State v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 21 October 1986
• Docket Number: No. 864SC390,864SC390
• Citation: 83 N.C.App. 146,349 S.E.2d 317
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Carlous R. ROBINSON.

Page 317

349 S.E.2d 317

83 N.C.App. 146

STATE of North Carolina v. Carlous R. ROBINSON.

No. 864SC390.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 21, 1986.

Atty. Gen. Lacy H. Thornburg by Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen. Guy A. Hamlin, Asheville, for the State.

Billy G. Sandlin, Jacksonville, for defendant-appellant.

ARNOLD, Judge.

Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his request for a transcript of his sister's trial. We disagree.

It is established that all defendants, including indigent parties, are entitled to transcripts when appealing to a higher court or upon retrial when necessary for an effective defense. See State v. Reid, 312 N.C. 322, 321 S.E.2d 880 (1984); State v. Rankin, 306 N.C. 712, 295 S.E.2d 416 (1982); State v. McNeill, 33 N.C.App. 317, 235 S.E.2d 274 (1977). Defendant, however, is asking for the transcript of another. There is no statute or precedent which requires that a defendant be given a transcript of another's trial, regardless of the fact that the other party is a codefendant. We decline to establish such a rule.

Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on acting in concert. Before the court can instruct the jury on the doctrine of acting in concert, the State must present evidence tending to show two factors: (1) that defendant was present at the scene of the crime, and (2) that he acted together with another who did acts necessary to constitute the crime pursuant to a common plan or purpose to commit the crime. State v. Joyner, 297 N.C. 349, 255 S.E.2d 390 (1979); State v. Woods, 77 N.C.App. 622, 336 S.E.2d 1 (1985). Defendant was with the deceased from the beginning of the "ceremony" until he was declared dead by the rescue squad. Therefore, the first requirement is satisfied.

Defendant argues that the second requirement is not met because there can be no common plan or scheme to commit a culpably negligent act. We disagree.

There was evidence that defendant and his sister choked Dennis James Taylor, Jr. until he was crying out and vomiting. These acts constitute culpable negligence. Defendant and his sister committed these culpably negligent acts pursuant to the common purpose of ridding the child of demons. The second requirement is satisfied. Because both requirements were met in the case sub judice, the trial court properly instructed the jury on acting in concert.

Defendant next argues that the trial court erred in denying his request that the jury be instructed that Dennis James Taylor, Sr....