State v. Ross, 37
| Decision Date | 20 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 37,37 |
| Citation | 254 S.E.2d 10,297 N.C. 137 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. James Howard ROSS. |
L. K. Biedler, Jr., Monroe and James C. Fuller, Jr., Charlotte, for the defendant.
Atty. Gen. Rufus L. Edmisten by Asst. Atty. Gen. Guy A. Hamlin, Raleigh, for the State.
The defendant contends the trial court erred in not granting his motion to suppress his confession made to the police officers on 26 June 1978. We agree; therefore, the defendant must be granted a new trial.
Defendant argues that he was incompetent at the time the confession was made. The United States Supreme Court considered this issue in Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 274, 4 L.Ed.2d 242 (1960). That case makes it clear that an accused's confession cannot be used against him when "the evidence indisputably establishes the strongest probability that (the defendant) was insane and incompetent at the time he allegedly confessed." Id. at 207, 80 S.Ct. at 280, 4 L.Ed.2d at 248.
In making this determination, we must look at all the circumstances and the entire record. State v. Siler, 292 N.C. 543, 234 S.E.2d 733 (1977); State v. Thompson, 287 N.C. 303, 214 S.E.2d 742 (1975), Death penalty vacated, 428 U.S. 908, 96 S.Ct. 3215, 49 L.Ed.2d 1213 (1976). The evidence as to this defendant's probable incompetence at the time he confessed is as follows:
1. The defendant had a long history of mental illness, dating back some twelve or thirteen years, and he had been hospitalized for it several times in the past.
2. The last time he had worked for any significant period of time was in 1974.
3. Approximately one week before the confession was made, the defendant was involved in "an incident" in Greensboro resulting in his involuntary commitment to John Umstead Hospital.
4. Three days before the crime and confession in question, the defendant went to a mental health clinic. He was given medication, and an appointment with a psychiatrist was made for him for the following week. The therapist who saw him testified that the defendant's mood and affect were "inappropriate," he had "poor judgment," and "there was a very high likelihood that he was suffering from psychotic conditions," specifically schizophrenia.
5. Mr. A. C. Ross, defendant's brother testified that when he brought the defendant to his home from Greensboro a few days before this crime occurred and the incriminating statement was made, he was going to have the defendant go to work with him, "but after I (defendant's brother) saw his condition, he wasn't able to work." Mr. Ross had to have somebody stay with the defendant during the day while he was at work because Mr. Ross felt the defendant was not capable of looking after himself. The defendant's brother stated that he was the one who arranged for the defendant to go to the mental health clinic for medication and treatment. He related defendant's bizarre behavior of running through the woods two times without his shirt on 25 June 1978 while the two men were at a baseball game. Mr. Ross testified "it looked like he (the defendant) was just off that day (25 June 1978, the day of the crime and the day before defendant made the confession)."
6. Mr. Hudson testified that when the defendant was found in his home about 12:30 a. m. on 26 June 1978, he "looked strange" and in fact Mr. Hudson commented to the defendant that he looked strange.
7. Dr. Groce, a psychiatrist, observed and interviewed the defendant beginning on 29 June 1978, three days after the statement in question was made. He testified that the defendant at times "seemed to be confused" and had had memory problems in the past. The doctor stated that defendant was suffering from "chronic, undifferentiated schizophrenia," which includes delusions and a "misinterpretation of reality." Defendant's problem is a long standing one, and the doctor testified that it may continue "indefinitely." Dr. Groce did state, however, that defendant's condition is "variable" or "fluctuating," and the defendant is much more likely to be sane when he takes his medication, thorazine. 1
The only evidence the State introduced as to defendant's mental competence at the time of his confession was the testimony of Joe Moore, a Deputy Sheriff of Union County who was present when the statement was given. Officer Moore stated that the defendant appeared to be comfortable and "(w)hatever he said to me on that occasion, it did appear to be logical and make (sic) sense to me." Yet portions of the statement itself reveal that defendant's story to Officer Moore was not logical and sensible:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Simpson
...time of the statement, we must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the defendant and the confession. State v. Ross, 297 N.C. 137, 254 S.E.2d 10 (1979). The defendant points to several circumstances which he contends show that he lacked the required mental capacity for a kn......
-
State v. Allen
...mental capacity was sufficient to prove that she lacked the ability to give a voluntary statement. She relies on State v. Ross, 297 N.C. 137, 254 S.E.2d 10 (1979), in which we held that a defendant's confession cannot be used against her when " 'the evidence indisputably establishes the str......
-
State v. Fisher
...confession against the defendant at trial. See Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 274, 4 L.Ed.2d 242 (1960); State v. Ross, 297 N.C. 137, 254 S.E.2d 10 (1979). Moreover, "[w]hen there is a material conflict in the evidence on voir dire, the judge must make findings of fact resolvi......
-
State v. Misenheimer, 117
...by officers. He seeks to invoke the rule of Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 274, 4 L.Ed.2d 242 (1960), and State v. Ross, 297 N.C. 137, 254 S.E.2d 10 (1979), which held that an extra-judicial confession made while a defendant is mentally incompetent must be excluded at The indi......