State v. McClain

• Decision Date: 13 December 1972
• Docket Number: No. 45,45
• Citation: 193 S.E.2d 108,282 N.C. 357
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Horace Ray McCLAIN.

Page 108

193 S.E.2d 108

282 N.C. 357

STATE of North Carolina v. Horace Ray McCLAIN.

No. 45.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 13, 1972.

Twiggs & McCain, by Grover C. McCain, Jr., Raleigh, for defendant appellant.

Robert Morgan, Atty. Gen., Sidney S. Eagles, Jr., and Russell I. Ealker, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State of North Carolina.

HUSKINS, Justice:

Defendant preserves and presents twelve assignments of error, most of which are groundless and merit no discussion. It was competent for the victim to testify that a metal object, initially thought to be a knife but later ascertained to be a metal teasing comb, was held against her neck by her assailant. It was likewise competent for her to describe the car in which she was raped. Officers Perry and Martin were property permitted, for corroborative purposes, to testify to Miss Elliott's prior consistent statements to them concerning the make, year, model, color and other identifying characteristics of the vehicle. Evidentiary rules establishing the competency of these matters are so well established as to require no citation of authority. All assignments of error addressed to them are overruled without discussion.

This cases turns upon whether the court erred (1) in admitting the testimony of Mrs. Patricia Conklin and Officers Gray and Harley relating to defendant's subsequent commission of a similar abduction involving Mrs. Conklin and (2) in denying defendant's motion for nonsuit at the close of the State's evidence.

Defendant strongly contends that all testimony of Mrs. Patricia Conklin and Officers Gray and Harley should have been excluded by the court since its only relevancy was to show that defendant had committed another distinct, independent, separate crime. We now examine the validity of that contention.

It is a general rule of evidence that in a prosecution for a particular crime the State cannot offer evidence tending to show that the accused has committed another distinct, independent, or separate offense. Exceptions to this general rule of inadmissibility, as well recognized as the rule itself, are discussed and documented in State v. McClain, 240 N.C. 171, 81 S.E.2d 364 (1954). The fourth and sixth exceptions are stated in McClain as follows:

'4. Where the accused is not definitely identified as the perpetrator of the crime charged and the circumstances tend to show that the crime charged and another offense were committed by the same person, evidence that the accused committed the other offense is admissible to identify him as the perpetrator of the crime charged.' (Citations omitted)

'6. Evidence f other crimes is admissible when it tends to establish a common plan or scheme embracing the commission of a series of crimes so related to each other that proof of one or more tends to prove the crime charged and to connect the accused with its commission. (Citations omitted) Evidence of other crimes receivable under this exception is ordinarily admissible under the other exceptions which sanction the use of such evidence to show criminal intent, guilty knowledge, or identity.'

Stansbury formulates the rule in these words: 'Evidence of other offenses is inadmissible if its only relevancy is to show the character of the accused or his disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the one charged; but if it tends to prove any other relevant fact it will not be excluded merely because it also shows him to have been guilty of an independent crime.' Stansbury, N.C. Evidence, § 91 (2d ed. 1963); State Choate, 228 N.C. 491, 46 S.E.2d 476 (1948).

It now becomes our duty to determine whether the testimony of Mrs. Patricia Conklin and Officers Gray and Harley tends to identify defendant as the man who raped Miss Elliott, or tends to establish a common plan or scheme. If so, evidence of defendant's attack upon Mrs. Conklin was properly admitted in the trial of this case; otherwise not.

Examination of the circumstances surrounding the attack upon Miss Elliott on 13 October 1971 and the attack upon Mrs. Conklin on 19 October 1971 reveals the following similarities: (a) Both attacks were late at night on a lone woman; (b) Miss Elliott's assailant told her, 'If you scream I'll kill you,' and defendant told Mrs. Conklin the same thing; (c) Miss Elliott's assailant held a metal teasing comb to her throat, and defendant stuck a metal teasing comb to the throat or Mrs. Conklin; (d) defendant used Mrs. Conklin's car in her abduction, and Miss Elliott's assailant intended to use Her car, using his own only after he became convinced she did not have a vehicle; (2) Miss Elliott's assailant parked his car some distance from the parking lot where he accosted her, and defendant's car was found parked about fifty yards from where he abducted Mrs. Conklin; (f) the make, model and color of defendant's car coincided with the description of the car in which Miss Elliott was raped; (g) defendant's car had a floor mat with the French fleur-de-lis design on it, and so did the car in which Miss Elliott was raped; and (h) two light-colored furry cats were hanging from the rear-view mirror in the car in which Miss Elliott was raped, and two light-colored furry cats were found in the trunk of defendant's car. We further note that defendant sought to conceal the color and whereabouts of his car, saying it was black and in his brother's possession at Fuquay, when in fact it was yellow and parked within fifty yards of the point where he had abducted Mrs....