Opinion ID: 1210655
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: appeal by rudolph hines

Text: Hines has five assignments of error. His first assignment of error is to the denial of his motion for a separate trial. That has not been sustained, as stated above. Hines' second assignment of error is to the overruling of his objection to a few words of Gulley's testimony. In his brief he cites no authority to support this assignment of error, which is totally without merit, and it is overruled. Hines' third assignment of error is to the overruling of his objection to Alston's statement to Gulley, Come out the front door, made immediately after defendants Leak and Hines had finished going through Gulley's pockets. This declaration of John Thomas Alston uttered in furtherance of the common, illegal design of himself, Hines, and the others to rob Gulley, and uttered in Hines' immediate presence is clearly admissible against Hines. State v. Gibson, 233 N.C. 691, 65 S.E.2d 508; State v. Ritter, 197 N.C. 113, 147 S.E. 733. This assignment of error is overruled. Defendant Hines' fourth assignment of error is the denial of his motion for a mistrial made at the close of the State's evidence, and his fifth and last assignment of error is the denial of a similar motion made by him at the conclusion of all the evidence. The last assignment of error is superfluous, because defendants offered no evidence other than on the preliminary inquiry as to the competency or incompetency of the extrajudicial confessions, and at the close of the State's evidence no further evidence was offered. The defendant contends that his motions for a mistrial should have been allowed, because though the trial court instructed the jury that the confessions of the other three defendants should not be considered in any way by the jury against him, the admission of the confessions of these three defendants prejudiced him. So far as the record before us discloses, defendant Hines did not object to the admission in evidence of the confessions of his three codefendants James William Leak, George Albert McNeill, and Jimmy Lawrence McNeill. When the trial judge allowed the State to present in evidence as against Leak, George Albert McNeill, and Jimmy Lawrence McNeill extrajudicial confessions made by each of them, he instructed the jury with particularity as to each extrajudicial confession by each of these defendants that it was not to be considered in any way against the defendant Hines. The applicable rule is stated in State v. Kerley, 246 N.C. 157, 97 S.E.2d 876, as follows: Where two or more persons are jointly tried, the extrajudicial confession of one defendant may be received in evidence over the objection of his codefendant(s) when, but only when, the trial judge instructs the jury that the confession so offered is admitted as evidence against the defendant who made it but is not evidence and is not to be considered by the jury in any way in determining the charges against his codefendant(s). State v. Bennett, 237 N.C. 749, 753, 76 S.E.2d 42, and cases cited. While the jury may find it difficult to put out of their minds the portions of such confessions that implicate the codefendant(s), this is the best the court can do; for such confession is clearly competent against the defendant who made it. It is true that the trial judge did not instruct the jury that each of the three extrajudicial confessions is admitted in evidence against the defendant who made it, but is not evidence against defendant Hines. The charge of the court to the jury is not in the record. Where the charge of the court is not in the record, it will be presumed that the court correctly instructed the jury on every phase of the case, both with respect to the law and evidence. 1 Strong's N.C.Index, Appeal and Error, § 35, p. 112. The allowance or refusal of a motion for a mistrial in a criminal case less than capital rests largely in the discretion of the trial court. State v. Humbles, 241 N.C. 47, 84 S.E.2d 264; 2 McIntosh, N.C.Practice and Procedure, 2d ed., § 1548; 88 C.J.S. Trial § 36b, pp. 96-97; 53 Am.Jur., Trial, § 967. Considering the fact that defendant Hines did not object to the introduction in evidence of the extrajudicial confessions of defendants Leak, George Albert McNeill and Jimmy Lawrence McNeill, and indulging the presumption that the trial judge correctly instructed the jury on every phase of the evidence, and that the trial judge instructed the jury with particularity as to each of the three extrajudicial confessions of defendants Leak and the two McNeills, that each of these three extrajudicial confessions was not to be considered in any way by the jury against defendant Hines, it does not appear that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying Hines' motions for a mistrial. These assignments of error are overruled. As to the trial of defendant Hines, we find No error.