defendant was sentenced to life on first-degree murder conviction despite finding of "heinous, atrocious, or cruel" aggravating factor based on the fact that defendant repeatedly stabbed his wife to death in front of their children
How later courts described this case
- defendant was sentenced to life on first-degree murder conviction despite finding of "heinous, atrocious, or cruel" aggravating factor based on the fact that defendant repeatedly stabbed his wife to death in front of their children
- under 404(b), “remoteness in time generally goes to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility”
- “ ‘First-degree murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice, premeditation and deliberation.’ ” (quoting State v. Misenheimer, 304 N.C. 108, 113, 282 S.E.2d 791, 795 (1981))
- under 404(b), “remoteness in time generally *69 goes to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Judge Edmunds
concurring.
Although I concur in the majority’s analysis and holding, I write separately to address defendant’s motion to exclude witnesses from the trial. Both North Carolina Rule of Evidence 615 and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1255 (1997) are permissive, allowing the trial court discretion to exclude witnesses. See State v. Ball, 344 N.C. 290 , 474 S.E.2d 345 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1180 , 137 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1997). I agree that no abuse of discretion has been shown under the facts of this case. In comparison with the North Carolina rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 615 requires exclusion of witnesses upon motion of a party. Those with experience in state and federal trials cannot fail *210 to have observed the impact of these different rules. Testimony provided by witnesses who hear each other testify often converges. This effect, while not necessarily sinister, appears to be a reflection of human nature; it can lead irresolute witnesses, consciously or not, to conform their testimony to what they have heard before, undermining a jury’s ability to evaluate the evidence provided by each witness. Particularly in cases as consequential as the capital murder case at bar, trial courts should be mindful of the words of the Commentary to North Carolina Rule of Evidence 615: “[T]he practice should be to sequester witnesses on request of either party unless some reason exists not to.”