# State v. Wilds

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 18, 1999 · 133 N.C. App. 195

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9586202

## Case

- **Full name:** State of North Carolina v. Curtis Eugene Wilds
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** May 18, 1999
- **Citations:** 133 N.C. App. 195; 515 S.E.2d 466; 1999 N.C. App. LEXIS 403
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Edmunds
- **Judges:** Eagles, Edmunds, Smith
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9586202

## Opinion text

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.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9586202. Public record. Not legal advice.