State v. Old, 7

Decision Date22 November 1967
Docket NumberNo. 7,7
Citation272 N.C. 42,157 S.E.2d 651
PartiesSTATE of North Carolina v. Grady Worth OLD.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., George A. Goodwyn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

John T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City, for defendant-appellant.

HIGGINS, Justice:

The record, including the corrections, covers almost 300 pages. Defense counsel, alert to the interests of his client at all stages of the trial, noted 275 exceptions. They are presented here for review under 65 assignments of error, most of which are discussed in the defendant's carefully prepared brief. We have examined each assignment. Those not discussed have been found to be without merit.

The defendant assigns as error the pre-trial order by the resident judge which committed the defendant to a state hospital for the purpose of determining his capacity to stand trial. This procedure was a precautionary measure on the part of the judge and is specially authorized by G.S. § 122--91. State v. Arnold, 258 N.C. 563, 129 S.E.2d 229.

Judge Peel consolidated for trial the two charges of felonious assault on Taylor and Walston, and the capital charge of murder. The assault on Taylor was charged in the warrant which officers Walston and Williams were attempting to serve when the shot was fired at Walston and Williams was killed. The three charges were so connected and tied together that evidence of each offense fits into and complements the others. Evidence of the entire episode is competent on the question of identification. In these circumstances, joinder is authorized by G.S. § 15--52. State v. Arsad, 269 N.C. 184, 152 S.E.2d 99; State v. Tippett, 270 N.C. 588, 155 S.E.2d 269. Ordinarily, and unless as here, the evidence showing guilt of a minor offense fits into the proof on the capital charge, the minor offenses should not be included.

Numerous exceptions and assignments of error are based on the admission of evidence. While the witness Taylor saw the defendant armed with the rifle outside his window on the occasion of the shooting into his bedroom, there was no witness able to say the defendant fired the shots that missed officer Walston and felled officer Williams. The State, therefore, had to rely on circumstantial evidence to fix on the defendant responsibility for these shootings. Many circumstances were detailed in the evidence which, standing alone, were of small moment, but when they were fitted together, they complemented each other in such manner as rendered them sufficient to warrant the jury in finding the defendant did the shooting. While no motive appears for the assault on Taylor, the evidence positively identified the defendant as the person who fired the shots. The State's evidence disclosed the defendant knew Montelle Williams and knew he was a deputy sheriff. The evidence was sufficient to warrant the jury in finding the shooting of the officers was for the purpose of preventing arrest. The totality of the circumstances detailed in the evidence was sufficient to identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the crimes although direct evidence of the assault on Walston and the fatal shooting of Williams is lacking. The defendant began the day by shooting at Taylor. Thereafter, from the defendant's house the shots were fired at officers Walston and Williams. These came from the front door of the defendant's house where he lived alone. A search of the house disclosed a rather formidable arsenal, and a repeating shotgun with an exploded shell in the chamber was lying on a chair. Outside the house, a distance of 100 to 150 feet from it, the officers found the defendant hiding in a ditch, armed with a repeating rifle with 10 cartridges in the magazine. Only after repeated demands that the defendant come out with his hands up did he heed the command and submit to arrest....

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. Frazier
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 14 Enero 1972
    ...of two or more indictments where the charges are for 'two or more acts or transactions connected together.' In State v. Old, 272 N.C. 42, 157 S.E.2d 651, this Court found no error in the consolidation for trial of a charge of murder and two charges of assault with a deadly weapon upon diffe......
  • State v. Wilson
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 1 Junio 1982
    ...409 U.S. 1004, 93 S.Ct. 453, 34 L.Ed.2d 295 (1972), the offenses took place within a time span of three hours. In State v. Old, 272 N.C. 42, 157 S.E.2d 651 (1967), the three offenses took place within two hours. In resolving the issue in these cases, the Court has described the transaction ......
  • Huggins v. Wake County Bd. of Ed., 535
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 22 Noviembre 1967
    ... ... in violation of statutory requirements and that, in any event, there is no authority under State law to operate a school consisting only of the ninth grade.' ...         What the ... ...
  • State v. Smith
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 4 Septiembre 1984
    ...State v. Greene, 294 N.C. 418, 241 S.E.2d 662 (1978) (where the offenses occurred within a three hour time span); and State v. Old, 272 N.C. 42, 157 S.E.2d 651 (1967) (where offenses occurred with two hour time The defendant relies upon a statement by the District Attorney that the break-in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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