State v. Heatwole

• Decision Date: 31 July 1996
• Docket Number: No. 119A89-2,119A89-2
• Citation: 473 S.E.2d 310,344 N.C. 1
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. George Franklin HEATWOLE, III.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Page 310

473 S.E.2d 310

344 N.C. 1

STATE of North Carolina v. George Franklin HEATWOLE, III.

No. 119A89-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 31, 1996.

Michael F. Easley, Attorney General by Joan Herre Erwin, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., and Marsh Smith, Southern Pines, for defendant-appellant.

WHICHARD, Justice.

In February 1989 defendant pled guilty to the first-degree murders of his stepmother, Alta Heatwole, and a security guard, John Garrison. On appeal this Court found prejudicial error under McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 110 S.Ct. 1227, 108 L.Ed.2d 369 (1990), and remanded for a new capital sentencing proceeding. State v. Heatwole, 333 N.C. 156, 423 S.E.2d 735 (1992). Upon resentencing, the jury again recommended sentences of death for each murder. Defendant now appeals from these sentences. We find no prejudicial error and hold that defendant received a fair capital sentencing proceeding and that the sentences of death are not disproportionate.

The State's evidence tended to show that around 11:00 p.m. on 26 February 1988, defendant went to the home of his former girlfriend, Kim Chavis Garcia. There, he shot at Garcia's sister, Vicky Chavis. The shot missed Chavis, but she fell, feigning death. Garcia and others ran to the bedroom. Defendant fired two or three shots at two men, Ricky Cummings and Donald Locklear, who were attempting to escape through the bedroom window. One shot struck Cummings, wounding him in the left leg.

Defendant then handcuffed Garcia and, taking her with him, drove to the Woodlake subdivision where his father and stepmother lived. At the entrance gate the security guard, Edgar John Garrison, said "hello" to defendant and waved him through. Defendant stopped, rolled down the window, and shot Garrison twice, fatally wounding him.

Defendant proceeded to his father's house where he forced Garcia, who was still handcuffed, out of the truck and to the front door. Defendant rang the doorbell; when his father answered, defendant pushed his way inside and put the pistol to his father's head. He then handcuffed his father and Garcia together. When defendant's stepmother, Alta Hamilton Heatwole, came out of the bedroom, defendant shot her twice. She fell and made her way back into the bedroom. Defendant followed her to the bedroom where he kicked her several times, screamed "Die b----," and shot her twice in the head at close range, fatally wounding her.

By this time law enforcement officers had converged on the house. Defendant removed the handcuffs from his father. While defendant's attention was diverted, his father ran out the front door with his hands up. Defendant then removed the handcuffs from Garcia, gave her the pistol, and sent her out of the house. Defendant followed Garcia out, lay down, and was arrested.

Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for appropriate relief made two days after the jury returned its verdict. Defendant seeks a new trial based on what he asserts was juror misconduct. During jury selection defense counsel informed the prospective jurors that a defense contention was that defendant was a paranoid schizophrenic. The trial began on 24 October 1994 and lasted until 9 November 1994. On 2 November 1994 juror Robert Kennedy, who was enrolled in a graduate class in developmental psychology, asked his professor if paranoid schizophrenics were violent. The professor replied that they were not. On 10 November 1994 defense counsel received a phone call from another student in the class informing them of the question. Based on this information, defendant filed his motion for relief seeking a new trial due to juror misconduct.

Defendant now contends that juror Kennedy's exchange with his professor violated defendant's Sixth Amendment constitutional right to confront the witnesses and evidence against him. He further argues that it was extraneous information within the meaning and intent of Rule 606(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, which information contradicted the defense position, thereby prejudicing him and entitling him to a new trial. We disagree.

Generally, once a verdict is rendered, jurors may not impeach it. State v. Cherry, 298 N.C. 86, 100, 257 S.E.2d 551, 560 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941, 100 S.Ct. 2165, 64 L.Ed.2d 796 (1980). Section 15A-1240 of the North Carolina General Statutes and Rule 606(b) of the Rules of Evidence provide limited exceptions to the rule against impeachment. Section 15A-1240 allows impeachment of a verdict only in a criminal This Court has interpreted extraneous information under Rule 606(b) to mean information that reaches a juror without being introduced into evidence and that deals specifically with the defendant or the case being tried. State v. Rosier, 322 N.C. 826, 832, 370 S.E.2d 359, 363 (1988). It does not include general information that a juror has gained in his day-to-day experiences. Id. Here, the evidence tended to show that juror Kennedy was enrolled in a graduate level educational psychology class. He had previously taken several standard psychology classes and was generally familiar with schizophrenia. During the 2 November 1994 class, Kennedy's professor lectured on schizophrenia, delusions, and hallucinations. A student asked if schizophrenics commit violent acts, to which the professor responded in the negative. Juror Kennedy then asked if paranoid schizophrenics commit violent acts, to which the professor again replied in the negative. Kennedy asked no further questions, nor did he mention this defendant or this case. The incident occurred before either defense expert testified on the matter at the sentencing proceeding. At the motion hearing Kennedy testified that the basis for the question was a research paper he was doing for a class dealing with teenagers and violence. Kennedy's question was a logical, generic one arising from the natural sequence of class events. It did not deal with defendant or with any events arising from this sentencing proceeding, nor did juror Kennedy mention the incident to other jurors. Under these circumstances, defendant is not entitled to relief under Rule 606(b).

case and only concerning (1) whether the verdict was reached by lot; (2) bribery, intimidation, or attempted bribery or intimidation of a juror; or (3) matters not in evidence which came to the attention of one or more jurors under circumstances which would violate the defendant's constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. N.C.G.S. § 15A-1240(b), (c) (1988). Rule 606(b) provides that when the validity of a verdict is challenged, a juror is competent to testify only "on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror." N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 606(b) (1988). We hold that juror Kennedy's contact with his professor was neither "extraneous information" pursuant to Rule 606(b) nor a "matter not in evidence" implicating defendant's confrontation rights within the meaning of N.C.G.S. § 15A-1240(c)(1).

We likewise conclude that N.C.G.S. § 15A-1240 affords defendant no relief. Juror Kennedy's conduct was not tantamount to the kind of external influence which ordinarily implicates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him. Compare, e.g., State v. Lyles, 94 N.C.App. 240, 380 S.E.2d 390 (1989) (jurors peeled back tape on a photograph introduced into evidence, revealing a time of arrest notation which directly contradicted defendant's alibi; exposure to information on photograph held prejudicial and violative of the defendant's constitutional right of confrontation). As noted, Kennedy's question did not deal with defendant or the case, and Kennedy did not discuss it with other jurors. Further, Dr. Rollins testified for the State that paranoid schizophrenics are not classically violent. Dr. Royal, defendant's psychiatric expert witness, never testified to the contrary. Hence, defendant had the opportunity to present and challenge precisely the information conveyed in the exchange between juror Kennedy and his professor. The incident therefore cannot be considered a matter not in evidence within the contemplation of N.C.G.S. § 15A-1240. Defendant's assignment of error on these grounds is accordingly overruled.

Defendant next contends the trial court erred in failing to grant him a new sentencing proceeding based on the State's purported violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Dr. Rollins, a forensic psychiatrist at Dorothea Dix Hospital, examined defendant on numerous occasions. Dr. Rollins informed defendant's previous counsel that his examinations did not reveal the existence of any mitigating circumstances. He personally so informed defendant's present counsel. However, at the sentencing proceeding Dr. Rollins testified for the State, on rebuttal, that in his opinion defendant's mental condition supported In Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court held that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment." Brady, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1196-97, 10 L.Ed.2d at 218. Evidence is material only if there is "a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481, 494 (1985). Here, although the record is silent as to when the State actually became aware of Dr. Rollins' change in opinion, it is clear that the State did not intentionally suppress the evidence. To the contrary, the State elicited Dr. Rollins' testimony in support of the mitigating circumstances and in effect helped defendant sustain...