State v. Holcomb

• Decision Date: 17 October 1978
• Docket Number: No. 9,9
• Citation: 295 N.C. 608,247 S.E.2d 888
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Barry Dale HOLCOMB.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Page 888

247 S.E.2d 888

295 N.C. 608

STATE of North Carolina v. Barry Dale HOLCOMB.

No. 9.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 17, 1978.

Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen. by Roy A. Giles, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for the State.

N. Lawrence Hudspeth, III, and Larry G. Reavis, Winston-Salem, for defendant-appellant.

BRANCH, Justice.

Defendant by his first assignment of error contends that the trial judge erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence concerning the location of the murder weapon and by ruling that the weapon was admissible into evidence.

Defendant argues that the dialogue between defendant and his uncles at the sheriff's office which resulted in his assistance in finding the murder weapon constituted a "custodial interrogation" which was conducted without the warnings or procedural safeguards required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

In State v. Wright, 274 N.C. 84, 161 S.E.2d 581, 586 (1968), Cert. denied, 396 U.S. 934, 90 S.Ct. 275, 24 L.Ed.2d 232 (1969), we stated:

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, lays down the governing principle that as a constitutional prerequisite to the admissibility of statements obtained from an accused during custodial police interrogation, the suspect must be advised in unequivocal terms (1) that he has a right to remain silent; (2) that anything he says can and will be used against him in court; (3) that he has a right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer with him during interrogation; and (4) that if he is an indigent a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. . . .

These "Miranda warnings" are only required when an accused is about to be subjected to "custodial interrogation." State v. Fletcher and State v. St. Arnold, 279 N.C. 85, 181 S.E.2d 405 (1971). "Custodial interrogation" is a questioning Initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom. Miranda v. Arizona, supra; State v. Thomas, 284 N.C. 212, 200 S.E.2d 3 (1973).

This record discloses that defendant's uncles Bobby Lee Smith and James Smith were at the Charles Holcomb homeplace when they heard that defendant had been taken into custody. They immediately went to the sheriff's office in Yadkin County for the purpose of "consoling" defendant. At the sheriff's office, Bobby Lee asked Deputy Hicks if he had the weapon with him; and Hicks replied, "No, and he didn't tell me where it was." The uncles obtained permission from the police officers to talk with defendant in hopes of locating the apparently valuable rifle which belonged to deceased. After some conversation between them, defendant agreed to carry them to the place where he had left the rifle.

In our opinion, the discovery of the murder weapon did not result from "custodial interrogation." It is true that defendant was in police custody, but there was no questioning Initiated by the police concerning the murder weapon. Rather the conversation between defendant and his kinsmen grew out of a natural concern by defendant's uncles for the plight of defendant and occurred only with the permission of the police. Neither do we find merit or support in this record for defendant's contention that his uncles were acting as agents of the police when they talked with him concerning the murder weapon. Even had the evidence of the discovery of the weapon and the admission of the weapon into evidence been erroneous, we do not believe that the admission of this evidence would have contributed to defendant's conviction, particularly in light of the overwhelming evidence elicited from defendant's own family that he shot and killed his father with a gun. State v. Fletcher and State v. St. Arnold, supra. Nevertheless, defendant's counsel in his oral argument before this Court advanced, for the first time, the theory that the admission of this evidence weakened defendant's defense of insanity because his ability to lead others to the place where he had concealed the murder weapon was inconsistent with the evidence of insanity. The record does not lend support to this rather slender reed upon which defendant now relies for support. To the contrary, the record shows that defendant had difficulty directing the officers to the area where he left the weapon. He remembered only that he hung the gun on a tree limb, and he had a vague recollection of a rock quarry. It was only after his uncles and a deputy sheriff had driven through Wilkesboro to the Kerr Scott Dam area, then back toward Yadkin County, where some local men directed them to the rock quarry road, that the sheriff noticed some tracks going up a bank which led him to the weapon. We find little in this evidence which would negate defendant's defense of insanity.

We hold that the trial judge did not err when he denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence concerning the location of the murder weapon and that he correctly ruled that the gun was admissible into evidence.

Defendant assigns as error the failure of the trial judge to submit voluntary manslaughter to the jury as a possible verdict.

Voluntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice, express or implied, without premeditation and deliberation. State v. Rummage, 280 N.C. 51, 185 S.E.2d 221 (1971); State v. Benge, 272 N.C. 261, 158 S.E.2d 70 (1967).

Manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder in the second degree. However, instructions on a lesser included offense are required only when there is evidence which would permit the jury to find that such included crime of lesser degree was committed by the accused. State v. Stewart, 292 N.C. 219, 232 S.E.2d 443 (1977); State v. Hicks, 241 N.C. 156, 84 S.E.2d 545 (1954).

In the case before us, the State's evidence tends to show that defendant saw his father sitting in his rocker-recliner chair in the living room of his home. Defendant thereupon went to his car, obtained a gun, loaded it and returned to the carport door which led into the living room and shot his father. There was evidence that defendant and his father did not get along very well, but there had been no trouble between them on the day of the shooting. The State's evidence made out a case of murder in the first degree, and defendant...