Court Opinion

ID: 9587024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:17:25.453729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:59.490036
License: Public Domain

Justice Martin
dissenting in part.
I concur in the guilt-innocence portion of the majority opinion but respectfully dissent from the remanding of the case for a new sentencing hearing. The majority finds the evidence insufficient to submit the issue to the jury of whether the capital crime was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. In this finding I cannot concur. I do concur in that portion of the majority opinion concerning whether the shotgun in this case was a weapon within the meaning of N.C.G.S. 15A-2000(e)(10).
This blatant murder in cold blood of a black man by this white defendant was racially motivated. A racially motivated murder evidences abnormal brutality and depravity not found in other murders. It is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. State v. Stanley, 310 N.C. 332, 312 S.E. 2d 393 (1984).
The majority concedes that for the purpose of evaluating the prosecution’s jury argument, the evidence supports a finding that the murder was racially motivated. The deceased, Ransom Con*505nelly, was a sixty-two-year-old black man driving his car through a white community in the nighttime. He was accompanied by another black man, the witness Phillip Kincaid. When defendant and his women friends, Lynn Whisnant and Carolyn Bradshaw, left the American Legion Hut, they intended to go to Morganton. However, after following Connelly and Kincaid on Zion Hill Road for 1.3 miles, defendant changed his mind. Even though Lynn asked him to turn right on highway 64-70 toward Morganton, defendant turned left and continued to follow his intended victims. All during this travel, defendant had repeatedly honked the car horn, followed Connelly’s Pontiac car very closely, and bumped the rear of the car at least twice.
The testimony of Ronnie Bowen supports a finding that defendant murdered Connelly for racial reasons. Bowen was in jail with defendant for about two months after the murder and before the trial. He testified that he talked with defendant several times about defendant’s case and:
Q. State whether or not you told him what you were charged with and if he told you about things he was changed [sic] with.
A. Yes sir, I told him I was charged with forgery and he was in there for shooting a nigger, is what he told me. . . . He told me that he had followed a dude, that he followed a nigger into, down the road into a parking lot drug store and pulled up beside of him, that he shot the man with a shotgun out of the window, was rolled down on the truck. . . .Yes sir, he said something about it wasn’t on his conscience and that he had killed the nigger, but since he was in jail he regreted [sic] it, but that it didn’t bother him, though.
Q. By what names did he refer to the person that he told you that he had shot; what did he call that person?
A. Old man. Nigger; most of all nigger.
Q. And did you tell me in that statement the names, or three different names that he referred to the dead man by? What he called the dead man.
*506A. Nigger. Old man and damn nigger. . . . [H]e told me that he did kill the damn nigger. . . .
Q. Has he ever said that he was sorry that he shot the man?
A. Naw, he ain’t never said that. He was sorry. He said that he wished it hadn’t happened, but he never said that he was sorry.
This testimony as to what the defendant said evidences on his part a hatred for black people, a feeling of his superiority to them, and a cruel indifference to their fate. He was not sorry that he murdered the black man, it was not on his conscience. He only regretted being in jail. There is no other cause for this murder except defendant’s racist attitude toward black people in general and toward Ransom Connelly in particular. Such evidence indicates abnormal brutality and depravity in the commission of the capital crime and is sufficient to submit the issue of especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel to the jury.
In analyzing this assignment of error, the majority only discusses the evidence that defendant stalked the deceased prior to the killing, thereby causing psychological torture to him. Contrary to the majority, I also find the evidence sufficient on this theory to submit the issue to the jury. Although the surviving witness failed to testify that Ransom Connelly was in panic because of the conduct of defendant in following Connelly’s car, the evidence is sufficient to support a finding by the jury that Connelly suffered psychological torture during this period of time. When defendant failed to turn right on U.S. 64 toward Morganton as he had planned to do, it demonstrated an intent on his part to further inflict psychological torture on Connelly. The most potent evidence supporting this theory is that of the defendant ordering one of the women to hand him the shotgun, directing that the window be rolled down on the passenger side of his pickup truck, and coolly pointing the shotgun at Ransom Connelly’s head for a period of five seconds before blowing him away. Five seconds is a short time in most circumstances, but when looking into the muzzle of a shotgun, it can be as an eternity. Ransom Connelly’s remarks during the drive and as he faced the shotgun manifest *507the mental torture he was suffering. He said he wished they would go ahead and pass and leave us alone; maybe we could make it on to Fender’s store; we will be safe if we can get to Fender’s; I’ll just pull in here (at the Drexel Discount Drugstore) and maybe whoever it is will go on by. Finally, as the gun was levelled at his head, Connelly said, “Oh God, what are they going to do?” The majority characterizes the last statement as being one of incredulity. I find it to be a despairing prayer. Just as the hunter stalks his frightened and cornered prey, defendant stalked Connelly for the kill.
Further, the conduct of defendant after the murder, which I will not repeat, also supports a finding of depravity on the part of defendant within the holding of State v. Oliver, 309 N.C. 326, 307 S.E. 2d 304 (1983).
The majority correctly states the rule to be applied in determining the sufficiency of the evidence to submit an aggravating circumstance to the jury. Upon applying the rule to the evidence in this case, I find it sufficient to support the issue on the theories that (1) defendant stalked his victim, causing him to suffer psychological torture; (2) the conduct of defendant was abnormally depraved under Oliver; and (3) the capital crime was a racially motivated murder. The evidence was sufficient to submit the aggravating circumstance of especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel to the jury for its determination.
I am authorized to state that Justices Copeland and Mitchell join in this dissenting opinion.