 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Daughtry7/28/1995
eaver based his opinions on his examination of the bloodstain patterns found on the ground, the porch steps, and the log discovered on the woodpile.
Defendant has failed to show error in this regard. The prosecutor laid an adequate foundation for Deaver's testimony. Deaver had completed a basic and advanced course in bloodstain pattern interpretation and was teaching that subject to SBI agents. Before testifying about his findings in this case, he described in detail the process of interpreting bloodstain patterns. Deaver did not speculate but gave opinions based on his examination of the physical evidence at the crime scene. The testimony was competent and relevant to show the manner of the victim's murder; its probative value was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The trial court, therefore, properly admitted the evidence. This assignment of error is overruled.
Next, defendant argues the trial court erred by allowing inadmissible hearsay testimony, which defendant had moved to exclude, about statements the victim made and a letter she purportedly wrote to defendant. The State presented two witnesses who testified about statements the victim made during the six to eight weeks preceding the murder. Michael Hopkins testified that the victim told him while they were living together that "she had broken up with [defendant] and -- but, as far as seeing -- seeing anybody, she wasn't." David Bunch, the victim's co-worker, testified that the victim told him that defendant beat her on weekends when he was drunk, that she was going to leave defendant because of the beatings, that she had broken off her relationship with defendant and was seeing Hopkins, and that defendant wanted to talk to her before he left the state so they could part as friends. Bunch also testified about a conversation between the victim and her mother and sisters in which the victim stated, "I can't understand why you all want me to be with [defendant]. I have who I want, if you all can't be around me without having [defendant] . . . leave, stay the hell away from me." Finally, Lieutenant Cuddington read into evidence a letter the victim apparently wrote in which she mentioned the abuse she suffered from defendant.
The portion of Hopkins' testimony about which defendant complains was neither mentioned in defendant's motion nor objected to at trial. Defendant therefore failed to preserve this assignment of error for appellate review under N.C. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); see State v. Hamilton, 338 N.C. 193, 208, 449 S.E.2d 402, 411 (1994). Defendant also failed specifically and distinctly to contend that the error amounts to plain error, thereby waiving appellate review under N.C. R. App. P. 10(c)(4). See Hamilton, 338 N.C. at 208, 449 S.E.2d at 411.
At the hearing on defendant's motion, the trial court ruled that Bunch's testimony and the letter from the victim to defendant were admissible under N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 804(b)(5), which provides in part:
A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness [is admissible] if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of Justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.
Defendant argues this ruling was erroneous beca
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|