State v. Freeman

• Decision Date: 06 June 1978
• Docket Number: No. 65,65
• Citation: 244 S.E.2d 680,295 N.C. 210
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Sebrina Davis FREEMAN.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Page 680

244 S.E.2d 680

295 N.C. 210

STATE of North Carolina v. Sebrina Davis FREEMAN.

No. 65.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 6, 1978.

Atty. Gen. Rufus L. Edmisten and Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen. William F. O'Connell, Raleigh, for the State.

Franklin B. Johnston, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellant.

SHARP, Chief Justice.

In appellant's brief counsel has grouped seventy-four assignments of error within the framework of eight questions. Of these questions we will consider only three. The other five encompass assignments which are either patently without merit or challenge miniscule errors which are harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Any discussion of these questions would necessarily be (1) a mere repetition of the well-established rules regarding the sound discretion of the trial judge as to the allowance of leading questions and the scope of cross-examination, and (2) a wordy demonstration that the testimony challenged as "opinion evidence" is actually a "shorthand statement of fact," and that the statements alleged to be hearsay are in fact spontaneous utterances, declarations accompanying an act, or a part of the res gestae. In this case, we have decided not to add to the surplusage of such discussions already in the books.

We first consider the questions challenging the trial judge's rulings admitting in evidence defendant's incriminating statements which Officer Satterthwaite testified were made to him at the scene of the fire and which Captain Smith testified defendant made to him at the police department. When defendant objected to the introduction of these statements Judge Small properly conducted a voir dire at which he heard the testimony of both the officers and defendant.

The testimony which Satterthwaite gave before the jury with reference to defendant's statement to him, and the circumstances under which it was made, is set out in our preliminary statement of the evidence. His testimony on voir dire was substantially the same. Defendant, however, testified that she had no recollection of making any statement to Satterthwaite except a request that he take her to the hospital. Judge Small, however, found the facts in accordance with Satterthwaite's testimony and permitted him to relate to the jury what defendant said to him when he encountered her at the scene of the fire. See State v. Harris, 290 N.C. 681, 693-94, 228 S.E.2d 437, 444 (1976).

Defendant's statements to Satterthwaite at the scene of the fire were clearly admissible. She was not in custody when she approached Satterthwaite and volunteered the statements in question. Therefore, neither Miranda warnings nor the correlative waiver of rights were necessary prerequisites to admissibility. State v. Strickland, 290 N.C. 169, 184, 225 S.E.2d 531, 542 (1976). Further, "volunteered and spontaneous statements made by a defendant to police officers without any interrogation on the part of the officers are not barred by any theory of our law." State v. Biggs, 292 N.C. 328, 334, 233 S.E.2d 512, 515 (1977). Accord, State v. Bell, 279 N.C. 173, 181 S.E.2d 461 (1971). Nor did Satterthwaite's request for an explanation as to "what she meant by that statement," transform the situation into an interrogation necessitating warnings or waivers. State v. McZorn, 288 N.C. 417, 432-33, 219 S.E.2d 201, 211 (1975), death sentence vacated, 428 U.S. 904, 96 S.Ct. 3210, 49 L.Ed.2d 1210 (1976); State v. Haddock, 281 N.C. 675, 682, 190 S.E.2d 208, 212 (1972).

As to the statements which Captain Smith testified defendant made to him at the police station, she denied only that she told him she hit Donnie twice with the axe. She insisted she told Smith that after Donnie had beaten her head against the bed and the wall she hit him once with the axe.

Upon direct examination on voir dire defendant testified, "the first thing he (Captain Smith) did was to read my Miranda rights." She also testified, "I told Officer Smith that I wanted to make a statement to him but I did not understand that I had a right to have an attorney present at that time." Notwithstanding, on cross-examination, she testified, "I understood that I did not have to say anything if I did not want to. . . . I knew that I could have a lawyer. I told Officer Smith I guess I understand my rights. As far as I can remember, I guess I agreed to make these statements without the presence of an attorney."

Captain Smith also testified on voir dire that before asking defendant any questions he read her the Miranda warning and then asked her if she understood each of her rights. She said that she did, but requested him to "repeat the number six item." Accordingly, he said to her again, "(I)f you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present you still have the right to stop answering at any time. You also have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to a lawyer." Smith then asked her once more if she understood. She said she did understand, and upon being asked whether she wished to make a statement without her attorney being present, she replied, "Yes, sir." In response to a specific inquiry Smith said, "I did not promise her anything or threaten or coerce her in any way to make a statement."

At the completion of the voir dire, Judge Small rejected defendant's contention that she was obviously "scared and confused and any statements made by her to police officers without the aid and counsel of any attorney should have been suppressed." He found that prior to interrogation Smith had fully advised defendant of her constitutional rights as required by the Miranda decision and that she fully understood her rights; that no officer offered her any inducement to talk or made any threat or show of violence. His conclusion that "defendant intentionally, freely, voluntarily, knowingly and understandingly waived each of her constitutional rights prior to making a statement to Captain Smith . . . on 9 January 1977" is supported by plenary competent evidence. His findings and conclusions are, therefore, binding upon this Court. State v. Williams, 289 N.C. 439, 443, 222 S.E.2d 242, 245, death sentence vacated, 429 U.S. 809, 97 S.Ct. 45, 50 L.Ed.2d 69 (1976); State v. Simmons, 286 N.C. 681, 692, 213 S.E.2d 280, 288 (1975), death sentence vacated, 428 U.S. 903, 96 S.Ct. 3207, 49 L.Ed. 1208 (1976).

We next consider defendant's assignment that the court erred in refusing to grant her motion for a directed verdict of not guilty at the close of all the evidence. To this assignment we apply the long-established rule that in a criminal case upon a motion for nonsuit or directed verdict, the evidence is to be considered in the light most favorable to the State, which is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable inference of fact deducible from the evidence. State v. Hall, 293 N.C. 559, 561, 238 S.E.2d 473, 474-75 (1977). The court is not concerned with the weight of the testimony but only with its sufficiency to sustain the indictment. Thus, if there is any evidence from which the jury could find that the defendant committed the offense charged, the motion should be overruled. The test of the sufficiency of the evidence to withstand a motion for a directed verdict is the same whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or both. State v. McNeil, 280 N.C. 159, 162, 185 S.E.2d 156, 157 (1971).

Relating these principles to the evidence before us, we hold that the trial judge correctly denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict. The evidence adduced is sufficient to show the following facts:

On the afternoon of 9 January 1978, after a fight in the bedroom with deceased, Donnie Freeman, during which he beat her head against the bed and wall of their bedroom and threatened to kill her, defendant hit him twice with an axe. The blows broke deceased's right jaw, knocked out several teeth, and loosened several others. Thereafter, attracted by smoke coming from defendant's house, James Spencer peered into the bedroom window and saw Donnie lying in bed on his back surrounded by fire. Both Donnie and the bed were burning. Donnie was mumbling and defendant was looking at him as she stood against the wall by the door, her baby on her hip. In the room only the area by the bed was burning. Upon seeing this sight, Spencer ran into the house. Observing a "foot tub" half full of water by the door, he told defendant to pour the water on Donnie and he would go call the fire department. She made no reply. Spencer left the house and told a neighbor to call the fire department. He then returned to the house. Spencer's sister, Mrs. Clayton, who had not gone into the house with him the first time he entered, came in after he had returned from the neighbor's. This time he went to the door but did not go into the bedroom because there was too much smoke.

When Mrs. Clayton entered the house she saw Donnie lying on his back in the bed, his clothes burning. Although afraid to enter the room because of the smoke, she called to Donnie to "crawl out," and when he started to get up she left the house. Mrs. Clayton never saw defendant in the house, but when she left the house she did see her in the yard.

Officer Satterthwaite arrived at the Freeman residence three minutes after receiving the report of the fire. At that time he observed Donnie crawling from the doorway. He immediately sent him to the hospital, where Donnie arrived semiconscious and severely burned over 80% of his body.

Other testimony from State's witnesses also tended to show that in the early stages of the fire the area by the bed on which Donnie was lying was the only portion of the room on fire, the most extensive burning then being on the bed; that the top layers of the mattress were badly burned; and that there was no sign of burning on the floor around the heater or the wall behind it.

The State's theory of this case is that defendant intentionally, unlawfully and maliciously struck her husband about the head with an axe, thereby...