Opinion ID: 1271638
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: appeal of defendant fish

Text: Fish's first assignment of error is based upon the admission of evidence of the following incidents: Kim Zachary Wall testified that during the trial Fish waved a piece of paper at him in the courtroom on which was written, Don't worry; Jesus will save me. Debra Nipper testified that on the same morning Fish showed her a piece of paper which said, Don't worry Jesus will save you. The record shows no objection to the questions which elicited the foregoing testimony and no motion to strike the answers. An objection to the admission of evidence must be made at the time it is offered. Objection to incompetent evidence should be interposed at the time the question intended to elicit it is asked, and a motion to strike an incompetent answer should be made when the answer is given. An objection not made in apt time is waived. Reeves v. Hill, 272 N.C. 352, 158 S.E.2d 529 (1968); State v. Hunt, 223 N.C. 173, 25 S.E.2d 598 (1943). However, if we concede, as both the State and Fish contend, that the notes were irrelevant, Fish's contention that they inevitably prejudiced him in the eyes of the jury is not convincing. The obvious purpose of the notes was to comfort and reassure his friends. Such a motive was not reprehensible; nor was defendant's first reference to religion and the deity contained in these notes. In his first assignment defendant has not shown prejudicial error. State v. Woolard, 260 N.C. 133, 132 S.E.2d 364 (1963). Defendant's second assignment of error is that the court erred in holding that his letter to the superior court judge was a confession rather than a statement of how the defendant intended to plead. Defendant's contention seems to be that the letter was in the nature of a tendered plea of guilty which could be withdrawn at any time before acceptance; that his plea of not guilty withdrew the tendered plea and thereby rendered the letter inadmissible in evidence. This contention is untenable. In the letter defendant wrote these words: Your Honor, I'm guilty of my charge of murder. . . . Judge, here is my confession in writing. (Italics ours.) A plea of guilty is a formal confession of guilt before the court in which defendant is arraigned. 2 Strong's N.C. Index 2d Criminal Law § 23 (1967). The letter was not such a plea. However, if genuine it qualified as the confession which defendant himself denominated it. See State v. Hamer, 240 N.C. 85, 81 S.E.2d 193 (1954). If voluntarily and understandingly written it was admissible in evidence. On voir dire defendant testified that he wrote the letter, told Mr. Covert that the letter was a confession and to carry it to the judge. He makes no contention that the letter was in any manner coerced. However, at the trial he attempted to expunge the letter by saying, I was having drawbacks from drugs. . . . I was insane when I wrote the letter. . . . I had a lot of other stuff on my mind. I was entangled. Defendant now contends that the failure of the judge, after conducting the voir dire, to make a specific finding that Fish wrote the letter with understanding rendered its admission error. The State contends that the evidence which defendant offered to establish a lack of understanding on 7 November 1972 was insufficient to raise the issue. The mental capacity of a defendant is, of course, a circumstance to be considered in passing upon whether a confession was voluntarily and understandingly made. State v. Gray, 268 N.C. 69, 150 S.E.2d 1 (1966). After conducting the voir dire, as he was required to do by the objection to the admission of the letter, the judge should have made a finding on the only question defendant disputed. State v. Vickers, 274 N.C. 311, 163 S.E.2d 481 (1968); State v. Barber, 268 N.C. 509, 151 S.E.2d 51 (1966). Obviously, however, the ruling that the letter was admissible of necessity was based on the court's conclusion that Fish wrote it voluntarily and with understanding. State v. Painter, 265 N.C. 277, 144 S.E.2d 6 (1965); State v. Litteral, 227 N.C. 527, 43 S.E.2d 84 (1947). Indeed, defendant's own testimony on voir dire would make any other conclusion irrational. Fish remembered writing the letter, signing it Reverend Mack Fish, sealing it, and delivering it to Mr. Covert. He also remembered telling him that it was a confession and to carry it to the judge. The contents of the letter itself establish the understanding of its author. Upon the voir dire to determine the admissibility of the statements which Fish made to the investigating officers on 11 September 1972, approximately two months before he wrote the letter on 7 November 1972, Fish and his sister, Mrs. Nichols, gave substantially the same testimony with reference to his mental condition which they gave on voir dire to determine the admissibility of the letter. In addition, Mrs. Leona Fish, defendant's mother, testified that his behavior was not normal. At the conclusion of the voir dire to determine the admissibility of defendant's oral confession, Judge Braswell specifically found (1) that there was no believable evidence that Fish lacked understanding of what he was doing at the time he made his statement to the officers on September 11th; and (2) that he made these statements voluntarily and understandingly. These findings are supported by ample evidence and are binding upon this court. If defendant knew what he was saying on September 11th, the presumption is that he also knew on November 7th. At that time he had been in jail for two months, and the record contains no suggestion that he had had access to drugs there. Furthermore, the statement of September 11th which contains details omitted in the letter fully substantiated Fish's admission therein that he was guilty of the murder with which he was charged. The trial judge's inadvertent omission to make a finding that Fish wrote the letter voluntarily and with understanding was error. Even so, in the factual setting of this case, the omission was harmless error. As we said in State v. Frank, 284 N. C. 137, 145, 200 S.E.2d 169 (1973), his failure to find the facts upon which his conclusion was based, as he should have done, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S. Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 (1967); State v. Taylor, 280 N.C. 273, 185 S.E.2d 677 (1972). Defendant's second assignment of error is overruled. Defendant assigns as error the admission of his statements to the officers on September 11th, but he does not contend that these were either involuntary or made without understanding. He contends that the memorandum from which Deputy Sheriff Munn read while testifying as to the statements constituted secondary evidence; that the tapes which recorded the conversation were the best evidence. Munn testified that the paper from which he read was a verbatim transcript of the statement which Fish made to him and the other officers in the presence of his codefendants. It was defendant's oral confession which was offered and admitted in evidence, and it was permissible for Munn to read from a transcript which, according to his sworn testimony, recorded the exact words used by the accused in his presence. A properly authenticated recording of an accused's confession if voluntary and otherwise lawful is admissible in evidence. State v. Doss, 279 N.C. 413, 183 S.E.2d 671 (1971); State v. Lynch, 279 N.C. 1, 181 S.E.2d 561 (1971); State v. Fox, 277 N.C. 1, 175 S.E.2d 561 (1970). However, the fact that a recording has been made of an oral confession does not prevent one who heard the confession from testifying as to what was said. State v. Fox, supra . [U]nless the effort is to prove the contents of the recording as such, as distinguished from proof of the statement or conversation which was recorded, the best evidence rule . . . does not apply to require the introduction of the recording, S. v. Fox, supra.  Stansbury's N.C. Evidence (Brandis Rev., 1973) § 32 n. 95. See also § 191 n. 24. We note that defendant made no request for the production of the tapes. Assignment of error No. 3 is overruled. Defendant's assignment No. 4 is: The Court erred when it did not allow the mother of the defendant or a medical expert to answer questions pertaining to the defendant's medical history. Exceptions Nos. 8, 9 (R p 77), 10 (R p 78), and 12 (R p 80). Assignment No. 5 is: The Court erred when it disallowed answer to question as leading questions propounded to an expert, which pertained to facts that led to the expert's opinion of the mental capacity of the defendant. Exceptions Nos. 11 (R p 79), 13, 14 (R p 80), and 15 (R p 81). Assignments Nos. 4 and 5 present no questions for this Court's consideration. Rule 19(3) of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court require that an assignment to the exclusion or admission of evidence show specifically what question appellant intends to present. This means that the question to which the objection was sustained and the answer which the witness would have made had he been permitted to answer must be set out in the assignment. State v. Gainey, 280 N. C. 366, 185 S.E.2d 874 (1972); Grimes v. Credit Company, 271 N.C. 608, 157 S.E. 2d 213 (1967); In Re Will of Adams, 268 N.C. 565, 151 S.E.2d 59 (1966). Where the court sustains an objection to evidence and the record fails to show what the evidence would have been, the exclusion of such evidence cannot be held prejudicial. State v. Mabry, 269 N.C. 293, 152 S.E.2d 112 (1967); 3 Strong's N.C. Index 2d Criminal Law § 169 (1967). Here, in each instance, the record fails to show the answer sought to be elicited. We note, however, that evidence of the import suggested by several of the questions had been previously admitted without objection and that none of the rulings suggest prejudicial error. In his brief, Fish expressly abandons his assignments of error Nos. 6 and 7. Assignment of error No. 8 is: The Court erred by giving an erroneous summation of the evidence. Exception No. 19 (R p 88). This assignment likewise fails to comply with Rule 19(3) of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, which requires that the portion of the charge which appellant contends to be erroneous shall be set forth in the assignment itself. State v. Robinson, 272 N.C. 271, 158 S.E.2d 23 (1967); 3 Strong's N.C. Index 2d Criminal Law § 163 (1967). Notwithstanding, we have read page 88 of the record and on it we find no error prejudicial to defendant. In the trial of defendant Fish we find no error.