Opinion ID: 1265006
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admission of Financial Documents and Testimony Relating Thereto

Text: Over objection in each instance, the State was permitted to introduce in evidence the following exhibits: No. 23, purporting to be a note made by the defendant to Pennisi for $70,000, due 15 January 1968; No. 24, a Financing Statement, purporting to be signed by the defendant to secure an undesignated obligation from him to Pennisi; No. 25, a chattel mortgage, purporting to be given by the defendant to Pennisi to secure Exhibit 23; No. 26, a document purporting to be signed by the defendant and to be an assignment by him to Pennisi of his rights under a contract with S. S. Kresge Company for the security of Exhibit 23; No. 27, a note for $40,879.37, payable to Pennisi, dated 12 August 1968, due October 1968, purporting to be signed by the defendant; No. 28, a check signed by Pennisi, payable to the defendant, in the amount of $70,000, stating it is for LOAN, due and payable Jan. 15, 1968 (see Exhibit 23), bearing the bank stamp PAID and purporting to be endorsed by the defendant and by T. Hatzis; No. 29, a check signed by Pennisi, dated 22 January 1968, payable to the defendant, in the sum of $15,000, bearing the bank stamp PAID and purporting to be endorsed by the defendant; No. 30, a check signed by Pennisi, dated 16 July 1968, payable to the defendant, in the amount of $50,000, bearing the bank stamp PAID and purporting to be endorsed by the defendant. Attorney Julius Dees, Jr., testified for the State that he represented Pennisi and, at his request, drafted Exhibits 23 through 26 and, after Pennisi's disappearance, recorded No. 24 and No. 25 at the request of Mrs. Pennisi. He testified that they were not executed in his presence. Mr. Walter Faison, trust officer of North Carolina National Bank, which bank is coexecutor of the Pennisi estate, testified that all of these exhibits, 23 through 30, were in the possession of the bank as such executor. After the exhibits were admitted in evidence, Mrs. Pennisi testified that Nos. 28, 29 and 30 were signed by Pennisi. No witness testified as to the genuineness of any purported signature of the defendant on any of these exhibits. Police Officer Jenkins testified to an interview which he had with the defendant between Pennisi's disappearance and the discovery of his body. He testified that in this interview the defendant told him of various transactions in which he and Pennisi had participated, that he had borrowed $50,000 at a time from Mr. Pennisi, but that at the present he was settled up with Mr. Pennisi except for $6,000 which he owed Pennisi for a Lincoln Continental automobile. Officer Jenkins further testified that in this interview the defendant told him of his conversation with Pennisi between 7:30 p. m. and 8 p. m. on Sunday, 15 June, the date of Pennisi's disappearance, and that Mr. Pennisi was upset over the title of a Lincoln automobile, and that he wanted $6,000 that Vestal owed him, and that he would pay Pennisi even if he had to borrow the money from Mr. Tom Hatzis of Wilmington, Delaware, a mutual friend of the defendant and Pennisi. These several documents were relevant to the State's contention that Pennisi and the defendant had been engaged in business transactions involving large sums of money and that the motive for Pennisi's murder grew out of those transactions. There is, however, no evidence in the record identifying the purported signature of the defendant upon any of these documents. The mere fact that his name appears on each document and the fact that the checks naming him as payee were paid by the drawee bank do not constitute proof of the genuineness of his several signatures or proof that any of these documents actually passed through the defendant's hands. In the absence of such identification of these exhibits as having been signed or possessed by the defendant, their admission in evidence was error. State v. Breece, 206 N.C. 92, 173 S.E. 9; Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, § 80. Their admission in evidence was substantially prejudicial to the defendant. The fact that Pennisi's signatures upon Exhibits 28, 29 and 30 were not properly identified until after the exhibits were introduced in evidence would not have made their admission reversible error. State v. Franks, 262 N.C. 94, 136 S.E.2d 623. The documents being incompetent, it was error to permit the witness Faison to testify as to the contents thereof and as to the fact that the defendant's name (not his genuine signature) appeared upon the checks as payee and as endorser. There was no error in the admission of the testimony of the witness Hatzis concerning his own business transactions with the defendant and Pennisi, this evidence being relevant to the State's contention as to the motive for the murder. The State had introduced, without objection, two financial statements given by Pennisi, each of which purported to show Pennisi held a note made by Delaware State Wholesale Florist (Hatzis' trade name) of Wilmington, Delaware, due 15 June 1969 (actually due the following day, 15 June being Sunday). This is the date on which the State contends Pennisi left his home with intent to go with the defendant to Wilmington, Delaware, to see about an investment. It was not error to permit Hatzis to testify that he did not owe Pennisi any sum whatever. This evidence was relevant to the State's contention that there was a controversy about the existence of the alleged indebtedness, and the purpose of Pennisi's trip to Wilmington in the company of the defendant was with reference to this controversy. Such evidence was clearly relevant to the question of motive for Pennisi's murder. Furthermore, the defendant recalled Hatzis as his own witness and, as such, had him testify that there was never any money due from Hatzis to either Pennisi or the defendant. Had there been any error in the testimony to this effect by Hatzis, when under interrogation by the State, the defendant lost the benefit of such error through introducing evidence to the same effect. State v. Williams, 274 N.C. 328, 163 S.E.2d 353; Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, 2d Ed., § 30.