Court Opinion

ID: 9848715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:25:51.255719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:38.809503
License: Public Domain

*30Judge Edmunds
concurring in the result.
Although I concur in the result, I disagree with the majority’s analysis in Part II relating to the prosecutor’s display of a weapon to defendant during cross-examination. Defendant denied the element of intent as to one of the charges. Specifically, he admitted that victim Cox was shot, but claimed on direct examination, “I raised the gun, and it went off.” Because defendant was charged with assault on Cox with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, inflicting serious injury, his intent was an element to be proved by the State. By contrast, defendant’s testimony as to shooting victim Gray was more specific in that defendant stated he “shot the gun.” Accordingly, when defendant continued to maintain on cross-examination that the shooting of Cox happened when the gun “went off,” the State was permitted to explore defendant’s suggestion that this shooting was not intentional.
Defendant admitted that the pistol he carried the night of the shooting was a semi-automatic. This weapon was never recovered. It appears from the record that while cross-examining defendant, the prosecutor borrowed a semi-automatic pistol from the investigating officer, displayed it to defendant, and went through the steps with defendant necessary to load, cock, and fire a semi-automatic pistol. At each point, the prosecutor asked defendant if the action taken in court with the borrowed pistol illustrated the action necessary to accomplish the same result with defendant’s pistol. Therefore, the prosecutor’s questions established defendant’s familiarity with semiautomatic weapons. The pistol was not shown for the purpose of suggesting that the two weapons were of similar caliber or appearance, and the State never contended that the pistol shown during cross-examination was the same one that defendant used to shoot Cox. This use of the borrowed pistol to illustrate relevant characteristics of another weapon was proper. See State v. See, 301 N.C. 388, 271 S.E.2d 282 (1980) (holding no error where firearm similar to that used in robbery displayed to jury); State v. Reaves, 132 N.C. App. 615, 513 S.E.2d 562 (holding no error when prosecutor displayed revolver and semiautomatic pistol to illustrate differences between the two types of guns), disc. review denied, 350 N.C. 846,-S.E.2d- (1999). In turn, the process of loading, cocking, and firing a semi-automatic pistol was relevant to defendant’s contention that the shooting of Cox was not intentional. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (1999).
I agree with the majority that a clearer foundation would have been preferable. The record does not reflect the type of weapon being *31used to illustrate defendant’s testimony, nor does it establish the grounds for which the weapon was being shown to defendant. Nevertheless, I contend that the prosecutor’s use of a semi-automatic pistol during cross-examination of defendant to illustrate the operation of such a weapon was proper to challenge defendant’s suggestion that the shooting of Cox was not intentional. I concur in all other aspects of the majority opinion.