Opinion ID: 1341219
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appeal of James Earl Newman

Text: James Earl Newman's sole assignment of error presents the question of whether the trial judge erred by limiting his cross-examination of the victim, Georgia Mae Harris. Defendant argues that the limitation on his cross-examination of Mrs. Harris as to her mental condition was particularly egregious since she was the principal witness in the identification process and the sole witness as to the actual commission of the crimes. The portion of the cross-examination relevant to this assignment of error is as follows: Q. Mrs. Harris, prior to your marriage were you known as Georgia Mae Green? A. That was my maiden name. Q. And what day were you born on? A. December 11th, 1947. Q. And is it not the case that you were involuntarily committed to the John Umstead Hospital in 1977? A. That'sNo, it was voluntarily. It wasn't involuntary. Q. In fact, there had been three admissions to the John Umstead Hospital that you have had, isn't that correct, Mrs. Harris? A. No, that is not correct. There have beenI was treated therapy and I was there on observation, because basically all of my life I had been a lively person and I knew that depression was sinking in and I wanted help. Q. And you were not committed? A. I had one commitment is what I'm saying. I had been committed once. Q. Mrs. Harris, do you remember participating in a Court hearing on May of 1977? A. Yes, I do. Q. Is that the time that you say that you were involuntarily committed? MR. SMITH: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. Answer the question. A. This is whenThis was when it was to be determined whether or not I was should be further treated or whether I was to be released to go home. I was in the custody of the law. I had to have a hearing. That was for all patients. And it was determined at that time that I did not need to be committed. Q. But you had been at the John Umstead Hospital in the eastern unit out there for a period of time prior to the actual hearing, isn't that the case? A. That's right, a waiting period. I was supposed to wait there until my trial or hearing. Q. And, in fact, the reason that you got to the John Umstead Hospital in the first place was because a person named Mary Green, who is your mother, filed a petition for an involuntary commitment with the Court in May of 1977, isn't that correct? MR. SMITH: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. A. My mother did do what you said. Q. And isn't the fact the case that at the time that your mother took out that petition the reason was that you were walking around the City of Durham in a nightgown making praying motions, appearing to be a victim of amnesia and hallucianating and telling everyone that you were Jesus, isn't that right? MR. SMITH: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. Witness will answer the question if she knows. A. I don't remember all of that. Q. And isn't in fact the case also that you were hearing voices of God and Angels at that time? MR. SMITH: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. Answer the question. A. I don't know that either. Q. And isn't it also the case that you were examined by a physician at Duke Hospital prior to going to John Umstead Hospital at that time, isn't that true? A. That is true. Q. And at that time you told the physician that you were Jesus and that you had been to hell and back? MR. SMITH: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. Answer it. A. I don't remember that. Q. And, in fact, you were psychotic at that time? MR. SMITH: Objection. J.E.N. Exception No. 1 THE COURT: Sustained. Q. Is it not the case, Mrs. Harris, that the illness that you were treated for was for paranoia schizophrenia? MR. SMITH: Objection. J.E.N. Exception No. 2 THE COURT: Sustained. Q. And is it also not the case that you received Thorazin MR. SMITH: Objection. Q. On that occasion? J.E.N. Exception No. 3 THE COURT: Sustained. Q. Have you ever taken the medication Thorazin, Mrs. Harris? MR. SMITH: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. And isn't it a fact that in May of 1977, Judge Linwood Peoples entered an order committing you MR. SMITH: Objection. Q. To John Umstead Hospital for fourteen days on an involuntary basis? MR. SMITH: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. The witness will answer the question if she knows. A. Would you repeat your question, please? Q. Isn't it in fact the case that in May of 1977, Judge Linwood Peoples in the District Court of Granville County entered an order committing you to John Umstead Hospital for fourteen days as an involuntary patient? A. I never heard of the man. Q. Now, Mrs. Harris, isn't it also the case that in January of 1978, a petition for involuntary committment was served on you? MR. SMITH: Objection. A. January of `78 MR. SMITH: I have an objection to it. THE COURT: Objection is overruled. Q. Is it not the case? A. January of 1978? Q. That's right. A. What was your question? Q. That a petition was served on you in January, 1978, for involuntary commitment under the name of Georgia Green? A. At that time I was beingreceiving therapy and counselling down at the Mental Health Center on Main Street. Q. But it is in fact the case that your mother, Mary C. Green, filed a petition with the Clerk of Superior Court in Granville County on January 4th, 1978? A. That's correct. Q. And in that petition, wasn't that the reason in that petition that you weren't able to comprehend things. You were paranoid, and you were acting in a very depressed state of mind. MR. SMITH: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. A. All of that was at my request. I had went to talk to my mother prior to all of this. Q. And, in fact, when you were examined you claimed that by the physician at the time that petition was filed that you claimed that your boy friend controlled your thoughts and actions? MR. SMITH: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. Answer the question. A. I don't remember that. Q. And further that you were examined MR. SMITH: Objection to the form of that question. Even with it's starting out with further Q. Let me ask also, Mrs. THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead, please. Q. Harris, that on January 2nd, 1978, you were examined in the Emergency Room at Duke Hospital? MR. SMITH: Objection, relevancy. THE COURT: Overruled. Answer the question. A. Yes. Q. And that was in connection with this petition that was filed by your mother, isn't that right? A. That's right. Q. And at that time you told the physician that you had lost your penis and you had syphilis? MR. SMITH: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. Answer the question. A. I don't know anything about that. Q. And isn't it the case that you were taken to Butner to John Umstead Hospital at the Eastern Unit? A. That is a fact. Q. And that you stayed there for a period of at least fourteen days, isn't that right? A. I stayed there for a short period of time. I'm not sure of how many days. Q. And is it also the case that you continued to take medication for your mental illness? MR. SMITH: Overruled. THE COURT: Overruled. Answer that. A. I've been taking medication since `78 and God. On re-direct examination the State presented the following evidence: Q. A few years ago you received some counselling and/or treatment for some emotional problems that you were having at the time, is that correct? A. That's right. Q. Where did you receive help from? A. John Umstead Hospital and Durham Medical Community Health Center. Q. Did you get help at first as a result of your own efforts or did somebody take you and lock you up and force you to seek some help? A. The first initial move was made voluntarily. Q. You thought you were becoming depressed and sought help for that? A. Yes, sir. And I wasn't labeled as a Q. We're not talking about what you were labeled. A. I'm sorry. Q. Did you receive help for problems that you were experiencing during that time? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember what was causing some of the problems that you were having? A. Yes. Q. What were they? A. At that time I was the only parent and I was a working mother and a student. There was a lot of pressure on me and there could have been any number of things. I was probably, after having talked with some of the people there they let me know that I had been a person that was basically shut up and kept things inside of me, balled up inside of me, through the years and I had never really confided in or had anyone to talk with. Q. Were you able as a result of your interaction with the workers at the agencies that you mentioned able to open up? A. Yes. Q. Did you feel any relief as a result of the help that you received? MS. PETERSEN: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. Answer it. A. Very much so, yes, sir. Q. When was the last time that you received some help for emotional problems or mental problems? A. January of 1978. Q. Have you been better able to handle the stress causing problems that you had before that time which led you to seek help in the first place? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you continued to have any problems, emotionally, psychologically, mentally, since January, 1978? A. No, sir. Q. In July of 1981, were you experiencing any emotional, psychological or mental problems or pressures that effected your judgment in anyway similar to the way that you were feeling during the time in 1978, that you sought help for? A. I was of sound mind. Q. So you felt that the help that you got back in `77 or `78, during that time, was helpful to you? A. Yes, sir. Then, on recross-examination, counsel for defendant attempted to show that Mrs. Harris' characterization, during redirect examination, of the seriousness of her mental illness was inaccurate and in fact grossly understated the degree and kind of her mental illness: Q. Now, going back to theMr. Smith asked you some questions about the mental situation. He asked you if you remembered in 1977, in the commitment proceeding in May of 1977, were you able to fill out the information concerning the appointment of counsel and sign the necessary forms that were offered to you by the Court? MR. SMITH: Objection, relevancy. J.E.N. Exception No. 4 THE COURT: Objection sustained. Q. Let me ask also, have you ever been found by a Court to have been a paranoid schizophreniac? MR. SMITH: Objection. J.E.N. Exception No. 5 THE COURT: Objection sustained. Q. Do you remember participating in a Court hearing before the Honorable Linwood Peoples? MR. SMITH: Objection. J.E.N. Exception No. 6 THE COURT: Sustained. Q. At the time that you were committed you were at the Eastern Unit of the John Umstead Hospital, is that correct? MR. SMITH: Objection. J.E.N. Exception No. 7 THE COURT: Sustained. Q. Let me ask that you look at this document in a Court proceeding file MR. SMITH: May I see it. (Hands document to Mr. Smith.) Q. Let me ask you if that is an order of involuntary commitment in the matter of Georgia Green? MR. SMITH: Objection. J.E.N. Exception No. 8 THE COURT: Sustained. Q. I have no other questions. Upon defense counsel's request, the trial court permitted cross-examination of Georgia Mae Harris in the absence of the jury. His purpose was to place answers in the record to questions which were sustained when she was examined before the jury. We quote: Q. Mrs. Harris, I ask you again if in May of 1977, you were able to sign and fill out the information affidavit concerning appointment of counsel in a special proceeding which was filed for your involuntary commitment in May of 1977? A. Could you rephrase that, please? Q. There is a form that is in the Court file in a special proceeding in May of 1977 for the involuntary commitment of Georgia Green and I'm asking whether or not you were able to fill out the information form concerning whether or not you were entitled to an attorney and whether or not you were indigent at that time? A. I did sign papers myself. Q. Let me ask you if you would look at the form which is in the Court file in the matter of Georgia Green and ask if you see your signature on that paper which is headed information concerning appointment of counsel? A. That's not my signature on it. Q. Does it in fact say on the line which has responded which is Georgia Green that respondent is unable to sign form? A. That's what's on there. Q. I ask that you also look at this statement in reference to financial status questionaire and ask if you signed that document in the same Court file? A. My name is on here. Q. And is it again, in fact, stated on here that the respondent was unable to give information or states unable to obtain information from respondent? Is that what is stated on that document? A. That's what's on there. Q. I would ask that you look at that Court order, the Court order that I showed you in the matter of Georgia Green 77 SP 421, and ask if you had ever been found by a Court to be paranoid schizophreniac? A. I cannot answer that with a yes or a no. Q. Let me direct your attention to the fact that this is the Court file involving you, Georgia Green, and ask if there is a paragraph in here that is checked by the Court, particularly the first paragraph of this Court Order has been checked, is that correct? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And would you read that first paragraph? A. The patient is mentally ill. What is that word, please? Q. Inebriate. A. Inebriate suffering with a mental disorder. Diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia. Q. And that, in fact, is in the Court order that has your name at the top of it, isn't that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Now, let me ask you also if there is a paragraph in there that says that you are unable to care for yourself at the present time? A. That's correct. Q. And is in fact that Court order dated May 18th, 1977? A. Yes. Q. And is it signed by Linwood Peoples, District Court Judge? A. Yes, it is. Q. And that is, in fact, the Court order involuntarily committing you to the John Umstead Hospital, is that correct? A. Yes. I remember all of it, but I just don't know that Judge. You asked me if I know him and I just don't remember his name. Q. That's all, your Honor. The competency of a witness to testify by reason of mental incapacity is raised by a motion requesting the trial judge to pass on the witness' competency. The resolution of this question rests largely within the discretion of the trial judge. State v. Benton, 276 N.C. 641, 174 S.E.2d 793 (1970); State v. Robinson, 283 N.C. 71, 194 S.E.2d 811 (1973). Since defendant did not make such a motion, we assume defendant was satisfied as to the witness' competency to testify. It follows that his cross-examination of the prosecuting witness was directed toward impugning her credibility. See 1 H. Brandis on North Carolina Evidence, Witnesses § 44 (2d Rev.Ed.1982); Moyle v. Hopkins, 222 N.C. 33, 21 S.E.2d 826 (1942). It is well settled that in a criminal case an accused is assured his right to cross-examine adverse witnesses by the constitutional guarantee of the right of confrontation. N.C. Const. art. I, § 23. State v. Watson, 281 N.C. 221, 188 S.E.2d 289, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1043, 93 S.Ct. 537, 34 L.Ed.2d 493 (1972). State v. Davis, 294 N.C. 397, 241 S.E.2d 656 (1978). 1 H. Brandis on North Carolina Evidence, Witnesses, § 35 (2d Rev.Ed.1982). The range of relevant cross-examination is very broad, but it is subject to the discretionary powers of the trial judge to keep it within reasonable bounds. State v. Miller, 288 N.C. 582, 220 S.E.2d 326 (1975); State v. Royal, 300 N.C. 515, 268 S.E.2d 517 (1980). We agree with defendant's contention that he was entitled to discredit the prosecuting witness' testimony by attempting to show by cross-examination that she suffered from a mental impairment which affected her powers of observation, memory or narration. 1 H. Brandis on North Carolina Evidence, Witnesses § 44 (2d Rev.Ed. 1982). Evidence of past mental defects is admissible for this purpose. Moyle v. Hopkins, supra; State v. Armstrong, 232 N.C. 727, 62 S.E.2d 50 (1950). Defendant was permitted to conduct a lengthy and in depth cross-examination into the past mental condition of the prosecuting witness. We are convinced that by this cross-examination the jury was made acutely aware of her prior mental problems. Additionally, the jury had ample opportunity to observe the prosecuting witness' demeanor and hear her responses to the questions posed so as to form an opinion as to whether her powers of observation, memory and narration were then so impaired that she was not a credible witness. We hold that the trial judge did not unduly limit defendant James Newman's cross-examination of the prosecuting witness. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we hold that defendants Roy Lee Newman and James Earl Newman received a fair trial free of prejudicial error. NO ERROR.