Court Opinion

ID: 9846442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:41:02.475887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:30.048457
License: Public Domain

Justice Copeland
dissenting.
The majority holds that defendant could be cross-examined during trial about “her prior conduct in the shooting and killing of Nellie Somner in the state of Florida in 1973” (emphasis added) even though she had been found not guilty by reason of insanity in that case and even though the trial judge in this case had ordered the prosecutor not to ask about any prior killings by the defendant for which she had been found not guilty by reason of insanity. The majority so holds because there was not, during *243trial, “adequate evidence upon which the trial judge could make a ruling that defendant had in fact, in the Florida case, been found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity.”
After trial, defendant moved for appropriate relief when she learned that the assistant district attorney had received a PIN report during the cross-examination of the defendant which revealed that she had been found not guilty by reason of insanity in the Florida case. The majority upholds the denial of defendant’s motion for appropriate relief because “criminal and degrading conduct [may be asked about on cross-examination] . . . even though [defendant] . . . has been acquitted of the charge, provided the questions are asked in good faith.”
I respectfully dissent because whether the question concerns a prior conviction, a prior act of misconduct for which there has been an acquittal as in State v. Herbin, 298 N.C. 441, 259 S.E. 2d 263 (1979), or a prior act of misconduct which has not been the basis for a criminal prosecution, the conduct must be misconduct, i.e., wrongful. The questioning in this case did not concern a prior act of misconduct for two reasons. First, the questioning was about a prior killing, and second, defendant was found to be insane at the time of that killing.
In ignoring the first of these two points, the majority’s holding is squarely in conflict with our decision last term in State v. Purcell, 296 N.C. 728, 252 S.E. 2d 772 (1979). There we held it to be prejudicial error for the State to ask the defendant on cross-examination, “You have killed somebody haven’t you, Mr. Purcell?” and “Well, it was known all around town that you had killed somebody weren’t it?” (Emphasis added.) In so holding, Justice Exum writing for the Court stated that,
“The purpose of permitting inquiry into specific acts of criminal or degrading conduct is to allow the jury to consider these acts in weighing the credibility of a witness who has committed them. For this purpose to be fulfilled, the questions put to the witness must enlighten the jury in some degree as to the nature of the witness’ act. Questions so loosely phrased as the one here give the jury no clear indication about the witness’ credibility. Under our law and the mores of our society, killing is not categorically wrong. As the Arkansas Supreme Court said when confronted with a *244similar issue in Stanley v. State, 171 Ark. 536, 537, 285 S.W. 17, 18 (1926): ‘A homicide is not necessarily a crime. The killing may have been an accident or entirely justifiable.’ Indeed, a soldier who kills the enemy in war may be thought a hero. When a question is put to a witness about some prior act for the purpose of impeaching his credibility, and the question does not show by its phrasing that the act was wrongful, an objection to it should be sustained.” Id. at 733, 252 S.E. 2d at 775 [Emphasis added].
With regard to the second point, the rule is that, on cross-examination when defendant has not placed his character in issue, he may be asked, for purposes of impeachment, about any specific acts of misconduct which tend to impeach his character. State v. Herbin, supra; State v. Purcell, supra; State v. McKenna, 289 N.C. 668, 224 S.E. 2d 537, death sentence vacated, 429 U.S. 912 (1976); State v. Hartsell, 272 N.C. 710, 158 S.E. 2d 785 (1968). Of course, the misconduct does not have to be criminal. It includes any specific bad acts which tend to impeach defendant’s character. 1 Stansbury’s N.C. Evid. § 111, notes 9, 11 and 12 (Brandis Rev. 1973 and Cum. Supp. 1979) and the numerous cases cited therein.
The purpose for asking defendant about prior specific acts of misconduct is to impeach his character. Therefore, the act must have been one which reflects on his character by being morally and/or legally wrong. Id. The act must have been wrongful. State v. Purcell, supra.
The very definition of misconduct also makes this point clear:
“Misconduct. A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior, its synonyms are misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offense. . . .” Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979), p. 901. [Emphasis added.]
As the majority states the rule, criminal or degrading conduct may be asked about. By definition degradation means,
“A deprivation of dignity; dismissal from rank or office; act or process of degrading. Moral or intellectual decadence; *245degeneration; deterioration.” Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979), p. 381. [Emphasis added.]
An insane person cannot be held accountable for his actions because, by definition, he knows not the difference between right and wrong. Surely, defendant could be confined for treatment, but the law and society do not hold her legally or morally accountable and seek to punish her for any wrongdoing.
The majority does not base its decision on questioning about a prior conviction since defendant was found not guilty by reason of insanity. The majority holds that even though she was acquitted of the charge, it was still an act of misconduct that she could be questioned about citing State v. Herbin, supra. In Herbin we did hold that the defendant could be asked if he had in fact raped one Virginia Pearson even though he had been acquitted of rape and convicted of the lesser offense of assault on a female. However, rape is wrongful and illegal conduct for which the defendant could be held accountable to society and the law. Thus, there was misconduct in Herbin but there is not in the case sub judice. Therefore, Herbin is not supportive of the majority’s holding in this case. Since defendant was found to be insane at the time of the killing in Florida and since the questioning was phrased in terms of a prior killing, we do not have a prior specific act of misconduct (wrongdoing) that was a proper subject of inquiry on cross-examination.
Asking about the incident was most certainly prejudicial to defendant, State v. Purcell, supra, because it opened up for possible inquiry by the jury what her culpability was for that Florida killing and whether she was sane or insane at the time. That was an impermissible subject of inquiry for the jury. It prejudiced the defendant because she may have been convicted for the North Carolina killing, whether she was guilty or not, simply because the jury was aware that this was at least the second time such a killing had occurred by her hand and thus she should be incarcerated. Thus, there is a reasonable possibility that had the error not occurred, a different result would have been reached at the trial. G.S. 15A-1443.
The assistant district attorney who prosecuted this case testified during the hearing on the motion for appropriate relief that he had been specifically instructed by the trial judge “that *246cross-examination would not be allowed with regard to a prior killing if the person had been found not guilty by reason of insanity.” During trial, the trial judge did not know the legal determination in the Florida case because assistant district attorney George Fuller, who came into possession of this information during the cross-examination of the defendant, did not reveal this information (contained in the PIN report) to the trial judge.
The actual determination in the Florida case is a matter of record in this case and is contained in the testimony of assistant district attorney George Fuller given during the hearing on the motion for appropriate relief. He testified that the information on the result of that Florida case was conflicting. He was told at one time that she had been found “not guilty by reason of insanity” and another time he was told that she was “never tried because she was found incompetent to stand trial.” He then testified that he received Exhibit A (the PIN report). It revealed that “at one point [she was] hospitalized as being incompetent to stand trial. At a later point, she was returned for trial and . . . found not guilty by reason of insanity. ...” [Emphasis added.] He testified that he came into possession of the PIN report “during the course of the trial after the voir dire of the Florida killing shortly in the cross examination of the defendant.” Therefore, defendant was in fact found not guilty by reason of insanity in the Florida killing and the assistant district attorney violated the trial judge’s instructions on this matter.
I believe that the trial judge was correct in his original instructions to the assistant district attorney during the trial because, as discussed above, the law says that an insane person is not to be held accountable to society for his actions and because the questions were phrased in terms of a prior killing. The assistant district attorney was clearly incorrect in his actions because he violated the trial judge’s instructions and, for the reasons discussed above, this action was prejudicial error in the defendant’s trial.
If Assistant District Attorney George Fuller had followed the trial judge’s instructions during the trial, this error may not have occurred. Whether defendant was sane or insane at the time of the killing in North Carolina, I do not know. My concern is that she have her day in court so that this very issue may be justly *247determined by a fair and impartial jury free from prejudicial influences. Defendant, as the majority notes, is not entitled to a perfect trial. However, she is entitled to one that is fair no matter how many times it may take the State to fulfill this requirement. Justice requires a new trial and that is how I cast my vote.
Justices EXUM and CARLTON join in this dissent.