Opinion ID: 1317792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was there error in the admission of the hearsay statement of the witness Oscar Rich?

Text: This witness, as the evidence shows, was a deputy sheriff, who was called to the home of the defendant on the late afternoon of Sunday, 23 May, 1948, and was there when the defendant's wife, the deceased, was taken to the hospital, and also was with the sheriff when defendant was taken to jail. In the course of his examination this witness was asked, Did his wife say what caused the pain in her stomach? (Objection. Overruled. Exception.) The witness replied, No, sir, she just said he did it. I asked her what was the matter. I said `Irene, what in the world is the matter?' and she said `Shine did it'. (Motion to strike denied. Exception.) The objection is predicated upon the grounds that there was no evidence that defendant heard the statement of his wife, or that he apprehended the significance of it. After reading the evidence we are unable to agree that either position is tenable. The witness had testified, without objection, that he was called to defendant's house and found defendant's wife, the deceased, lying on a bed; that she was breathing fast, and on being asked by him how she felt, she said, Bad; that she has some scratches about her face and body; that defendant was there; that upon the witness saying to her, Irene, what in the world is the matter? she said, Shine did it; that Shine is the defendant; that on being further asked what did he do it with, she said, With a screw driver; that she was making complaint in the presence of her husband, and that she said, I hurt bad, right in here (pointing to stomach). Then, after the question was asked and answered to which the assignment relates, the witness testified, as had the sheriff, that defendant, on the way to jail, in reply to question by the sheriff as to what he did do, or did he beat his wife, said, Yes, he beat hell out of her; and on being further asked What for, the defendant said, Well, that's the $64 question. This same witness also stated on cross-examination that the defendant was well under the influence; that he was lying on the bed with his wife, smoking a cigarette, when he, the witness, had the conversation with her; that he would say the defendant did hear the conversation; and that when his wife was put in the ambulance, he went in, caught hold of each side of the cot and bent over and kissed her goodbye, and straightened up, the best he could, and got out and went in the house. Thus it would seem that when the wife of defendant made the statement that Shine did it, the circumstances were such that he was in position to hear it, and called for a denial by him if it were not true. State v. Jackson, 150 N.C. 831, 64 S.E. 376; State v. Wilson, 205 N.C. 376, 171 S.E. 338; State v. Hawkins, 214 N.C. 326, 199 S.E. 284; State v. Gentry, 228 N.C. 643, 46 S.E. 2d 863. In State v. Wilson, supra, it is said [205 N.C. 376, 171 S.E. 339]: When a statement is made, either to a person or within his hearing, implicating him in the commission of a crime, to which he makes no reply, the natural inference is that the implication is perhaps well founded, or he would have repelled it. State v. Suggs, 89 N.C. 527. But the occasion must be such as to call for a reply. `It is not sufficient that the statement was made in the presence of the defendant against whom it is sought to be used, even though he remained silent; but it is further necessary that the circumstances should have been such as to call for a denial on his part, and to afford him an opportunity to make it.' 16 C.J. 659. Silence alone, in the face or hearing of an accusation, is not what makes it evidence of probative value, but the occasion, colored by the conduct of the accused or some circumstance in connection with the charge, is what gives the statement evidentiary weight. State v. Burton, 94 N.C. 947; State v. Bowman, 80 N.C. 432. The general rule is that statements made to or in the presence and hearing of a person, accusing him of the commission of or complicity in a crime, are, when not denied, admissible in evidence against him as warranting an inference of the truth of such statements. But if it be conceded that the question and answer covered by the assignment were incompetent, the substance was almost identical with what had been admitted without objection. Hence, any error there might have been was harmless. State v. King, 226 N.C. 241, 37 S.E.2d 684, and cases cited.