State v. Riggins
| Decision Date | 05 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 457A86,457A86 |
| Citation | 361 S.E.2d 558,321 N.C. 107 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina, v. Gary Malone RIGGINS. |
Lacy H. Thornburg, Atty. Gen. by George W. Boylan, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for the State.
Malcolm R. Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant.
The sole issue raised by defendant on appeal is whether the trial court committed reversible error when, at the request of the jury, it allowed a State witness to retake the stand without the court acknowledging to the jury that the witness' earlier testimony had been different. We find that the trial court did not err.
Summarily stated, the evidence introduced at defendant's trial showed that on 6 December 1985, defendant knocked on the victim's door in the middle of the night and asked if he could use her telephone because his car was inoperable. The victim did not know defendant but allowed him into the apartment to use the telephone to call his brother. Defendant left after using the telephone and the victim heard him unsuccessfully trying to start his car. He later returned to her apartment and asked if she could help him.
Together they managed to start the car. Defendant thanked the victim and she turned to reenter her apartment. At that time defendant grabbed her from behind and held a gun to her head. Defendant forced her into his car and told her he would "blow her brains out" if she ran away.
Defendant drove three miles from the apartment to a country road where he raped the victim in his car. Defendant immediately became apologetic and drove the victim back to her apartment. There he told her, "I guess you want to kill me." He then handed the victim his loaded gun. She told him she could not do it and gave the gun back. She got out of the car and entered her apartment.
The victim, at the request of her roommate, went to the hospital where the police were called. Some time after the incident, the victim identified defendant from a photographic line-up brought to her house by a police officer. She also pointed out defendant in the courtroom as the person who had abducted and raped her.
The issue before this Court concerns the following testimony. During defendant's trial, the victim testified on direct examination that she had identified defendant from a photographic line-up at her apartment but not on the same day as the 6 December 1985 incident. During his direct examination, Detective Sergeant Dennis Johnson testified that on 6 December 1985 at about 3:56 p.m. he and another police officer had gone to the victim's residence where she had identified the defendant from a photographic line-up. No inquiry was made as to the inconsistent dates given.
After the jury retired for deliberations, the bailiff returned to the courtroom with a question from the jury. The trial judge then requested that the jurors return to the courtroom. The jury foreman stated that the jury had a question concerning the date the photographic line-up was presented to the victim. The District Attorney then moved that the State be allowed to recall Detective Johnson so that he could repeat his testimony. Defendant's attorney stated there were no objections.
After admonishing the witness that he was still under oath, the trial judge allowed the District Attorney to proceed with his reexamination. This time, Detective Johnson testified that he presented the photographic line-up to the victim at her apartment on 10 December 1985 at 3:56 p.m., a date four days later than the date he had given in his earlier testimony.
Defendant contends the trial judge committed prejudicial error by permitting the further testimony of the State's witness and not acknowledging its inconsistency. We find this contention meritless.
Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1226(b), the trial judge is authorized in his discretion to permit any party to introduce additional evidence at any time prior to verdict. We find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in the instant case. Defendant did not object to the recalling of Detective Johnson. The testimony in question concerned an incidental aspect of the case and did not involve a necessary element or feature of the State's case in chief, or that of the defendant.
Defendant further asserts that the trial judge was not aware that inconsistent testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Carolina v. Lee Roy Ellison.State Carolina v. James Edward Treadway.
...long as the opposing party is permitted further rebuttal.” Quick, 323 N.C. at 681–82, 375 S.E.2d at 159 (citing State v. Riggins, 321 N.C. 107, 109, 361 S.E.2d 558, 559 (1987), and State v. Lowery, 318 N.C. 54, 70, 347 S.E.2d 729, 740 (1986)). The rationale underlying the Supreme Court's ho......
-
State v. Collins
...a showing of an abuse of discretion. State v. Wise , 178 N.C. App. 154, 163, 630 S.E.2d 732, 737 (2006) (citing State v. Riggins , 321 N.C. 107, 109, 361 S.E.2d 558, 559 (1987) ).¶ 13 Our General Statutes provide: "The judge in his [or her] discretion may permit any party to introduce addit......
-
State v. Quick
...judge, within his discretion, to permit a party to introduce additional evidence at any time prior to the verdict. State v. Riggins, 321 N.C. 107, 361 S.E.2d 558 (1987). The judge may also permit a party to offer new evidence which could have been offered in the party's case in chief or dur......
- State v. Rhodes