State v. Jones

• Decision Date: 11 November 1977
• Docket Number: No. 29,29
• Citation: 238 S.E.2d 482,293 N.C. 413
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Kathy Matthews JONES.

Page 482

238 S.E.2d 482

293 N.C. 413

STATE of North Carolina v. Kathy Matthews JONES.

No. 29.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 11, 1977.

Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen., by John R. B. Matthis, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for the State.

Joseph B. Cheshire, V, and William J. Bruckel, Jr., Raleigh, for defendant-appellant.

LAKE, Justice.

The defendant's first contention on appeal is that there was error in admitting testimony as to statements made by the defendant during periods of custodial interrogation. In this we find no merit.

The defendant's motion to suppress evidence of all such statements made by her was heard, prior to trial, by Judge Godwin, at which hearing both the State and the defendant presented evidence. As to the statements so made by the defendant and the circumstances and conditions under which they were made, there is no substantial variance between the evidence so introduced at the pretrial hearing on the motion to suppress and that introduced before the jury at the trial.

At the conclusion of the hearing of the motion to suppress, Judge Godwin made numerous and detailed findings of fact. Each of these findings is fully supported by evidence so offered at the hearing. Although the testimony so given by the investigating police officers and that so given by the defendant conflicted in some respects, in such a situation the findings made by the hearing judge and so supported by evidence are conclusive on appeal. State v. Thompson, 287 N.C. 303, 317, 214 S.E.2d 742 (1975); State v. Blackmon, 284 N.C. 1, 9, 199 S.E.2d 431 (1973); State v. Gray, 268 N.C. 69, 78, 150 S.E.2d 1 (1966), cert. den., 396 U.S. 934, 90 S.Ct. 275, 24 L.Ed.2d 232; Strong, N.C. Index 3d, Criminal Law, § 76.10.

These findings of fact included the following (summarized and renumbered): (1) The defendant's initial statement to the effect that an unknown intruder entered the trailer, shot the child while the defendant lay asleep on a couch in the living room and then fled from the trailer was made to the officers when they first arrived at the trailer and was made voluntarily; (2) when Deputy Stewart, shortly thereafter, took the defendant from the trailer out to his patrol car for an interview, he advised the defendant of her constitutional rights in accordance with the Miranda formula; (3) the defendant affirmatively indicated that she understood her rights and was willing to make a statement and answer questions without an attorney being present to advise her; (4) repeatedly thereafter (on five separate occasions), as the interviewing process was resumed by the officers following interruptions, the defendant was again so advised of her constitutional rights pursuant to the Miranda formula and signed written waivers thereof; (5) the interviewing process was frequently interrupted and the defendant on several occasions returned to her home, or to the home of her parents, no interviews taking place on February 29, March 1 or March 2; (6) during other interruptions of the interviewing process, the defendant was offered, and given, food and drink and opportunities to retire to the rest room.

These findings of fact fully support the conclusions of the hearing judge to the effect that: (1) The defendant was not in custody at the time of her initial statement to the officers shortly after their arrival at her trailer home; (2) all statements by the defendant to the officers, both inculpatory and exculpatory, were made after she was advised of her constitutional rights and were "freely, understandingly, knowingly, and voluntarily made with full knowledge" of such rights, which rights she "at those times knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily waived." These conclusions further support the final conclusion of the hearing judge that the statements made by the defendant to the officers "are legally competent to be received in evidence against the defendant upon her trial." Consequently, there was no error in admitting the officer's testimony concerning these statements.

The defendant's second contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to give to the jury instructions with reference to insanity, though requested to do so by the defendant. In this contention we find no merit.

A careful study of the entire record reveals no evidence whatever to indicate that the defendant was insane. Her defense at the trial was not insanity but was that it was not she who shot and killed the child. Dr. Rollins, the expert psychiatrist called as a witness in her behalf, expressly testified, "I have made no evaluation of the sanity of the defendant." The fact that the defendant, if the evidence for the State be true and the verdict of the jury be correct, committed a horrible, gruesome crime, the murder of her own sleeping, infant daughter, is not evidence of insanity requiring the submission of that question to the jury.

It is thoroughly established in the law of this State, by numerous decisions of this Court, that the test of insanity as a defense to a criminal charge is whether the accused, at the time of the alleged act, was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease or deficiency of the mind, as to be incapable of knowing the nature and quality of the act, or, if he does know this, was, by reason of such defect of reason, incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong in relation to such act. State v. Cooper, 286 N.C. 549, 569, 213 S.E.2d 305 (1975); State v. Humphrey, 283 N.C. 570, 196 S.E.2d 516 (1973); State v. Johnson, 256 N.C. 449, 452, 124 S.E.2d 126 (1962); State v. Swink, 229 N.C. 123, 47 S.E.2d 852 (1948). There is no evidence whatever in this record that the defendant was, at the time her child was shot, laboring under any disease or deficiency of the mind, or defect of reason, or that she did not comprehend the nature and quality of her act, or that she was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong in relation thereto.

As Justice Ervin, speaking for this Court, said in State v. Swink, supra, "Since soundness of mind is the natural and normal condition of men, everyone is presumed to be sane until the contrary is made to appear." In the absence of any evidence whatever tending to rebut this presumption, it is not required of the State that it offer evidence to establish the defendant's sanity and it is not incumbent upon the trial judge to instruct the jury with reference to this matter.

"G.S. 1-180 requires only that the trial judge declare and explain the law 'arising on the evidence ' with respect to all substantial features of the case." State v. Brower, 289 N.C. 644, 657, 224 S.E.2d 551, 560 (1976). (Emphasis added.) "The judge is not required to instruct the jury, except on the law of the case." State v. McKeithan, 203 N.C. 494, 166 S.E. 336 (1932). "The chief purposes of the charge are clarification of the issues, elimination of extraneous matters, and declaration and application of the law arising upon the evidence." State v. Jackson, 228 N.C. 656, 46 S.E.2d 858 (1948). (Emphasis added.) With special reference to the matter of insanity, Justice Bobbitt, later Chief Justice, speaking for this Court in State v. Mercer, 275 N.C. 108, 114, 165 S.E.2d 328, 333 (1968), overruled on other grounds in State v. Caddell, 287 N.C. 266, 215 S.E.2d 348 (1975), said, "It is, however, error to instruct the jury as to legal principles unrelated to the factual situation under consideration." In Childress v. Motor Lines, 235 N.C. 522, 530, 70 S.E.2d 558, 564 (1952), Justice Johnson, speaking for the Court, said, "(I)t is an established rule of trial procedure with us that an abstract proposition of law not pointing to the facts of the case at hand and not pertinent thereto should not be given to the jury."

In Patterson v. New York, --- U.S. ----, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977), the Supreme Court of the United States held a New York statute "burdening the defendant in a New York State murder trial with proving the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance as defined by New York law" does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It necessarily follows that such provision of the United States Constitution is not violated by our rule that, in the absence of any evidence of insanity, it is not error for the trial judge to refuse the defendant's request that he instruct the jury upon the law relating to insanity as a defense to the charge of murder.

The defendant's third contention on appeal is that she is entitled to a new trial because the trial court permitted a police officer, called as a witness for the State, to testify concerning a statement made by the defendant to her father in a conversation between them in the interview room at the sheriff's office, which conversation, unknown to the defendant and her father, was observed and heard by the witness, then in another room, through a one-way glass giving him a view of the interrogation room and the opportunity to hear what was said therein.

After the defendant had been formally arrested and charged with the murder and had orally confessed to the investigating officers that she shot and killed her daughter, the officers left her alone in the interrogation room and then permitted her father to join her there. The only reference in the entire record to this conversation is the following:

"Q. On the date she was charged and after she had been served with a warrant (immediately following which she made her confession to the investigating officers), did you have occasion to observe the defendant and her father, Mr. Matthews, together?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. And where were they at that time?

A. They were in the interview room in the sheriff's office.

Q. And where were you?

A. I was in a view room which is located next to it.

Q. There is a one-way glass in between, is there not?

A. Yes sir, there is.

Q. Could you see both of them and hear both of...