State v. Kearns, 7520SC43

Decision Date16 April 1975
Docket NumberNo. 7520SC43,7520SC43
Citation25 N.C.App. 445,213 S.E.2d 358
CourtNorth Carolina Court of Appeals
PartiesSTATE of North Carolina v. James Earnest KEARNS.

Atty. Gen. Rufus L. Edmisten by Associate Atty. David S. Crump, Raleigh, for the State.

Joe P. McCollum, Jr., Monroe, for defendant appellant.

HEDRICK, Judge.

The sole question argued by defendant on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in allowing an S.B.I. agent to testify for the State as to an alleged confession made by the defendant in view of the fact that the agent was not present during the entire interrogation during which the defendant purportedly confessed to the crime charged.

Upon defendant's objection the trial court conducted a voir dire hearing in the absence of the jury to determine the admissibility of any statements made by the defendant to Special S.B.I. Agent Ronald Hawley. Hawley testified on voir dire that he and another S.B.I. Agent, Jack Richardson, questioned the defendant on 27 July 1974 with respect to the robbery of the Deese Variety Store. After he was advised of his constitutional rights, the defendant signed a 'waiver of rights' form and agreed to answer the agents' questions. Hawley and Richardson thereafter interrogated the defendant for twenty or thirty minutes. At some point during the interview, Agent Hawley went out of the room for approximately five minutes. During his absence, Agent Richardson continued to talk with the defendant. Upon Hawley's return, the two agents questioned the defendant for several minutes until the defendant had completed his statement. Hawley further testified that Agent Richardson was in Connecticut in connection with another case and was therefore unable to be present at the defendant's trial. Defendant offered no evidence on voir dire. At the conclusion of the voir dire examination, the court made findings of fact and concluded that the defendant's statement was 'made freely, voluntarily and understandingly . . ..' The court then allowed Agent Hawley to testify before the jury as to the defendant's alleged confession.

A confession should be considered in its entirety; and if the State introduces into evidence only part of an alleged confession, a defendant is entitled to introduce the remainder of what was said to and by him, including any exculpatory statements which would bear upon the matter in controversy. State v. Marsh, 234 N.C. 101, 66 S.E.2d 684 (1951); State v. Edwards, 211 N.C. 555, 191 S.E. 1 (1937); State v. Barnwell, 17 N.C.App. 299, 194 S.E.2d 63 (1973); 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 535 (1967). Furthermore, where an accused has been interrupted or otherwise prevented from completing his confession, the confession is not admissible into evidence. Annot., 2 A.L.R. 1017, 1037 (1919); 29 Am.Jur.2d, supra.

It is well-settled, however, that a witness is not incompetent to testify as to an alleged confession merely because he failed to hear or remember...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • King v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 7 Febrero 1978
    ...interrupted or otherwise prevented from completing his confession, that confession is not admissible in evidence. State v. Kearns, 25 N.C.App. 445, 213 S.E.2d 358 (1975). These rules were not violated in this case. The appellant was permitted to prove the entire conversation and every excul......
  • State v. Barnes
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 6 Septiembre 1994
    ...was said to and by him, including any exculpatory statements which would bear upon the matter in controversy." State v. Kearns, 25 N.C.App. 445, 447, 213 S.E.2d 358, 360 (1975). The facts in this case are distinguishable from those in State v. Kearns, however, because in that case, the Stat......
  • Holt, Matter of, 8112DC290
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 20 Octubre 1981
    ... ... By incapable of managing her own affairs I mean that in the withdrawn state she would not feed herself properly and do those things for herself that would maintain proper ... ...
  • Carter, In re
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 16 Abril 1975
    ... ... ' § 122-58.1. Declaration of policy.--It is the policy of the State that no person shall be committed to a mental health facility unless he is mentally ill or an ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT