Court Opinion

ID: 9845965
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:31:56.394125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:30.057964
License: Public Domain

Justice BROCK
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the analysis and holding of the majority opinion and I vote to uphold the order of Judge Kirby *326denying defendant’s motion for a new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence.
The majority opinion places considerable stress on the fact that Judge Kirby found that defendant talked to Officer Bailey during the first trial concerning the defendant’s having overheard the police radio broadcast on the evening of 29 November 1975 that the officers had stopped a car and the “rabbit had run again.” The majority stresses that this finding of fact by Judge Kirby is not supported by the evidence because from the evidence it appears that the defendant first talked to Officer Bailey about the radio broadcast after the second trial. To me, this finding of fact by Judge Kirby is immaterial to the real question involved. The real question is whether the defendant had sufficient information prior to the second trial to impose upon him a reasonable duty to talk to Officer Bailey prior to the second trial.
At the hearing of the motion for the new trial, Officer Bailey testified as follows:
“Yes, he knew who the rabbit was, who I was referring to. He knew I was talking about Parker, the person (sic) had given testimony against him at his trial. He told me he knew that because he heard the conversation himself, with his own ears. On May 9, [1978] he told me, ‘you remember stopping Jackie Parker driving Doris’ car that night and you referred to him as the rabbit’s run again?’ ”
It is clear from the above testimony that defendant heard the police radio broadcast on 29 November 1975, which was prior to his indictment in this case. When the defendant did talk to Officer Bailey, at whatever time his conversation with Officer Bailey may have been, he asked the Officer, “you remember stopping Jackie Parker driving Doris’ car that night and you referred to him as the rabbit’s run again?” It seems quite clear that the defendant knew at all times from having heard the police radio broadcast on 29 November 1975 that Officer Bailey had stopped Jackie Parker and that Jackie Parker was driving Doris Hoilman’s automobile. In my view this should have caused the defendant to talk with Officer Bailey prior to the second trial.
The majority also declare Judge Kirby’s order null and void because there was no showing in the record that the parties con*327sented to have the order entered out of term, out of session, out of county and out of district from where the hearing was held. The defendant does not raise any question about this and it seems obvious to me that the entry by Judge Kirby of the order at a later time and out of the district was verbally or tactitly agreed to by the parties and does not render it null and void.
It is not unusual that a judge would want the court reporter to transcribe the testimony at the hearing in order that he would have an opportunity to review it before entering his order. To me this is obviously what Judge Kirby wanted in this situation. His discussion with the attorneys involved is not a matter of record but it seems clear to me, since the defendant does not now raise the question, that the parties agreed that Judge Kirby should have time to study the transcript and that he might enter such order at such time and place after he had time to study the transcript. In my view Baker v. Varser, 239 N.C. 180, 79 S.E. 2d 757 (1954) and Clark v. Cagle, 226 N.C. 230, 37 S.E. 2d 672 (1946) have no application to the facts or the law of this case.
I vote to uphold the order of Judge Kirby.
Chief Justice BRANCH and Justice HUSKINS join in this dissent.