State v. Haynes
| Decision Date | 06 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 46,46 |
| Citation | 276 N.C. 150,171 S.E.2d 435 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. George HAYNES. |
Everett L. Henry, Lumberton, W. Earl Britt, Fairmont, for defendant.
The record discloses the defendant, at the conclusion of his trial, made eleven assignments of error. However, in the brief filed here, his careful and faithful attorneys have discussed only three questions of law which are decisive of this appeal. Only questions 1 and 2 require discussion. The third involves a formal objection--the refusal of the court to set aside the verdict.
The defendant's counsel place their main reliance for a new trial on the ground of alleged error in admitting in evidence the defendant's confession. At the time the State offered the confession the defendant objected, whereupon Judge Hall, in the absence of the jury, conducted a voir dire examination. The scope of the inquiry was broad and the evidence introduced was in detail. State's witnesses Sheriff Garner, Deputy Sheriff Poole of Charles County, Maryland, and Deputy Sheriff Stone of Robeson County, North Carolina, testified that full and complete warnings of the defendant's rights were given before any questions were asked. The defendant, in his testimony, admitted the warnings were given, but contended that at the time he made the statements, he had been drinking heavily, taking drugs, and did not fully appreciate his situation. He further testified that Deputy Sheriff Poole agreed to go to North Carolina and testify for him; that Deputy Sheriff Stone told him that prisoners in North Carolina were permitted to avail themselves of a work release program and wree paid during the time they were serving sentences.
Judge Hall heard the evidence, found the facts, and concluded therefrom the defendant's admissions were freely, voluntarily and understandingly made without any inducement or coercion. The evidence fully supports the findings. In fact, before any questions were asked and immediately after arrest when the officers emerged from the restroom, and in the presence of the defendant's brother, the defendant said this to him: 'This time they have gotten me for more than jailbreaking.' The confession was properly admissible in evidence. State v. Bishop, 272 N.C. 283, 158 S.E.2d 511; State v. Childs, 269 N.C. 152 S.E.2d 453: State v. Fuqua, 269 N.C. 223, 152 S.E.2d 68; State v. Gray, 268 N.C. 69, 150 S.E.2d 1; State v. Barnes, 264 N.C. 517, 142 S.E.2d 344.
The defendant's second objection to the trial involves the following instruction to the jury: '* * * '
G.S. § 14--17 provides: 'A murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, lying in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. May
...perpetration or attempted perpetration of an armed robbery. See State v. Simmons, 286 N.C. 681, 213 S.E.2d 280 (1975); State v. Haynes, 276 N.C. 150, 171 S.E.2d 435 (1970); State v. Lane, 166 N.C. 333, 81 S.E. 620 Under G.S. 14-87, an armed robbery is defined as the taking of the personal p......
-
State v. Frazier
...indictment is sufficient in form to allege murder and support a conviction of murder in the first degree. G.S. § 15--144; State v. Haynes, 276 N.C. 150, 171 S.E.2d 435. G.S. § 14--17 provides that a murder committed in the perpetration of a robbery or other felony shall be deemed murder in ......
-
State v. McLaughlin
...felony. State v. Moore, 284 N.C. 485, 202 S.E.2d 169 (1974); State v. Thompson, 280 N.C. 202, 185 S.E.2d 666 (1972); State v. Haynes, 276 N.C. 150, 171 S.E.2d 435 (1970). If a defendant is charged with murder in the first degree by a bill of indictment drawn under G.S. § 15--144 and desires......
-
State v. Wright
...supra; State v. Thompson, 280 N.C. 202, 185 S.E.2d 666 (1971); State v. Lee, 277 N.C. 205, 176 S.E.2d 765 (1970); State v. Haynes, 276 N.C. 150, 171 S.E.2d 435 (1969). In such cases the law presumes premeditation and deliberation, and the State is not put to further proof of either. State v......