State v. Williams
| Citation | 34 N.C.App. 386,238 S.E.2d 195 |
| Decision Date | 02 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 773SC550,773SC550 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Floyd Collins WILLIAMS. |
Atty. Gen. Rufus L. Edmisten, by Associate Atty. Donald W. Grimes, Raleigh, for the State.
Everett & Cheatham by James T. Cheatham, Greenville, for defendant-appellant.
The first issue presented by defendant on this appeal is whether the trial court cured a violation of the rule of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), by allowing a co-defendant, whose incriminating statement had been admitted into evidence, subsequently to change his plea of not guilty and to testify. The record shows that State's witness Annie Simpson offered the following testimony:
The Bruton case held that where a co-defendant did not testify, the introduction of his confession, implicating the other co-defendant, added substantial weight to the government's case in a form not subject to cross-examination and, therefore, violated the other co-defendant's right of cross-examination secured by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
Assuming, arguendo, that defendant was implicated by his silence during the conversation between Mrs. Simpson and Wise, we nevertheless must conclude that any violation of the Bruton rule was cured by Wise's later testimony in defendant's trial. Defendant admits that at that time he had the opportunity to cross-examine his former co-defendant; hence, the underlying reason of the Bruton decision is not present in the instant case. See, e. g., Duggar v. United States, 434 F.2d 345 (10th Cir. 1970).
Defendant's second argument is that the trial court erred when it dictated its findings of fact on voir dire relating to the admission of statements of co-defendant Wise, after court had adjourned and approximately one (1) month after trial. While we agree with State v. Doss, 279 N.C. 413 at 424, 183 S.E.2d 671 at 678 (1971), modified and remanded 408 U.S. 939, 92 S.Ct. 2875, 33...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Richardson
...his fourth assignment of error must be overruled. See State v. Hill, 294 N.C. 320, 240 S.E.2d 794 (1978); State v. Williams, 34 N.C.App. 386, 238 S.E.2d 195 (1977). By his fifth, sixth and seventh assignments of error, defendant challenges the admissibility of his two confessions made at 12......
-
State v. McNeill, COA04-281.
...295 N.C. at 319-20, 245 S.E.2d at 761-62 (must show prejudice from subsequent entry of findings); cf. State v. Williams, 34 N.C.App. 386, 388, 238 S.E.2d 195, 196 (1977) (where a trial court admitted testimony into evidence, defendant must show "prejudice which resulted from the trial court......
-
State v. Boone
... ... Richardson, 295 N.C. 309, 245 S.E.2d 754 (1978) and State v. [310 N.C. 289] Williams, 34 N.C.App. 386, 238 S.E.2d 195 (1977). In both of those cases it appears that the trial judge announced his ruling on the motion to suppress during the session when it could be entered in the court's records by the clerk, although the findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the ... ...
-
State v. Horner
...had failed to show any prejudice from the delay in the entry of the written order. See State v. Boone, supra; State v. Williams, 34 N.C.App. 386, 238 S.E.2d 195 (1977). Where the trial judge makes the determination after a hearing, as in this case, he must set forth in the record his findin......