State v. Egerton, 494
| Decision Date | 28 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 494,494 |
| Citation | 264 N.C. 328,141 S.E.2d 515 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE, v. Dennis Edward EGERTON, James Franklin Sapp and James Henry Perry. |
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., Harry W. McGalliard, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.
John V. Hunter, III, Raleigh, for defendant appellants.
The evidence of robbery by the use of a sawed-off shotgun was plenary. The two attendants present and in charge of the place of business positively identified the defendants as being present together and participating in the holdup which took place at the Publix Oil Station in the City of Raleigh between one and two o'clock on May 29, 1964. Both attendants described the shotgun with which one of the participants covered Brooks, forcing him to surrender the keys to the cash register from which the money was taken.
In obedience to the call for help, the police arrived on the scene within 10 minutes of the time the participants left. Police Sergeants Council, Stevenson and Gilbert, on information from a 'reliable informer,' went to a rooming house at 214 Heck Street in Raleigh at 7:20 on the morning following the holdup. The officers found Perry in the bed with the cover tucked under his chin. In response to their inquiry as to where Dennis Egerton was, he denied that he knew anyone by that name. However, when the officers removed the cover, Dennis Egerton was in the bed beside Perry. Sapp was in bed in an adjoining room. Before entering, the officers obtained permission from one Barnes who was in charge of the building.
The officers testified they advised each defendant he need not make a statement, but if he did, it might be used against him. Neither was advised that he had a right to counsel. Each defendant, as the court found, made free and voluntary admissions of his involvement. Each, at the preliminary inquiry and again at the trial, denied any participation in or any knowledge of the robbery. Each denied making any admission to the officers. Egerton did admit he signed a blank paper for the police.
The defendants alleged the court committed errors in the trial: (1) by refusing to grant each defendant a separate trial; (2) by admitting their confessions in evidence; (3) by refusing to discharge them because of their illegal arrest and interrogation.
The defendants were not entitled to a severance. They were jointly indicted for a single armed robbery. The evidence identified each as being present and actively participating with the others in the commission of the offense. G.S. § 15-152; State v. Bryant, 250 N.C. 113, 108 S.E.2d 128. This is not a case in which the State seeks to consolidate separate charges. It is a one-count bill of indictment alleging a single robbery in which all participated.
The evidence was ample to identify the defendants. True, the State offered the separate admissions of each defendant, involving himself and at the same time the other two. However, the court took pains to instruct the jury that each admission was evidence only against the defendant who made it and should not be considered in anywise to the prejudice of the other two. We cannot assume the jury ignored the instruction. In this case a severance would require three separate trials on exactly the same evidence, except as to the confessions. State v. Malpass, 189 N.C. 349, 127 S.E. 248; State v. Lewis, 185 N.C. 640, 116 S.E. 259. The law does not require such duplication. The evidence offered would have warranted a charge of conspiracy as well as of the substantive offense. Direct evidence of participation was offered. The confessions strongly corroborated that direct evidence. In State v. Bonner, 222 N.C. 344, 23 S.E.2d 45; State v. Norton, 222 N.C. 418, 23 S.E.2d 301, and State v. Dyer, 239 N.C. 713, 80 S.E.2d 769, separate trials were required. The parties were separately charged. The evidence was not the same against all parties. In Bonner the confessions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Phillips, 745
...Defendant was told that anything she said might be used against her. State v. Upchurch, 264 N.C. 343, 141 S.E.2d 528; State v. Egerton, 264 N.C. 328, 141 S.E.2d 515. Whether defendant was then represented by counsel the record does not disclose. The matter of counsel was not mentioned. It i......
-
State v. Fox, 83
...evidence frequently warrants an indictment against all the defendants for conspiracy to commit the crimes charged. State v. Egerton, 264 N.C. 328, 141 S.E.2d 515. The North Carolina rule was also the federal rule. Delli Paoli v. United States, 352 U.S. 232, 77 S.Ct. 294, 1 L.Ed.2d 278 (1957......
-
State v. Dickens
...Accord: State v. Jacobs, 277 N.C. 151, 176 S.E.2d 744; State v. Pearson (State v. Belk) 269 N.C. 725, 153 S.E.2d 494; State v. Egerton, 264 N.C. 328, 141 S.E.2d 515; People v. La Bostrie, 14 Ill.2d 617, 153 N.E.2d 570; People v. Kissane, 347 Ill. 385, 179 N.E. 850; Holmgren, What Are Reason......
-
State v. Alexander
...and that the arrest of each defendant was in all respects lawful. State v. Grier, 268 N.C. 296, 150 S.E.2d 443 (1966); State v. Egerton, 264 N.C. 328, 11 S.E.2d 515 (1965); State v. Jacobs, supra. This assignment of error is Defendants next contend that their incourt identification should h......