Court Opinion

ID: 9845899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:30:42.630045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:25.217662
License: Public Domain

Judge VAUGHN
dissenting.
I must note at the outset that the judge’s actions in this matter are patently erroneous. Defendant was indicted for the felony of destroying evidence relevant to a criminal offense or court proceeding. As used in the statute, evidence means any article or document in the possession of a law enforcement officer or officer of the General Court of Justice being retained as evidence. G.S. 14-221.1. The indictment alleges that defendant destroyed evidence, marijuana, relevant to a criminal offense involving one John Oren Gallman that was being retained for introduction into evidence. Defendant may or may not have destroyed evidence being so held by the officer. At defendant’s trial, however, the State will not be required to prove that the substance destroyed was, in fact, marijuana. The essence of the crime is the destruction of evidence being held for trial, not what the evidence might be.
It further appears to me that there is absolutely nothing in this record to sustain or justify the order entered, which is as follows:
“that no evidence of the test conducted in the High Point Police Department laboratory on 10 January 1979 upon the substance which the State contends is marijuana in its answer to the defendant’s request for voluntary discovery and in the indictment in this matter nor any evidence of the result of said test shall be admitted into evidence upon the trial of this case nor shall the State make any mention of said test or the result thereof at the trial of this matter.”
I next consider the nature of the motion under consideration. Defendant’s motion to suppress was, in part, as follows:
“NOW COMES the defendant, by and through his counsel, W. B. Byerly, Jr. and Walter E. Clark, Jr., pursuant to Chapter 15A, Article 53, of the General Statutes of North Carolina, and moves to suppress evidence of a reported test on July 10, 1978, of green vegetable material in the police laboratory of the High Point Police Department. In support of his motion, defendant shows unto the Court. . . .”
*572In paragraph (4) of the order before us, the judge recites “During the hearing of this motion the defendant asked that his motion to suppress also be allowed and taken as a motion in limine and the Court has so considered this motion.”
Article 53 of Chapter 15A provides the only express statutory procedure (in criminal cases) for the suppression of evidence prior to trial. A motion to suppress made under that article is, of course, a motion “in limine.” Calling a motion to suppress a motion “in limine” does not change or otherwise describe the motion to suppress — it merely designates its threshold timing. The label simply points out when it is made, not what kind of motion it is or what it seeks to accomplish. Other than a motion to suppress under Article 53 of Chapter 15A, “North Carolina has no statutory provisions for such a motion [in limine].” State v. Ruof, 296 N.C. 623, 628, 252 S.E. 2d 720, 724 (1979). If defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, made preliminarily, before trial and “in limine” was properly made, it was made under Article 53. The State, consequently, has the right to appeal. G.S. 15A-979.
There may be an instance when the judge can indicate preliminarily his views on the admissibility of certain evidence, not subject to exclusion under Article 53. Such a decision, however, is not irrevocable if, when put to test during the crucible of trial, the propriety of admissibility becomes more apparent to the judge and he elects to change his mind.
I respectfully suggest that the majority’s reference to G.S. 15A-952 is misplaced. That section is a part of Article 52 entitled “Motions Practice” and deals with motion practice generally in criminal cases. It is, of course, true that G.S. 15A-952(a) provides that any “defense objection or request which is capable of being determined without the trial of the general issue may be raised before trial by motion.” Article 53 is, in my view, consistent with this section and details the procedure to be followed when the “objection” or “request” is to suppress evidence by pretrial motion.
I would entertain the appeal and reverse the order.