State v. Prince, 175
Decision Date | 20 June 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 175,175 |
Citation | 270 N.C. 769,154 S.E.2d 897 |
Parties | STATE, v. Willie PRINCE, Jr. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
T. Wade Bruton, Atty. Gen., and Ralph A. White, Jr., Staff Atty., Raleigh, for the State.
Carl V. Venters, Jacksonville, for defendant.
Defendant brings forward only two assignments of error: that the court erred (1) in admitting the transcript of the testimony which Sanderson gave at the former trial, and (2) in overruling his motion of nonsuit At the close of the State's evidence. He specifically abandoned his assignment of error based on his exception to the denial of his motion for nonsuit made at the close of all the evidence.
By introducing evidence after the denial of his motion for judgment of nonsuit made when the State had rested its case, defendant waived the motion for dismissal which he made prior to the introduction of his evidence. G.S. § 15--173. In no event, therefore, would defendant be entitled to have his motion for nonsuit considered Only in the light of the State's evidence. State v. Earp, 196 N.C. 164, 145 S.E. 23. But neither the evidence for the State nor that of defendant has been included in the case on appeal.
State v. Womack, 251 N.C. 342, 343, 111 S.E.2d 332, 334.
Defendant's appeal must be dismissed, but we deem it appropriate to say his assignments disclose no error in the trial below. It is obvious that defendant's attempt to overturn his conviction is not based upon any lack of evidence to establish his guilt of the crime charged. His complaint is that the admission of the transcript of Sanderson's evidence at his first trial violated the rights guaranteed to him by the North Carolina Constitution, Article I, Section 11, and by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The latter, which gives an accused the right 'to be confronted with the winesses against him,' is now held to have been made obligatory on the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Pointer v. State of Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). The North Carolina Constitution, Article I, Section 11, gives every person charged with crime the right 'to confront the accusers and witnesses with other testimony.'
Always in a criminal action, '(t)he witness himself, if available, must be produced and testify De novo.' State v. Cope, 240 N.C. 244, 249, 81 S.E.2d 773, 777. The constitutional right of confrontation, however, is not denied an accused by the introduction at a subsequent trial of the transcribed testimony given at a former trial of the same action by a witness who has since died, become insane, left the State permanently or for an indefinite absence, become incapacitated to testify in court as a result of a permanent or indefinitive illness, or absented himself by procurement of, or connivance with, the accused. The accuracy of the transcription, of course, must be attested and it must appear that the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witness. State v. Ham, 224 N.C. 128, 29 S.E.2d 449; State v. Casey, 204 N.C. 411, 168 S.E. 512; State v. Maynard, 184 N.C. 653, 113 S.E. 682; State v. Behrman, 114 N.C. 797, 19 S.E. 220, 25 L.R.A. 449; Stansbury, N.C. Evidence § 145 (2d Ed., 1963); McCormick, Evidence § 231 (1954); 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence § 739 (1967); 5 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 1396, 1397 (3d Ed., 1940); Annot., Use in criminal case of testimony given on former trial, or preliminary examination, by witness not available at present trial, 15 A.L.R. 495; 79 A.L.R. 1392; 122 A.L.R. 425; 159 A.L.R....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Fox
...died may be introduced in evidence upon a subsequent trial of the same cause upon proof of its authenticity and accuracy. State v. Prince, 270 N.C. 769, 154 S.E.2d 897; Settee v. Electric Railway, 171 N.C. 440, 88 S.E. 734; Cooper v. R.R., 170 N.C. 490, 87 S.E. 322; Stansbury N.C. Evidence ......
-
State v. McLaughlin, 637A84
...of the hearings. California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 165, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 1938, 26 L.Ed.2d 489, 501 (1970); see also State v. Prince, 270 N.C. 769, 154 S.E.2d 897 (1967) (constitutional right of confrontation not denied by introduction of prior testimony where witness has since died, become i......
-
State v. Smith
...v. Cope, 240 N.C. 244, 81 S.E.2d 773 (1954); Settee v. Electric Railway, 171 N.C. 440, 88 S.E. 734 (1916). Compare State v. Prince, 270 N.C. 769, 154 S.E.2d 897 (1967). Here defendants contend the witness Stanley Harris was available but concede that requirements (2) and (3) are met. We exa......
-
State v. Chandler
...v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 15 S.Ct. 337, 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895); State v. Grier, 314 N.C. 59, 331 S.E.2d 669 (1985); State v. Prince, 270 N.C. 769, 154 S.E.2d 897 (1967). In North Carolina, a trial judge may declare a witness unavailable pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 804(a)(4) which (......