Preview:

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

NO. COA11-430 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 7 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM SPRUILL Martin County No. 99-CRS-2182

Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 6 July 2000 by Judge J. Richard Parker in Superior Court, Martin County. in the Court of Appeals 8 November 2011. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Patrick S. Wooten, for the State. Paul M. Green for Defendant-Appellant. McGEE, Judge. William Spruill (Defendant) was arrested 22 October 1999 for the 20 August 1999 armed robbery of John Stalls (Mr. Heard

Stalls). June 2000.

Defendant was found guilty after a jury trial on 29 The trial court sentenced Defendant on 6 July 2000

in the aggravated range of 146 months to 185 months in prison. The trial court found the presence of an aggravating factor without submitting the question to the jury. Defendant gave

-2notice of appeal in open court. Defendant's appeal was

dismissed by this Court in an order filed 11 May 2001, due to Defendant's failure to file a brief. Defendant filed a petition

for a writ of certiorari on 25 January 2011, which this Court granted in an order entered 14 February 2011. I. Factual Background The evidence at trial tended to show that, on the morning of 20 August 1999, Mr. Stalls was working in his pumpkin patch. Mr. Stalls testified that a car passed by him and then turned around and stopped about sixty yards away from him. Mr. Stalls

testified that a man exited the car and approached him, asking Mr. Stalls if he had any pumpkins for sale. As Mr. Stalls bent

over to pick a pumpkin, the man hit Mr. Stalls in the back of the head with a crowbar. breaking Mr. Stalls' arm. The man then hit Mr. Stalls again, The man stole $237.00 from Mr.

Stalls' pocketbook. trial.

Mr. Stalls was 79 years old at the time of

Mr. Stalls identified Defendant as his assailant in a

photo array and also identified Defendant in court. Latasha Mayo (Ms. Mayo) testified that, at the time of the robbery, Defendant was her boyfriend. Ms. Mayo's half-brother,

James Gorham, Jr. (Mr. Gorham), was suspected of participating in the robbery of Mr. Stalls. statements. In her first Ms. Mayo made three pretrial Ms. Mayo told police

statement,

-3officers that Defendant committed the robbery and that Ms. Mayo was the driver of the car. In her second statement, Ms. Mayo

told officers that Defendant and Mr. Gorham borrowed her car and that Mr. Gorham was the robber. Finally, in her third

statement, Ms. Mayo told officers that Defendant and Mr. Gorham had borrowed her car and that Defendant committed the robbery. Ms. Mayo was questioned at trial about her three

statements, and she testified that her third statement was the truth. Ms. Mayo testified that Defendant and Mr. Gorham

borrowed her car on the morning of 20 August 1999.

Ms. Mayo

further testified that Defendant later told her that something had been bothering him and that he needed "to get it off [his] chest." man out." Defendant testified at trial that he was driving Ms. Mayo's car on 20 August 1999 and that Mr. Gorham was a passenger in the car. Defendant testified that, at one point, Mr. Gorham asked Defendant then told Ms. Mayo that he "knocked the old

him to pull over so that Mr. Gorham could relieve himself by some bushes. Defendant testified that Mr. Gorham exited the car When was

and took "a little stick" from under his seat with him. Mr. Gorham returned eight or nine minutes later, he

breathing hard and had money stuffed into his pants.

Defendant

-4testified that he saw Mr. Stalls through the bushes and denied having assaulted him. II. Issues on Appeal Defendant raises the following issues on appeal: (1)

whether the trial court erred "by allowing the prosecutor to insinuate through cross-examination that . . . Defendant had

committed other uncharged armed robberies[;]" and (2) whether the trial court committed constitutional error by finding an aggravating circumstance and imposing an aggravated sentence

without considering evidence and without findings by a jury. III. Cross-Examination Defendant argues that the trial court erred by allowing the State, over objection, to ask him the following questions during cross-examination: Q. Isn't it true that the day you went over with Ms. Mayo to see J.D. that you robbed him, too? A. No.

[Defense Counsel]: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled Q. You didn't steal a red box with jewelry and some change from Mr. J.D.? A. No. I don't even know no J.D. - - I mean, know him like know the J.D. that you're talking about. I heard something about a case resembling to that, a J.D.

-5. . . . Q. You just answer my questions, Mr. Spruill. Isn't it true that you went to J.D.'s house with some kind of long, sticklike object and some mace and a stun gun and robbed Mr. J.D. - [Defense Counsel]: Objection, Your Honor. A. No, sir

THE COURT: Overruled. Q. And isn't it true that after you took the stuff from Mr. J.D. that you went and bought crack and smoked crack with whatever you had gotten from Mr. J.D.? A. No, sir. [Defense Counsel]: THE COURT: Objection.

Overruled.

Q. Ever been to a place called Temperance Hall, Mr. Spruill? A. No, I never heard of it.

Q. Isn't it true that you assaulted an older white man in that area with a tire iron and robbed him and took his money? A. No, sir, I never heard of that case.

Q. Got two cartons of Newport cigarettes, a wallet full of credit cards, and about $200 cash that you counted right in front of Ms. Mayo; isn't that right? A. No, sir. I mean, where you getting' this information from, to ask me questions about some stuff that I don't even really know nothin' about?

-6Defendant contends that the State's questions regarding

uncharged criminal acts were not admissible pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.

Download 11-430.pdf

South Carolina Law