Case Title: State v. Sanders

Citation: 259 S.E.2d 258, 298 N.C. 512

Docket Number: 

State: north-carolina

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Date: 1979-11-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
259 S.E.2d 258 (1979) 298 N.C. 512 STATE of North Carolina v. William Earl SANDERS. No. 27. Supreme Court of North Carolina. November 6, 1979. *259 Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen. by T. Buie Costen, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., and Nonnie F. Midgette, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for the State. Mary Ann Tally, Public Defender, Fayetteville, for defendant-appellant. BRANCH, Chief Justice. Defendant brings forward twenty-two assignments of error. The assignments of error not herein discussed either do not warrant consideration or are unlikely to recur at the next trial. Defendant asserts in his third assignment of error that the trial judge erred in denying defendant the right to state specific grounds for his objections. We agree. The trial judge instructed defense counsel not to give specific grounds for her objections unless he asked for them. As a result, counsel had no choice but to rely on general objections throughout the trial. It is well settled that a general objection which is overruled is no good if there is any purpose whatsoever for which the evidence could have been admitted. See State v. Dawson, 278 N.C. 351, 180 S.E.2d 140 (1971); 1 Stansbury's N.C. Evidence § 27 (Brandis rev. 1973). The effect of the trial judge's actions was to prevent defense counsel from "making her record" and properly preserving her objections for effective review. It is the duty and the right of counsel to make and preserve objections on behalf of clients, and the better practice is for a trial judge not to circumvent that right. See State v. Lynch, 279 N.C. 1, 181 S.E.2d 561 (1971). We are of the opinion that the judge's ruling in this case was erroneous; however, we hold that it was harmless error, and particularly so since counsel was permitted to argue specific grounds on appeal. Defendant's fourth assignment of error relates to the admission of evidence of a confrontation between defendant and a *260 Fayetteville police officer which occurred just prior to defendant's arrest. Officer R. R. Porter testified that on 16 October 1976 at about 8:30 p. m. he observed defendant, just inside a local bar, arguing with one of the bar's employees. Officer Porter approached defendant and asked him to leave the area. As defendant left, Officer Porter proceeded to talk with another police officer, W. L. Alsup, concerning defendant. Within minutes, Officer Alsup and two military policemen arrested defendant. Defendant contends that this evidence amounted to evidence of his bad character and was, therefore, not admissible since he did not testify or otherwise put his character in issue. The evidence of defendant's confrontation with Officer Porter just prior to defendant's arrest was competent to show the relations between the parties, and intent and malice on the part of defendant. See State v. Ray, 212 N.C. 725, 194 S.E. 482 (1938); State v. Miller, 189 N.C. 695, 128 S.E. 1 (1925). We hold that the questioned evidence is relevant and admissible as a circumstance inextricably tied to the arrest and fatal incident on 16 October 1976. Defendant also challenges the admission of testimony describing his appearance at the time of the arrest. Officer W. L. Alsup testified that when he first encountered defendant and asked for his identification, defendant's eyes were glassy, and he had a faint odor of alcohol on his breath. Defendant again contends that this evidence tended to impeach his character and was inadmissible since he did not testify or otherwise place his character in issue. The challenged description, however, was a circumstance surrounding the defendant's arrest which occurred a short time prior to the killing. It was relevant and admissible because it tended to shed some light on defendant's conduct and motives at the time of the fatal stabbing. See State v. Arnold, 284 N.C. 41, 199 S.E.2d 423 (1973). Defendant contends in Assignment of Error No. 22 that the trial judge erred in failing to conduct a sentencing hearing. Section 15A-1334(a) of the General Statutes states that "[u]nless the defendant waives the hearing, the court must hold a hearing on the sentence." According to the record in this case, after the jury returned with its verdict, the trial judge asked if counsel were ready for the sentencing hearing. The judge then proceeded to sentence defendant without conducting the hearing as required by statute. Inasmuch as defense counsel has conceded in oral argument that she had no further evidence to submit at the hearing, it is obvious the defendant was not prejudiced by the trial judge's failure to conduct the hearing. Finally, defendant's most serious contention is that the trial judge failed to state the evidence and apply the law to the facts as required by G.S. 15A-1232. The challenged portion of the charge reads as follows: Although defendant offered no evidence at the conclusion of the State's case, there was certain evidence brought out on cross-examination which tended to exculpate defendant. Furthermore, the evidence of the State itself tended to raise inferences favorable to defendant. For example, State's witness Detective Bob Conerly read into evidence a voluntary statement made by defendant to police officers which included the following: Under the clear mandate of G.S. 15A-1232, the trial judge "must declare and explain *262 the law arising on the evidence." As we noted in State v. Hewett, 295 N.C. 640, 247 S.E.2d 886 (1978), G.S. 15A-1232 restates in substance former G.S. 1-180 which by its terms explicitly required the judge (1) to declare and explain the law arising on the evidence in the case, (2) to state the evidence to the extent necessary to explain the application of the law thereto, and (3) to give equal stress to the State and defendant in a criminal action. While the wording of the new G.S. 15A-1232 is not identical with that of the former statute, we held in Hewett that "the law remains essentially unchanged." State v. Hewett, supra. Ordinarily, the trial judge is not required to recapitulate all of the evidence, and he complies with the statute by presenting the principal features of the evidence relied on by the prosecution and by the defense. State v. Thompson, 257 N.C. 452, 126 S.E.2d 58, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 921, 83 S. Ct. 288, 9 L. Ed. 2d 230 (1962). Furthermore, it is not error for the court merely to consume more time in summarizing the State's evidence than it does in restating the evidence for the defendant. State v. Jessup, 219 N.C. 620, 14 S.E.2d 668 (1941); State v. Cureton, 218 N.C. 491, 11 S.E.2d 469 (1940). However, when the court recapitulates fully the evidence of the State but fails to summarize, at all, evidence favorable to the defendant, he violates the clear mandate of the statute which requires the trial judge to state the evidence to the extent necessary to explain the application of the law thereto. In addition, he violates the requirement that equal stress be given to the State and to the defendant. In the instant case, the trial judge failed to summarize evidence which raised inferences favorable to defendant including evidence of defendant's prior statement to police officers and evidence elicited on cross-examination. We hold that this omission constitutes error prejudicial to defendant. Even so, the State contends that defendant has waived his right to challenge the instructions by his failure to object at trial. In State v. Hewett, supra, however, this Court noted the following regarding the necessity to object at trial to error in the charge: The rationale of this rule should apply with equal force when in his instructions the trial judge states the evidence favorable to the State and applies the law to that evidence but fails to state any of the evidence favorable to defendant to the extent necessary to explain the application of the law thereto. We so hold. We note in passing that the trial judge's instructions did not meet the requirement of G.S. 15A-1232 as related to heat of passion and provocation in his charge on voluntary manslaughter. Neither did he comply with this statute in his charge on self-defense. For reasons stated in this opinion, defendant is entitled to a NEW TRIAL. BROCK, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.