Opinion ID: 1276174
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: all defendants

Text: Each of the three defendants challenged the consolidation of their cases for trial and the admission into evidence of extrajudicial statements of each defendant which referred to the other defendants, determination of their guilt by a so-called death-qualified jury, and the use of the aggravating factor that the offenses were committed for hire or pecuniary gain in enhancing their sentences for first-degree burglary, second-degree kidnapping, and breaking or entering and larceny. Prior to trial, each defendant filed a written motion to sever his trial from that of his codefendants. These motions were heard by the trial judge on 6 May 1982, but a ruling was deferred. Immediately prior to trial on 21 June 1982, the prosecutor moved to join all three defendants' cases in one trial on grounds specified in N.C.G.S. § 15A-926. Over all defendants' objections, this motion was allowed. We address first the consolidation of the defendants' cases for trial and the admission into evidence of extrajudicial statements of each defendant. Prior to trial the prosecution was granted a motion to join the three defendants' cases for trial. The motion was granted upon the grounds specified in N.C.G.S. § 15A-926, to wit: that the cases were based on identical charges, they arose out of the same series of transactions, and the evidence was the same. The defendants, in their challenge to the consolidation, contend that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence expurgated extrajudicial statements which implicated the other codefendants. All three defendants made extrajudicial statements amounting to interlocking confessions which were subsequently admitted into evidence. Each defendant's statement admitted participation in the crimes with other persons. The only real conflict in their statements was as to which of the defendants beat Mr. and Mrs. Greer. Each defendant's statement or statements that mentioned accomplices was sanitized either prior to or during the course of the trial by inserting in the place of the names mentioned the other person, two others, others, or they, so as not to implicate specific individuals. Defendant Flowers made two statements. His first statement was made in the Iredell County Sheriff's Office at approximately 3:07 a.m. on 3 January 1982. His second statement was made the same day at approximately 5:29 a.m. at the Wilkes County Sheriff's Office. Before allowing these to be read into evidence, the trial judge instructed the jury that the statements could be considered only against Flowers and nobody else. Both of these statements referred to two other people who were with him during the time the crimes were being perpetrated. Defendant Hayes made a statement to the Sheriff of Wilkes County at 11:00 a.m. on 3 January 1982 in which he admitted that he was the one who crashed through the window into the Greer residence but in which he denied touching either Mr. or Mrs. Greer. In his statement, he said that he was in the company of two others. The trial judge carefully limited the statement to Hayes and instructed the jury not to consider it as to the other two defendants. Defendant Roberts made a statement to his cellmate while he was confined in the Wilkes County Jail awaiting trial on or about 20 April 1982. He told his cellmate, Grover Bauguess, that he beat Mr. Greer while the other two beat Mrs. Greer to make her tell where the money was hidden. The trial judge carefully instructed the jury that this statement was limited to Roberts only. Nancy Cole, Hayes' girl friend, testified as to a conversation between Hayes, Roberts, Roberts' girl friend, and herself to the effect that Roberts was the one who beat Mr. Greer. There was also independent evidence that certain items from the Greer home and store were found in the possession of the defendants. In his final instructions, the trial judge again instructed that the statements were limited to the defendant who made them and that they were not to be used against codefendants. None of the defendants testified. All three defendants argue strenuously that the consolidation of their cases for trial and the subsequent admission into evidence of their extrajudicial statements violates the holding in State v. Woods, 311 N.C. 80, 316 S.E.2d 229 (1984). The defendants generally contend that they were denied their Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against them by the admission of the statements of non-testifying codefendants in the consolidated trial. More specifically, they argue that the admission of these statements into evidence runs afoul of the holding in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). In Paoli v. United States, 352 U.S. 232, 77 S.Ct. 294, 1 L.Ed.2d 278 (1957), the United States Supreme Court said that a confession made by a defendant was not admissible against codefendants. The Court went on to hold that a confession implicating codefendants could be admitted against the confessor in a joint trial if the trial court clearly instructs the jury that the statement may not be considered against the codefendants. In Bruton, the Court held that the admission of a non-testifying codefendant's confession implicating a defendant violates his constitutional right of confrontation. The Supreme Court went on to reject Paoli's holding that encroachment upon this right could be avoided simply by an instruction to the jury to disregard the confession as to the confessor's codefendants. In State v. Fox, 274 N.C. 277, 163 S.E.2d 492 (1968), we noted that the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause had been made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment in Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965), and therefore recognized that Bruton was binding on this Court. We went on to hold in Fox that, in joint trials, extrajudicial confessions must be excluded unless all portions which implicate the confessor's codefendants can be deleted from the statement without prejudice to either the State or to the confessor. If the confession cannot be sanitized, the State must choose between relinquishing the confession or trying the defendants separately. The Fox holding was subsequently codified by the legislature as N.C.G.S. § 15A-927(c)(1), which provides: When a defendant objects to joinder of charges against two or more defendants for trial because an out-of-court statement of a codefendant makes reference to him but is not admissible against him, the court must require the prosecutor to select one of the following courses: a. A joint trial at which the statement is not admitted into evidence; or b. A joint trial at which the statement is admitted into evidence only after all references to the moving defendant have been effectively deleted so that the statement will not prejudice him; or c. A separate trial of the objecting defendant. All three defendants earnestly contend that the confessions of their codefendants implicated them in the crimes. As noted previously, those portions of the confessions that mentioned accomplices were sanitized by the substitution of the words the other person, two others, others, or they for specific names. However, the defendants point out that, in State v. Woods, 311 N.C. 80, 316 S.E.2d 229 (1984), we held that a defendant's name need not be mentioned in the confession in order to implicate him. In Woods, three defendants were tried jointly for the armed robbery of a service station. The extrajudicial statement of one of the defendants was admitted into evidence and provided in pertinent part, I told him I was with some guys, but that I didn't rob anyone, they did. Id. at 94, 316 S.E.2d at 237. We held that, because the confessor's two codefendants were being tried jointly with him, and since only two persons were seen in the service station at the time of the robbery, the statement clearly implicated the appellant Woods. The defendants argue that Woods is controlling here. With regard to the confessions of Flowers and Hayes, it is clear that Woods is not controlling. In Woods, there were three defendants, but only two persons were seen in the service station at the time of the robbery. The confessor placed the other two defendants at the scene of the robbery. Here, however, the testimony of Mrs. Greer established that three perpetrators were at the scene, and all three defendants admit to being at the Greer residence and participating in the robbery. The discrepancies between the confessions of Flowers and Hayes concern the identification of the persons who actually assaulted the Greers. According to Flowers' confessions, one of the two people that had already been in assaulted Mr. Greer while Mrs. Greer was beaten by one of the other people that was with him. Hayes' confession states that one man with a stick got to the bed and started beating Mr. Greer and that he and one man began to search the house for money. In light of the fact that all three perpetrators were at the scene of the crime, we find these vague and ambiguous references to be incapable of implicating a specific individual. However, Roberts, in his confession, stated that he attacked Mr. Greer while the other two men assaulted Mrs. Greer. It could be argued that, under Woods, this implicated Flowers and Hayes. Also, Roberts' confession included the statement that the third man drove the car that belonged to Dennis Hayes. Assuming, arguendo, that this statement did implicate Roberts' codefendants, we hold that this does not entitle them to a new trial. A Bruton violation does not automatically require reversal of an otherwise valid conviction. On at least three occasions, the United States Supreme Court has applied a harmless error analysis to claimed Bruton violations. Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973); Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 92 S.Ct. 1056, 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969). In their confessions, each defendant admitted having participated in the planning of the burglary and to being present at the Greer home at the time of burglary. The only discrepancies among the confessions revolved around the issue of who actually assaulted the Greers. However, it is well established that where two or more persons join together to commit a crime, each of them, if actually or constructively present, is guilty of the particular crime and any other crime committed by the other or others in furtherance of or as a natural consequence of the common purpose. State v. Oliver, 302 N.C. 28, 274 S.E.2d 183 (1981); State v. Westbrook, 279 N.C. 18, 181 S.E.2d 572 (1971), death sentence vacated, 408 U.S. 939, 92 S.Ct. 2873, 33 L.Ed.2d 761 (1972). The assaults on the Greers and the subsequent death of Mr. Greer as a result of the beating inflicted upon him were clearly in furtherance of or a natural consequence of the burglary committed by all three defendants. The question of which of the defendants actually committed the assaults was irrelevant to the jury verdicts finding each of the defendants guilty of all of the crimes charged. The interlocking confessions combined with the fact that certain items taken from the Greers were found in the possession of some of the defendants provided overwhelming evidence of each defendant's guilt as to each charge and any Bruton error which may have occurred was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(b). We further hold that any violation of N.C.G.S. § 15A-927(c)(1) which may have occurred due to the admission of Roberts' confession does not entitle Flowers and Hayes to a new trial. Under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a), a defendant is prejudiced by errors relating to rights arising other than under the constitution when there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error not occurred, a different result would have been reached at trial. Applying this standard, we hold that there is no possibility that, had the error not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial, and thus any violation of N.C.G.S. § 15A-927(c)(1) that may have occurred as a result of the admission of Roberts' confession was not prejudicial as to Flowers or Hayes. In light of this analysis, we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting the State's motion to join the cases for trial pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-927. It is well established that a trial court's ruling on the consolidation or severance of cases is discretionary and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of discretion. E.g., State v. Lake, 305 N.C. 143, 286 S.E.2d 541 (1982); State v. Silva, 304 N.C. 122, 282 S.E.2d 449 (1981). A trial court may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon a showing that its ruling was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision. State v. Wilson, 313 N.C. 516, 330 S.E.2d 450 (1985). In light of the fact that the charges against each defendant arose out of a common scheme or plan entered into by the defendants and the evidence against each would be almost identical, we are unable to say that the trial judge abused his discretion by joining the defendants' cases for trial. The defendants next contend that the practice of death-qualifying the jury before the guilt-innocence phase of the trial resulted in a jury biased in favor of the prosecution on the issue of guilt and deprived them of a fair trial. We have repeatedly upheld North Carolina's jury selection process in first-degree murder cases as constitutional. E.g., State v. Vereen, 312 N.C. 499, 324 S.E.2d 250, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 2170, 85 L.Ed.2d 526 (1985); State v. Noland, 312 N.C. 1, 320 S.E.2d 642 (1984), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1232, 84 L.Ed.2d 369, reh'g denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 2044, 85 L.Ed.2d 342 (1985). This assignment of error is overruled. The defendants' next argument concerns the sentences which were imposed by the trial judge for their convictions for first-degree burglary, second-degree kidnapping, breaking or entering, and larceny. On the first-degree burglary convictions, each defendant was sentenced to the maximum term of 50 years. On the second-degree kidnapping convictions, each received the maximum sentence of 30 years. On the breaking or entering and larceny convictions, each defendant was sentenced to the maximum term of 10 years. In support of these sentences, the court made separate findings of aggravating and mitigating factors for each judgment. The trial court found as an aggravating factor for each crime as to each defendant that the offenses were committed for hire or pecuniary gain. The defendants argue that this finding in aggravation was error in each case and that they are entitled to new sentencing hearings on these convictions. We agree. Subsequent to the trial of these defendants, we held in State v. Abdullah, 309 N.C. 63, 306 S.E.2d 100 (1983), that under the Fair Sentencing Act there must be evidence that the defendant was paid or hired to commit the offense before this aggravating factor may be found. The State concedes that there was no evidence that the defendants were paid or hired to commit these crimes. When the trial judge errs in finding an aggravating factor and imposes a sentence in excess of the presumptive term, the case must be remanded for a new sentencing hearing. State v. Ahearn, 307 N.C. 584, 300 S.E.2d 689 (1983). The terms imposed for each offense exceeded the presumptive terms set out in N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.4(f). Therefore, each defendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing on his convictions for first-degree burglary, second-degree kidnapping, breaking or entering, and larceny.