Opinion ID: 1333711
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Additional Testimony

Text: The issue here is whether the State, in rebuttal of defendant's evidence which tends to show a lack of significant history of prior criminal activity, may introduce not only judgments of conviction, but also evidence of the details of those crimes. This issue becomes particularly important when, as here, the evidence tends to prove that the crimes were considerably more serious than the judgment on the pleas would reflect. We first note that G.S. § 15A-2000(f)(1) refers to criminal activity, not to criminal convictions. Thus, prior criminal activity is not limited to prior convictions. Barfield v. Harris, 540 F.Supp. 451 (E.D.N.C.1982), aff'd, 719 F.2d 58 (4th Cir.1983). It would seem, then, that any evidence of criminal activity, particularly activity connected to a judgment of conviction, would be relevant as relating to both defendant's involvement in criminal activity and to the important issue of whether that involvement was significant. Whether a defendant's history of prior criminal activity has been significant clearly encompasses not only a quantitative but also a qualitative analysis. It is more than just a numerical totaling of convictions or the mere reading of judgments of convictions on pleas. To preclude the State from introducing evidence relating to the specific details of a defendant's convictions would too often result in a distorted, unrealistic, and erroneous view of facts upon which the jury must rely in determining whether a defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity. This is particularly true where convictions were the result of pleas. Where a defendant introduces evidence of a fact, the State may offer evidence in rebuttal which otherwise would not have been competent. Evidence which might not otherwise be admissible against a defendant may become admissible to explain or rebut other evidence put in by the defendant himself. State v. Small, 301 N.C. 407, 436, 272 S.E.2d 128, 145-46 (1980). See State v. Black, 230 N.C. 448, 53 S.E.2d 443 (1949). See also State v. Patterson, 284 N.C. 190, 200 S.E.2d 16 (1973). Here, defendant's evidence had created the false impression that he had never been in trouble with the law in order to support the mitigating circumstance that he had no significant history of prior criminal activity. On this issue it is relevant to include the following testimony of the defendant: Q. Mr. Maynard, let me ask you if you did on the 12th day of March, 1975, shoot Eugene Jacobs with a deadly weapon, a pistol, four times in the head? .... A. No, sir. Q. You did not? A. I did not. Q. What have you been charged, tried and convicted of? A. I believe in `71 to `75, assault (Pause). Q. What type of assault, sir? A. I really don't know how they had it to tell you the truth. Q. What were you convicted of, assault with what? A. With a gun, I guess, I don't know to tell you the truth. Q. Who did you assault? .... A. I don't know. Q. Sir? A. I don't know, I don't remember. Q. You did not shoot Eugene Jacobs in the head four times with a pistol? .... A. I have already answered that. Q. You don't recall who you assaulted with a pistol? .... A. I don't. Q. Were you convicted for that offense? A. For what? Q. The assault you just told us you were convicted of? A. That was a plea bargain worked out on the assault; yes, sir. I got probation. Q. Did you serve any time in jail? A. No, sir. Q. And the same time of the plea bargain, were you charged with larceny. Did you plead to that too? A. I believe I had been found guilty once, according to my record, it was larceny; yes, sir. Q. Did you serve time in jail for that? A. No, sir. I ain't never served no time in jail up until now. Q. And you can't remember now who it was you assaulted with a pistol? .... Q. You are not telling this jury that you have never carried this pistol here, State's Exhibit No. 23 on your person before, have you? You are not telling the jury that, are you? A. I have carried it in my truck; yes, sir. Q. Have you ever carried it concealed on your person? A. The night they got it, I had it in my back pocket. Q. Is that the only time you have carried it concealed on your person? A. Yes, sir. Q. Never carried this pistol any other time on your person? A. No, sir. Q. You always keep it in your truck? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you have it in your truck on the occasion in which you just testified to that you were convicted for assaulting somebody with a pistol? A. No, sir. I didn't have that one at that time. Q. Well, what pistol did you use on that occasion? .... A. I don't remember. Q. Sir? A. I don't remember. Q. And you had twenty-two caliber long rifle bullets in this pistol, did you not? Court: When you say this pistol, which one are you referring to? Q. State's Exhibit marked 23. A. To tell you the truth, I don't remember what was in it. Arguably, a jury, without more, could be misled by this testimony, along with the other testimony set out above and the bare convictions of the misdemeanors of assault with a deadly weapon, larceny, and carrying a concealed weapon, into believing that defendant did not have a significant criminal history. In rebuttal, the State properly produced evidence to show what the defendant actually did in order to prove the acts were significant. For that purpose, officer Conerly testified in part: Q. Directing your attention to these exhibits marked State's Exhibit No. 88 and the charge set forth, assault with a deadly weapon, against Anson Maynard, did you have occasion to investigate that charge? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Tell us whether or not you had an opportunity to see Eugene Jacobs? .... A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Do you recall when it was that you saw Mr. Jacobs? A. It was about midnight or shortly thereafter at Cape Fear Valley Hospital. .... Q. If you will just tell us what you saw? A. I saw several wounds about his head. Wounds were very visible because the areas around them had been shaved by personnel at the hospital. Q. Do you recall how many wounds there were? .... A. There were three or four, I don't recall right now. Officer Conerly's testimony concerning the condition of the assault victim was competent to show the nature of the assault to which defendant pled guilty. Contrary to defendant's position, its admissibility is not dependent upon the bill of indictment. The testimony was highly relevant on the issue of whether defendant had any significant history of prior criminal activity. Defendant, by first injecting that he had never been in trouble with the law, invited the very evidence of which he now complains. State v. Small, 301 N.C. 407, 272 S.E.2d 128. Both the state and defendant are entitled to a fair trial. Id. at 436, 272 S.E.2d at 146. This rule allowing such evidence is analogous to and in accord with our rule allowing the State to produce evidence of the facts of prior convictions in support of the aggravating circumstance of prior felony convictions involving violence or threat of violence to a person. The defendant cannot by stipulation or otherwise foreclose the State's proof by limiting the State to the bare record of the conviction. State v. McDougall, 308 N.C. 1, 301 S.E.2d 308, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 197, 78 L.Ed.2d 173 (1983); State v. Taylor, 304 N.C. 249, 283 S.E.2d 761; State v. Silhan, 302 N.C. 223, 275 S.E.2d 450. Likewise, Officer Conerly's testimony concerning the defendant's misrepresentation to the court in a prior case that he possessed no weapons at his home was competent and relevant in rebuttal as bearing on defendant's good character. This assignment of error is overruled.