State v. Pridgen

• Decision Date: 27 February 1985
• Docket Number: No. 226A84,226A84
• Citation: 326 S.E.2d 618,313 N.C. 80
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Myron Earl PRIDGEN.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Page 618

326 S.E.2d 618

313 N.C. 80

STATE of North Carolina v. Myron Earl PRIDGEN.

No. 226A84.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 27, 1985.

Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen. by Isaac T. Avery, III, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for the State.

R. Gene Braswell and S. Reed Warren, Goldsboro, for defendant appellant.

BRANCH, Chief Justice.

Defendant brings forward twenty-eight assignments of error. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction, and most of the remaining assignments of error are directed to evidentiary rulings of the trial judge.

The State offered evidence tending to show that on 14 June 1983 at approximately 6:00 p.m. the body of Robert Earl Stephens was discovered concealed beside a dirt path at the end of a residential street in Goldsboro, North Carolina. The victim had been shot three times in the left side of his head. An autopsy disclosed that the victim had been dead for at least twelve hours due to the large number of maggots detected on the face area. An examination of the contents of the victim's stomach indicated that death occurred approximately six to ten hours after the victim had last eaten. There was testimony that prior to his disappearance on 13 June, the victim had eaten chicken at approximately 6:30 p.m., and cornflakes at approximately 8:00 p.m. Hence the time of death was estimated to be between midnight and the early morning hours of 14 June. Scrape wounds on the victim's body and physical evidence along the dirt road were consistent with the victim's having been dragged down the dirt road from where blood was first detected to where the body was located. The victim was clutching dried grass in his hand.

There was testimony that at approximately 11:30 p.m. on 13 June, as the victim left the apartment of a friend where he had been cutting hair, he was beckoned to a car, a brown and beige Camaro, by a man meeting defendant's description--a tall, slim, well-dressed black male. The victim left his hair clippers on his car, walked toward the Camaro, got into the car and was driven away. The Camaro had a dent in the side, chrome wheels, and there was a red and green sticker next to the license plate. In addition to the victim and the tall, slim man, there was a shorter stockier man in the Camaro as it drove away. Prior to leaving with the victim, the tall, slim man approached a nearby car, a Datsun 280-Z, and spoke to the two occupants. He stated that he knew someone who drove a 280 at "O'Berry or Cherry."

There was evidence that the victim was scheduled to appear in court in Kinston on 14 June to testify against defendant on charges of forgery and failure to return rental property. The victim was with defendant on 29 March when defendant rented a motor hoist using the identification of a neighbor, Frank Dawson.

A co-worker testified that while he and defendant were working at the O'Berry Center, defendant discussed the pending forgery and rental property charges, called the victim a "rat," and intimated that he would "take care of" the case by "taking care" of the victim or having someone else do it. Following the murder, defendant smiled and stated "somebody got that boy."

Approximately two weeks after the murder, defendant was seen at a local club. When asked if he knew anything about the murder he replied that he did, but he wouldn't say anything. He pointed his finger to his head and said "Bang, bang, bang." That same evening another witness asked defendant if he had killed Ron Stephens, to which defendant replied "I ain't going to say I did or I didn't because if I do I might get the reward, you know, the reward money for it." ¹ The victim's brother also encountered defendant at a club and heard defendant say "I'm glad the mother f----- is dead. He needed to be killed."

In order to ascertain the identity of the driver of the brown and beige Camaro, law enforcement officers drove around the area with the various witnesses looking for the car. The witnesses identified a Camaro which was parked in the yard of defendant's house as the one in which they saw the victim leave. The Camaro was registered in defendant's name.

A passenger in the Datsun 280-Z was shown a photo array in an effort to identify the man who had spoken to her and her boyfriend on the night of 13 June. She selected defendant's photograph as the one which came "closest" to the man she had seen, noting that it "favored" the well-dressed man. No in-court identification was made. However, the witness's photo identification testimony was allowed with limiting instructions that it not be considered as positive identification.

Finally, the State presented the testimony of an inmate at the Wilson County jail. Defendant had been arrested on 16 June on the forgery and rental property charges and was later released on bond. While in the Wilson County jail, defendant had suggested to the witness that he contact the sheriff's department and disclose the following: that defendant had discussed the murder with him; that the murder was connected to a drug transaction; that defendant was approached on the night of the murder by the victim and a man named Rodriques who offered to sell him cocaine for $2,400; that the victim and Rodriques left arguing; that Rodriques came back alone; and that Rodriques was now "in South Carolina somewhere in a river" because "he did [some white people] wrong so he ended up with all the money that night."

Defendant first contends that the trial judge erred in failing to sustain objections to numerous leading questions propounded by the State in its effort to elicit testimony from various witnesses. Defendant has excepted to forty-four such questions. Of these, we agree that many are leading. Our reading of the transcript, however, indicates that the prosecutor was handicapped in having to elicit testimony from several witnesses who were inarticulate, reticent, and generally unable to communicate clearly. The trial judge and the prosecutor frequently found it necessary to ask the witnesses to repeat or explain answers. Nevertheless, the trial judge repeatedly cautioned the prosecutor to avoid leading questions and occasionally sustained defense counsel's objection to a leading question.

We have repeatedly held that it is within the sound discretion of the trial judge to allow counsel to use leading questions, and in the absence of an abuse of that discretion, the judge's rulings will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Wilson, 311 N.C. 117, 316 S.E.2d 46 (1984); State v. Ziglar, 308 N.C. 747, 304 S.E.2d 206 (1983). Many of the objected-to questions in the present case, although technically leading, were designed to direct the witness's attention to the next subject of inquiry and the witness then elaborated on his "yes" or "no" answer with additional testimony. See State v. Lynch, 300 N.C. 534, 268 S.E.2d 161 (1980). In many instances the subject matter of the leading question was otherwise properly elicited through later testimony by the witness himself or by other witnesses. Id. While the prosecutor's questioning of his witnesses was certainly not a model of trial advocacy, given the nature and circumstances of the questioning, we hold that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in overruling defense counsel's objections. This assignment of error is rejected.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the identification testimony of Margaret Keech. Miss Keech was the passenger in the Datsun 280-Z. She testified that she had identified defendant's photograph as the one most closely resembling the man she saw on 13 June, but that she couldn't be sure. The trial judge, although not required to do so, gave a limiting instruction that the testimony was not to be considered as positive identification. We have held that a witness's equivocation on the question of identity does not render the testimony incompetent, but goes only to its weight. State v. Church, 231 N.C. 39, 55 S.E.2d 792 (1949). See State v. Silhan, 302 N.C. 223, 275 S.E.2d 450 (1981); State v. Carson, 296 N.C. 31, 249 S.E.2d 417 (1978). We find these cases dispositive of the issue.

Defendant also contends that the trial judge erred in sustaining the prosecutor's objection to an answer given in response to a question which the prosecutor himself asked Miss Keech on redirect examination. Defendant argues that by sustaining the objection, the trial judge essentially permitted the prosecutor to impeach his own witness. The prosecutor's question and the objected-to answer were as follows:

Q. You said that you told your boyfriend about the picture after you picked it out?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you tell him?

A. I told him that the picture we looked at that that was the best one that looked like him of all of the other pictures but I couldn't be sure.

Without speculating as to why the trial judge sustained the prosecutor's objection to this answer, we simply note that this same evidence was repeatedly elicited during cross examination of the witness, thus the defendant has failed to demonstrate how he was prejudiced by the trial judge's ruling. See State v. Walden, 311 N.C. 667, 319 S.E.2d 577 (1984); State v. Wood, 310 N.C. 460, 312 S.E.2d 467 (1984). This assignment of error is rejected.

Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in failing to sustain his objection to testimony concerning Frank Dawson. The State was permitted to introduce a photograph of Dawson's house and to establish the location of the house with respect to the murder scene. Defendant argues that the testimony was irrelevant and highly prejudicial. The State claims that the evidence tended to establish facts in issue, to wit: defendant and Dawson were involved in a scheme to unlawfully procure a rental tool; that the motive for the murder was to prevent the victim from testifying against them; and that Dawson was one of the two men in the Camaro with the victim when he disappeared...