Title: State v. Dammons

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

237 S.E.2d 834 (1977) 293 N.C. 263 STATE of North Carolina v. Claude Edward DAMMONS. No. 81. Supreme Court of North Carolina. October 11, 1977. *836 Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen. by Elizabeth C. Bunting, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for the State. Anne B. Lupton, Asst. Public Defender, Greensboro, for defendant-appellant. EXUM, Justice. Most of defendant's nineteen assignments of error argued in his brief are directed to his contentions that the trial court erred in: (1) denying his motion to dismiss all charges on the ground that certain of defendant's statutory rights to a speedy trial had been denied; (2) instructing the jury; and (3) denying his motion for arrest of judgment in the assault case. We find no merit in defendant's arguments regarding speedy trial, no error prejudicial to him in the court's instructions on the felonious assault charge, and no error in the denial of his motion for arrest of judgment. We do, however, find error prejudicial to defendant in the court's instructions on aggravated kidnapping under the new statute, General Statute 14-39. We hold, therefore, that defendant is entitled to a new trial in the kidnapping case. Defendant urges error in the trial court's denial of his pre-trial motion to dismiss all charges on the ground that his right to a speedy trial was denied under applicable statutory provisions. He relies essentially upon General Statute 15-10.2(a) which provides: The record reveals these events leading up to defendant's trial, which began on 30 August 1976: On 9 December 1975 a warrant was issued charging defendant with kidnapping Colia Thomas on 20 September 1975. On 22 December 1975 a warrant was issued charging him with assault with a deadly weapon, to wit, a small caliber pistol, with intent to kill, inflicting serious injury on Mrs. Thomas. Defendant was at the time serving a prior sentence for voluntary manslaughter. On 14 January 1976 a detainer was filed with the Department of Correction against defendant in the kidnapping and assault cases. On 23 January defendant sent a handwritten petition addressed to the "Judge Presiding of Guilford County, District Court Division: Greensboro, North Carolina. ATTENTION: District Solicitor." The petition, received and filed in Guilford County on 28 January, liberally construed, requested that *837 defendant be speedily tried or that all charges against him be dismissed. This petition was accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis and by a certificate signed by Ben L. Baker, Supervisor of Combined Records, and stating the defendant's existing sentence, his approximate release date and his location. On 8 April a new warrant was issued charging the same assault as before, but with a shotgun. Charges under the older warrant for assault with a pistol were dismissed. On 16 April a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum was issued requesting delivery of defendant to Guilford County on 21 April for trial calendared to begin on 22 April. Defendant was apparently brought to Guilford County and the new warrant for assault served upon him there on 22 April. On 29 April a preliminary hearing was held and probable cause found in the kidnapping case and the assault case. Indictments were returned in those cases on 3 May. However, a new indictment in the kidnapping case was returned on 7 June alleging for the first time the elements of aggravated kidnapping. On 30 August the cases proceeded to trial. During the argument on 30 August on defendant's speedy trial motion, it appeared that the cases had been earlier calendared for trial on 1 June 1976 but on the state's motion a continuance was allowed on the ground of the absence of James Willie Dammons, a crucial state's witness then in FBI custody in Washington, D. C., on two armed robbery charges. We note first that defendant's pro se request for trial was not sent by registered mail. Even if it had been, defendant was tried within eight months of the request. The state therefore complied with General Statute 15-10.2(a). Defendant next invokes the provisions of General Statute 15A-711 which provide in pertinent part as follows: Defendant's contention is that this statute required him to be tried within six months of his 23 January petition. Assuming, without deciding, that defendant's petition constitutes a "written request" within the meaning of General Statutes 15A-711(c) served in accordance with this subsection, we nevertheless conclude that the state has complied with this statute. The statute provides that following defendant's request the state must proceed within six months "pursuant to subsection (a)," that is, not to trial but to request a defendant's temporary release for trial which "temporary release may not exceed 60 days." The legislature envisioned that trial following a request under General Statute 15A-711(c) would be held within eight monthsthe six-month period provided by subsection (c) plus the 60-day release period provided by subsection (a). This coincides with the eight month period set out in General Statute 15-10.2(a). Here the state requested the appearance of the defendant for trial well within six months following defendant's request *838 for trial. Defendant's trial was initially scheduled to begin on 1 June. This was within the 60-day maximum authorized for a temporary release. After the trial was continued defendant was presumably returned to the custody of the State Department of Correction. In any event he does not complain on appeal that the temporary release provisions of General Statute 15A-711(a) were violated. Finally defendant contends that Article 38 of Chapter 15A entitled "Interstate Agreement on Detainers" required that he be brought to trial within six months of his written request. He relies on Article III of the Interstate Agreement which provides: Suffice it to say that this statute has no application to these proceedings, which involve a North Carolina prosecution and a defendant incarcerated in North Carolina. We next consider defendant's contentions that the court erred in its instructions to the jury on the kidnapping charge. Defendant was tried under the new kidnapping statute, General Statute 14-39, effective 1 July 1975. That statute provides in pertinent part: The kidnapping indictment under which defendant was tried charged: The state produced evidence tending to show that defendant initially accosted the victim, Mrs. Jay Colia Thomas, from his automobile as she walked with her brother toward her mother's home in Greensboro. She kept walking, but he pulled up in front of her mother's house and introduced himself as Reverend Nathaniel Davis. Dammons was at that time an escapee from incarceration following a plea of guilty to a manslaughter charge. During the week following this meeting, defendant saw Colia Thomas several times, almost always in the company of others, including her two young children and defendant's nephew, Willie. In the early afternoon of Saturday, 20 September 1975, about a week after their first meeting, Dammons, Mrs. Thomas, her children, Willie and defendant's brother visited a farm or country house on Ritters Lake Road. Defendant's brother and Willie left the others to feed the dogs and mow the lawn but returned later to pick them up. That evening Mrs. Thomas left her two children with her mother and returned with defendant to her own apartment for some canned goods. She told Dammons she could not go out with him that night because she had to prepare for a church activity the next day. When the two returned to the home of Mrs. Thomas' mother, she requested that they go to the store for some soap. Mrs. Thomas left with Dammons and Willie, but they returned to her apartment rather than proceeding to the store, since defendant claimed to have left something there. Dammons and Mrs. Thomas went inside and, for the first time, he proposed having sexual relations with her. She rejected his advances. Dammons then told her he would take her to the store for the soap, and they and Willie returned to the car. Dammons, instead of going to the store, began driving into the country. Mrs. Thomas asked him where he was going. He refused to say. She asked to be let out of the car. Dammons refused. Dammons asked Willie whether he should shoot Mrs. Thomas. Willie told him not to, that she was a nice girl. When they reached the farm on Ritters Lake Road, Dammons tried to force Mrs. Thomas from the car, pulling her and beating her about the face. She attempted to walk away toward the doghouse, then turned and saw Dammons point a shotgun, first at the dog, then at her. Saying nothing, Dammons shot Mrs. Thomas who fell to the ground. He told her then that she was "too pure to live," that "didn't no woman turn him down." Immediately he shot her again. Willie saw him fire the gun the second time, standing directly over the victim's body. Wrapping Mrs. Thomas in a blanket, the two men put her in the trunk of the car, apparently believing her dead. They drove to Sanford, stopping once for gas. When Mrs. Thomas began beating on the trunk and calling out Dammons threatened to blow her head off. He took her to the home of his so-called "commonlaw" wife, Gladys, who persuaded him to allow Mrs. Thomas to be taken to a hospital by Willie, Gladys and her daughter. The victim's injuries were extensive, requiring several surgical operations and many months' hospitalization. She was left a partial paraplegic, losing the use of both legs and being partially deprived of the use of one arm. Dammons' evidence tended to conform in most respects to that of the state until the events of the day of the shooting. He said he gave a false name because he was an escapee and added "Reverend" because he was taking a Bible study correspondence *840 course and had purchased a minister's certificate. Dammons testified that another man, whom he had met once but whose name he did not know, was at Mrs. Thomas' apartment that Saturday when they returned to look for his necklace. When they prepared to leave, this other man asked for a ride to town but agreed to ride first to the farm on Ritters Lake Road so that Dammons could feed his dogs. At the Ritters Lake Road property, when Dammons was inside getting water, he heard two shots. Willie ran inside and told Dammons that the man had shot Colia. Dammons found her, wrapped her in a bedspread and put her in the trunk to avoid her being seen by police on their way to Sanford to get help from Gladys. He said he knew of no hospital nearby in Greensboro and, being an escapee, feared questioning if he took Mrs. Thomas to the hospital himself. He did not look for the other man, who had disappeared when Dammons came outside, but he did find on the ground a shotgun which he had borrowed from a friend. The court instructed the jury in part as follows: During their deliberations the jury returned to court to request further explanation of the kidnapping offense, whereupon the trial judge read General Statute 14-39(a) in its entirety. He then said, "That, within itself, might be explanation enough. That is the statute upon which it is based." The court then charged: To those portions of the foregoing instructions rendered in italics defendant assigns error. These assignments of error to the instructions are well taken. The instructions present to the jury possible theories of conviction which are either not supported by the evidence or not charged in the bill of indictment. It is error, generally prejudicial, for the trial judge to permit a jury to convict upon some abstract theory not supported by the evidence, State v. Duncan, 264 N.C. 123, 141 S.E.2d 23 (1965); State v. Gurley, 257 N.C. 270, 125 S.E.2d 445 (1962), or by the bill of indictment, State v. Jones, 227 N.C. 94, 40 S.E.2d 700 (1946); State v. *841 Rush, 19 N.C.App. 109, 197 S.E.2d 891 (1973); see State v. Davis, 253 N.C. 86, 116 S.E.2d 365 (1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 855, 81 S. Ct. 816, 5 L. Ed. 2d 819 (1961), rev'd on other grounds, 384 U.S. 737, 86 S. Ct. 1761, 16 L. Ed. 2d 895 (1966); but compare State v. Moore, 284 N.C. 485, 202 S.E.2d 169 (1974). In reading General Statute 14-39(a) in its entirety without pointing out to the jury which parts of it were material to the case, see State v. Butler, 269 N.C. 733, 153 S.E.2d 477 (1967), the trial court permitted the jury to consider various theories of kidnapping such as holding "for ransom or as a hostage" or "facilitating flight." Immediately thereafter he reiterated "holding this girl as a hostage" as being one of the "purposes" the jury could consider. These theories of the crime were neither supported by the evidence nor charged in the bill of indictment. The instructions also permitted the jury to consider whether the defendant removed the victim for the purpose of sexually assaulting her. While this theory of the case might be supported by the evidence, it is not charged in the indictment. The trial judge repeatedly told the jury that the defendant could be found guilty if he "confined or restrained or removed" the victim. As an abstract legal proposition the instruction is correct. There was, furthermore, evidence of confinement, restraint, and removal. The indictment, however, charged only that defendant kidnapped the victim "by unlawfully removing her from one place to another." It seems clear that the theory of the state's case as charged in the indictment in light of the evidence adduced was that defendant kidnapped Mrs. Thomas by "removing" her from an area near her apartment to the farm on Ritters Lake Road where he proceeded to terrorize and feloniously assault her, which, the state alleged, were the purposes of the removal. Had the state desired to prosecute on the theory that defendant confined and restrained the victim by, perhaps, placing her in the trunk of the car, it should have so alleged by way of an additional count in the indictment. General Statute 15A-924(a) provides, in part: "A criminal pleading must contain: In State v. Thorpe, 274 N.C. 457, 164 S.E.2d 171 (1968), the indictment for first degree burglary alleged that defendant intended to "feloniously ravish and carnally know" the person who occupied the dwelling. This Court held it was error to instruct the jury that defendant would be guilty if he entered with "the intent to commit a felony." The Court said, 274 N.C. at 464, 164 S.E.2d at 176, "[t]he indictment having identified the intent necessary, the State was held to the proof of that intent." In this case the indictment charged that defendant's purposes in removing the victim were to facilitate "the commission of a felony, to wit: Assault With a Deadly Weapon, With Intent to Kill, Inflicting Serious Injury . . . doing serious bodily injury to her, and . . . terrorizing her." It was prejudicial error, therefore, for the trial court to instruct that if defendant "did this for the purpose of facilitating the commission of any felony . . . that would amount to kidnapping." For these errors in the charge defendant is entitled to a new trial in the kidnapping case. We next consider defendant's contention that his motion for arrest of judgment on the charge of assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury should have been granted because, he argues, the assault is an essential *842 element of the aggravated kidnapping offense. He relies on State v. Midyette, 270 N.C. 229, 154 S.E.2d 66 (1967). In Midyette two separate indictments were consolidated for trial. One indictment charged defendant with assaulting W. I. Robertson with a deadly weapon, to wit, a .22 caliber pistol, with intent to kill inflicting serious injuries. The second indictment charged him with resisting a public officer, W. I. Robertson, in the discharge of his duty, namely, attempting to arrest the defendant, by firing at and hitting the officer with bullets from a .22 caliber pistol. Defendant was convicted of both offenses. Sentences of imprisonment on each offense were ordered to run consecutively. This Court arrested judgment in the resisting arrest case, saying, 270 N.C. at 233-34, 154 S.E.2d at 70: The principles relied on in Midyette have no application here. In the kidnapping case the felonious assault was alleged in the indictment as being one of the purposes for which defendant removed the victim from one place to another. The felonious assault itself is, therefore, not an element of the kidnapping offense. It was not necessary for the state to prove the felonious assault in order to convict the defendant of kidnapping. It need only have proved that the purpose of the removal was a felonious assault. The assault itself vis-a-vis the kidnapping charge is mere evidence probative of the defendant's purpose. The purpose proved would, without the assault itself, sustain conviction under the kidnapping statute but not under the assault statute. The felonious assault is, consequently, a separate and distinct offense. The fact that it was committed during the perpetration of a kidnapping does not deprive it of this character. State v. Bruce, 268 N.C. 174, 150 S.E.2d 216 (1966); see also State v. *843 Richardson, 279 N.C. 621, 185 S.E.2d 102 (1971). The indictments in this case present a situation analogous to cases in which the indictment charges felonious breaking and entering by alleging that the breaking was done with the intent to commit a specified felony inside the building or dwelling. Often, on appropriate facts, such indictments also allege in a separate count that the felony intended to be committed at the time of the breaking was in fact committed. In such cases it is not necessary to prove that the felony intended to be committed at the time of the breaking was actually accomplished in order to convict of the felonious breaking. State v. Sawyer, 283 N.C. 289, 196 S.E.2d 250 (1973); State v. Smith, 266 N.C. 747, 147 S.E.2d 165 (1966). Moreover, if the defendant is convicted of both offenses, he may be sentenced on both as they are separate and distinct offenses. See State v. Johnson, 18 N.C.App. 338, 196 S.E.2d 612, cert. denied 283 N.C. 668, 197 S.E.2d 877 (1973). Because of the unlikelihood of their recurrence in a new trial, we need discuss no more of defendant's assignments of error in the kidnapping case. We have carefully reviewed the remaining assignments of error and find them of no merit. In Case No. 76-CR-41561NO ERROR. In Case No. 76-CR-22707NEW TRIAL. HUSKINS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.