 612, 597, 213 State v. 286 S.E. N.C. 213 McLaughlin, S.E. 2d State v. Avery, (1975);
S.E. THE COURT IN SUPREME Williams, 422, 2d 2d *7 Jarrette, Waddell, (1974);
Assignment one is overruled. jury
Prior defendant to the commencement of selection sequester jurors examine prospective moved to the pective all so he could pros- other veniremen one at a time in the absence of all jurors. judge motion denied the and selected The trial following jury and then the that the selected in directed be manner: “ jurors are available . . . The entire who number morning brought
will at be into tomorrow this courtroom 9:30 the of the entire and the Clerk will read over names jury hearing panel the presence that at time in the defendant and his counsel. Immediately persons are the whose names first twelve jury the
called will be directed at that time to take seats jurors words, panel box. In other we will call the entire being one a time name at with the first twelve seated my jury that, the I will box to as we do left. As soon hearing presence direct that the will call in the jurors prospective of all the witnesses a list of names of proposes that the to call or list of names of witnesses process, complete call. the State will As soon as we prospec- then I will remove from the courtroom all of the except sitting tive are in the twelve who my box to left. prospective jurors be to the Dis-
The other will taken customarily week, used, trict but vacant Court this sequestered supervision of will be that courtroom under during process the Sheriff’s office of the selection. regard jury box, in the the State the twelve With shall of those then conduct their Dire examination Voir any make all for cause and shall twelve against any pe- shall then make twelve and it its challenge. challenge remptory If shall allow a Court juror peremptorily, cause shall excuse a or if the State replacement call a in the box before Solicitor Clerk shall any completes or other his examination twelve. TERM 1975
N:C.]
State v.. box, with State is satisfied the twelve When then Clerk shall tender the twelve the box to the defendant. The defendant then shall conduct his Voir Dire examination of shall those twelve. then any challenges against any make for cause of the twelve challenges against any and shall then make of the twelve. If peremptorily, reason of cause a juror during shall leave the box course of the defense jurors, counsel’s examination of the the Clerk shall not immediately replacement call but shall wait box until the defendant shall state Court that he satis- fied with remainder of the twelve which remain. *8 by
After State, have tendered the been him if there been removed, have no of the the members twelve proceed empanel jury. anyone Clerk shall the If for cause peremptorily by or defendant, have been removed the then remaining by after the ones have been stated the defendant satisfactory him, replacements be with he shall have (cid:127)called for the vacant panel seats Clerk the the from at large. (b) Then the must virtue of 9-21 be G.S. any jurors allowed to replacement first examine and all in challenges the box and make peremp- both for cause torily question any before the defendant shall be allowed to replacement. party At all times is the State first be given any juror with satisfied before he shall be ever ten- jurors dered to the Those defendant. who shall have been challenged tendered to a defendant and not peremptorily by may defendant, for cause or not there- challenged by may after be the defendant. The defendant any any not stand at the foot of the list or make reserva- any replacement tion of to await and see who the be. Once the defendant passed, passed shall has he has purposes.” all In procedure, accordance with this the clerk called twelve jurors prospective who their took seats in the box proceeded question- with voir dire its examination. In ing jurors attorney panel the district asked the entire any anything
whether of them had paper jurors read about case “back the summer of 1973.” Ten of the indicated point,” again in the affirmative. “At this defendant moved sequester prospective jurors and for the to examine regarding they had read them what or heard about case. IN THE SUPREME. COURT [287: Young' jurors court overruled the motion and instructed the any permit them,
he to' or would examination as whether any prospective jurors, expressed an of the other had formed or opinion about the record then recites: case. The
*9
“
prospective
. . . The Court further
instructed
give
not,
circumstances,
up
jurors
.
under
[sic]
concerning
your opinion
you
what
have read or
benefit
heard if
any-
you
words,
have one. In other
don’t tell us
your
thing
might
might
opinion
about what
or
not be.-The
you
simply
is
purpose of this
to ascertain whether
have
sole
any opinion
opin-
don’t want to know what that
not. We
express
any way any opinion
do not
about
ion is and
you
opinion. Simply
this matter
you
if
have an
indicate
opinion
point.”
stop
have formed such an
at that
point that
thereafter exer-
recites at this
The record
panel-
twelve
all of his
before
cised
regard
completely
to the
jurors
selected, but it
silent
identity
jurors,
the number and
actual examination
identity
per-
cause,
excused
excused for
and the
of those
those
emptorily.
foregoing proceed-
objected
excepted
Defendant
assignment
ings
error
apt
time and
second
bases his
argues
denying
motion
the trial court erred in
thereon. He
sequester prospective
his motion to examine
to
jurors
concerning
they had read and heard about this case.
what
N.C.
motion to
is directed
for
are left
v.
as the defendant’s
[1]
(1969)
Perry,
regulating
Matters
625, 202 S.E.
;
largely
Annot.,
277 N.C.
examine
to the sound
relating
to the sound
Voir Dire —Personal
2d 721
rights
jurors individually, rather than
174,
to the actual conduct
discretion which the trial court
selection
176 S.E.
are
(1974)
discretion of
scrupulously
process.
;
2d
47 Am. Jur.
729
Examination,
the trial
State
(1970). Therefore, a
afforded him.
of a criminal
v.
2d,
judge
Jarrette,
collectively,
Jury
73
possesses
so
A.L.R.
§
State
trial
long
284
197
Compare
Roseboro,
1187,
(1960).
276 N.C.
State v.
2d
1203
penalty,
(1970),
403
185,
rev’d
to death
U.S.
2d 886
171 S.E.
Perry,
860,
(1971), with State v.
948,
2d
proved this Court various ; Cutshall, v. 281 (1972) 2d State 645, 190 196 S.E. 281 N.C. N.C;] TERM 387 1975
State v. 588, ; (1972) Atkinson, N.C. 168, 189 v. S.E. 278 N.C. 410, penalty, 948, 179 S.E. 2d rev’d as to death 403 U.S. ; Perry, supra; 29 861, (1971) 2d 91 L.Ed. S.Ct. 2292 v. McNeil, 162, (1970), v. 277 2d N.C. 176 732 cert. S.E. 962, 245, denied cordingly, (1971). 401 U.S. 28 2d 91 Ac L.Ed. 967 S.Ct. denying there was no abuse discretion defend sequester prospective jurors. ant’s motion assignment
Defendant’s second
contention under
this
ruling
jurors
on
court’s
motion
examine
con-
cerning
what
had read or heard about the
denied him
case
opportunity
grounds
to ascertain whether
existed for chal-
lenge
opportunity
for cause and
peremptory
to exercise his
challenges intelligently.
inquiry
to. make
on voir dire examination as to
competency
prospective juror
fitness
of a
is secured
regard
(a).
phase
9-15
In
trial,
presiding
G.S.
this
n
judge
duty
supervise
prospective
has the
examination
jurors
questions relating
competency.
and to decide all
to their
(1969);
Carey,
497,
State v.
G.S. .9-14
285 N.C.
206
2d
S.E.
;
(1974)
Harris,
46,
213
796,
283
cert.
N.C.
99,
194 S.E. 2d
850,
denied 414
(1973).
U.S.
38
2d
94
L.Ed.
S.Ct. 143
[2]
Regulation
vpir.
dire rests
of the manner and the
largely
in the trial
judge’s
extent
discretion. State
inquiry
v. Bryant,
92,
(1972),
191
cert. denied
S.E.
987,
(1973).
410
36
U.S.
2d
L.Ed.
record before
court
appellant complains.
appellate court
is
An
of which
judge
not,
required to,
assume
the trial
not
when none
and should
error
appellate
appears
the record
before the
court.
Williams,
(1968) ; State
328, 163
Duncan,
to fact, their In fails to fitness record show (1) transpired during question- what at that time defendant’s ing jurors concerning they opinions, (2) one, their if had during transpired later, i.e., questioning what defendant’s jurors passed by on voir dire after had been him, (3) and tendered to posed any whether defense counsel questions jurors to the court, which were disallowed juror (4) prospective any- whether who had read or heard thing ultimately about case served as one of the twelve. The gives nothing tangible us support finding record that de- prejudiced by fendant was process. Nothing selection appearing, process imports regularity. else all, the selection “After presumption regularity is a there In the trial. order presumption necessary to overcome that it is for matters con- stituting material and appear reversible error be made to appeal.” Sanders, on the case v. 67, 280 185 S.E. N.C. ; accord, 2d Hilton, 137 456, State v. 271 156 (1967). S.E. exhaust his challenge [5] court’s further note that an additional rulings peremptory challenges challenges juror. in order to State v. to the and thereafter undertake to preserve polls Woods, an appellant 286 N.C. exception must 612, Allred, 213 S.E. State v. 554, 275 N.C. 169 S.E. Stacy (later 833 Justice) explained 2d Justice Chief Levy, rule in 581, this 122 (1924), 187 N.C. 386 S.E. as follows: ruling relating
“It should be observed no qualification growing out of polls appeal, appellant the has exhausted his will be reviewed on unless peremptory challenges and then under- juror. takes another His [Citation omitted.] reject jurors; is not to select but to and if the complaining impartial, party drawn be fair and would upon trial, no be entitled to more a new and this he has already had on the first trial. Hence [Citations omitted.] ruling, erroneous, even if would be harmless.” appeal In appellant a criminal on the burden is to show prejudice. Partlow, 60, both error and Phillip, 2d 688 2d cert. denied U.S. 2d L.Ed. S.Ct. assign (1964). Here, he has shown neither. Defendant’s second ment is overruled. IN THE SUPREME COURT
[6]
*12
Defendant’s
third
assignment
asserts error
allowing
into
find
photographs of the victims’ bodies. We
two
evidence
color
assignment.
photographs were admissible
this
no merit
testimony
Kirkpatrick,
explain
witnesses
to illustrate and
They
properly authenticated
Catlett, Booth, and Bartlett.
were
admitted
properly
and
was
instructed that
were
testimony
illustrating
explaining
purpose
for the sole
They
competent
purpose. State
were
for that
of the witnesses.
v.
42,
(1974);
2d
State
Crowder,
203
38
285 N.C.
S.E.
v.
Duncan,
;
427,
(1974)
Crews,
201
State v.
284 N.C.
S.E.
;
Frazier,
(1972)
v.
412,
65
280
193 S.E. 2d
State
282 N.C.
penalty
652,
401
2d
rev’d as to death
U.S.
181, 185 S.E.
N.C.
;
Doss,
v.
1004,
295,
(1972)
279
408
2d
93
453
State
34 L.Ed.
S.Ct.
penalty
413,
(1971),
2d
rev’d as
death
183
671
N.C.
S.E.
;
939,
762,
(1972)
2d
v. Atkin
92
2875
33 L.Ed.
S.Ct.
U.S.
son,
penalty
168,
410,
2d
rev’d as to death
278 N.C.
179 S.E.
861,
State v.
948, 29
91
2292
L.Ed. 2d
S.Ct.
403 U.S.
288,
(1969),
Atkinson,
rev’d as to
275
jection, [7] Defendant of the confession next assigns which as error the he made to admission, police. over, He con ob it is been excluded because confession should have tends the “very plausible” from the evidence conclude reasonable (1) the defendant did not understand voir dire that received on rights signed, promised (2) he he that was which the waiver frightened leniency, to understand (3) that he was too scared or. act, (4) consequences he lacked the intelli of his that capacity comprehend gence the documents which or mental merit signed. find no in this contention. he judge and heard evi properly excused the The trial bearing admissibility State v. upon the confession. dence ; Bishop, 442, Pruitt, State v. 212 92 286 N.C. S.E.2d (1968). Based on the 283, 511 evidence 272 N.C. 158 S.E. 2d findings received, he of fact conclusions thus made extensive findings supporting the confession. His admission of of law amply supported competent evidence are conclusive (1975); Simmons, 280 appeal. 213 S.E. 2d supra; Thompson, Pruitt, v. S.Ct, 867, 42 419 U.S. L.Ed. 2d 2d cert. denied N.C, 306; Stepney, testimony Only supports own conten- defendant’s " TERM 1975 . . court;was assignment. required tions under this The trial not accept testimony competent and disbelieve other evidence. assignment This is overruled. [8] Defendant finally contends the court should have allowed judgment his motion for of nonsuit made at the close of the argues State’s He evidence. aliunde con evidence charged fession was to establish that the crime insufficient assignment committed him. This constitutes fifth defendant’s error. corpus When State offers evidence of the delicti in addi extrajudicial confessions, tion defendant’s defendant’s mo correctly tion to Moore, nonsuit denied: State v.
141, Elam, 166 53 273, S.E. 2d 263 N.C. 139 (1965). 2d S.E. 601 “A conviction cannot be had on. extra judicial defendant, confession of the unless corroborated proof corpus direct, positive aliunde of the Full, delicti. evidence, however, corpus indispensable. of the delicti A is not will be sufficient if there extrinsic be such cor .confession circumstances, will, roborative the as when taken with in connection confession, guilt prisoner’s establish the minds of jury beyond Whittemore, a reasonable doubt.” v. 255 N.C. 583, accord, Jenerett, 122 2d 396 281 S.E. State v.2). 81, 187 (197 2d N.C. S.E. 735
Here, evidence, confession, clearly the State’s aliunde the establishes as brutal and heartless murders of two victims leaving place employment. "their of The evidence killings weapons further links defendant used places him at the of scene the crime at the time it was com- evidence, mitted. This defendant, when considered confession of for with the amply repel judgment sufficient motions Clyburn, 284, v. nonsuit. State 159 S.E. (1968); Bishop, 283, (1968). 272 N.C. 158 S.E. Assignment five is therefore overruled. carefully have examined record and find no the entire prejudicial judgment error in the trial. The verdict and in each upheld.. case must therefore be
No error. IN THE COURT SUPREME
392 y. Brooks dissenting as Sharp the death sentence: Justice Chief was convicted occurred for which defendant The murders day January 1973, August 1973, a 18 18 date between on 431, 19, Waddell, 2d v. decision Assembly day re- April 1974, which the General 8 Chapter of the 1201 Ses- the enactment wrote G.S. 14-21 dissenting For the reasons stated in sion Laws of 1973. 625, seq., Jarrette, 284 666 et opinion N.C. S.E. in State seq. (1974), I to the death sentence 747 et dissent as 2d imposed upon the court and vote to remand below imprisonment. imposition for the a sentence of life and votes Copeland death sentence Justice dissents imprisonment imposition sentence of life to remand for of a dissenting Williams, opinion in State v. in his the reasons stated 113, 122 2d S.E. N.C. majority portion from Justice Exum dissents and votes to remand opinion affirms the death sentence which imprisonment can be that a sentence life this case order dissenting opinion imposed in his for the reasons stated Williams, 422, 439, 212 2d relating (1975), those to the effect of Section 8 of other than Chapter of the 1973 Session Laws. *14 OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HOWARD BROOKS
STATE
No. 76 (Filed 1975) 6 June Inciting crime 1— elements of the of riot § 1. to Riot Riot disturbance, public of riot are as- elements crime disorderly persons, semblage, violent or more conduct or three conduct, injury damage results in or threat of such the imminent present danger injury property persons clear and or or or creates a 14-288.2(a). property. damage persons G.S. or 18; Inciting 2—§ to Riot constitution- Law Riot § 2. Constitutional ality statute of riot inciting engaging prohibiting in and a riot is not so 14-288.2 and G.S. unconstitutional; furthermore, imprecise complex be as to activity pervasive pro- 14-288.2 not so to include reach of G.S. advocacy Amendment, lawless since the of imminent the First tected