Appendix — Britt v. North Carolina

4.

INDICTMENT —MURDER

No. 69 CR:2387

State oF NortH: CaRouina |

In THe GeneRAL Court oF JusTICE—

Superior ‘Court Division

_CounTy oF CRavEN.—

April 8th Session, 1969

‘THe State or NortH CaROLINa ) |

ye INDICTMENT— _

Cranes W. Brirr, Jr. and f MURDER

Eruet J. Best

Defendant |

- Tue Jurors ror THE State Upon THE OatxH.Do Pre-

sENT, That Charles W. Britt, Jr. and Ethel J. Best late of

the county of Craven on the 24th day of March 1969, with

force and arms, at and in the said county, feloniously, wil-

fully, and of his malice aforethought, did kill and murder

Jannie Banks contrary to the form of the statute in such

case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity

of the State. :

LuTHER HamiI.tTon, JR.

Solicitor

WITNESSES : .

X Despran AnN HuMPHREY

W. D. Downy, III

X P. M.. BratcHerR

Those marked are sworn by the undersigned foreman,

and examined before the grand jury, and this bill found

to be A True Bill.

Frep H. Mruer, A.P.S.

Foreman Grand Jury

AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY - ;

1. By whom are you employed? No

2. What is your present.income? No

3. Are you married? No

4. How many children under age 18 do you have? No

5. What kind of car do you own? None |

6. Is it paid for? If not, what are the payments?

7. State specifically all property which you own and give

~ location and its value. co ,

8. State specifically all property which you and your

spouse own jointly and give location and its value.

9. How much do you owe? $110.00

- [ hereby declare under the penalties of perjury that the

foregoing answers are true, correct, and complete and that

I am financially unable to employ counsel to represent me

in this action. I hereby request the court to appoint counsel

to represent me in this action.

This the 3 day of June, 1969.

CHARLES Wr Britt, Jr.

Defendant

(Sworn to on June 3, 1969.)

ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF LEGAL COUNSEL

FOR INDIGENT DEFENDANT

The defendant, Charles W. Britt, Jr. having been called

to plead to the true bill of indictment found or warrants

_issued against him, wherein he is charged with Murder and

it appearing to the undersigned judge presiding, from the

affirmations made by the defendant and after due inquiry

made, as appears in the record, that the defendant is ‘un-

able by reason of his indigency to employ the services of

counsel to represent him in this cause; it is,

OrpERED AND ApsupceEp that the defendant is an indigent

and in need of the services of an attorney, as contemplated

‘by law; and that Robert.G. Bowers and Lamar Sledge,

Attorneys at Law, are hereby appointed as counsel for the .

indigent defendant as is provided in GS 15-4.1 and GS 15-5. ©

This the 3 day of June, 1969. ‘

ALBERT W. CowPEr

Judge Presiding

66.

PETITION FOR MENTAL EXAMINATION

Comes Now the defendant in the captioned cause, by and

through his court appointed counsel, and moves for his

commitment to a State Hospital” for observation with

respect to his mental competency as provided by statute.

The petitioner shows to the court that he and another are |

charged under indictment in this cause with having com-

mitted on or about March 24, 1969, the capital felony of

murder.

Petitioner further oes to the court that, upon his affi-

davit of indigency, counsel for petitioner were appointed

on June 3, 1969 by order of the Honorable Albert W.

Cowper, Judge presiding at the June Session of the Su-

perior Court of Craven County.

In support thereof, petitioner shows to the court that he

was committed in 1962 at about the age of 14 to the O’Berry

Training School, a State Institution, and’on information

and belief court appointed counsel for pétitioner.aver that

the records of said institution reflect a less than average

level of.mental capacity on the part. of petitioner, who was

born on June 21, 1948.

And further in support thereof, petitioner and his coun-

sel show to the court that it appears to be generally ac-

cepted and-acknowledged among various law enforcement

officers and members of the bar of.Craven County who have

observed the petitioner and have had personal contact with

him that the petitioner suffers to an undetermined extent |

from some mental deficiency, defect, disease, or abnor-

mality.

WHEREFORE, petitioner prays the court to issue an order

committing him to a State Hospital for observation and

treatment, and for report as to his competency in accord

with applicable statutes of this State.

‘This ... day of July, 1969. |

Rosert G. Bowers '

E. Lamar SLEDGE

Counsel for Petitioner

ORDER OF COMMITMENT TO CHERRY HOSPITAL

Ir Appeartne to the cqurt that the defendant in the cap-

_ tioned cause, together with another person, is charged by

-

ene ate

IE AOR NET: NN Nar

©

7

&

‘indictment with having committed .the capital pny of

murder on or about March 24, 1969;

And it appearing to the court, upon representations made

that the defendant may be of unsound mind, that inquiry

should be made into the defendant’s mental condition ;

And it: further appearing to the court that prior to

his present incarceration the defendant resided with his

mother, Mrs. Lola Gibson, at her residence, Route 2, Box

74, New Bern, North Carolina;

Now, therefore, it is ORDERED that Charles William Britt,

Jr. be and he is hereby committed to the Cherry" Hospital

at Goldsboro, North Carolina, as provided in Article I,

Chapter 122 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, and

applicable provisions of the laws of this State, for a period

not exceeding sixty days for treatment, observation, exami-

nation, and report as to his competency to plead to the

charges against him and as to his competency and mental

condition.

It is further ORDERED that certified copies of this order

and: accompanying petition be furnished to the sheriff of-

Craven County and that he or one of his deputies is hereby

directed to convey the order of this court and accompany-

ing petition to officials of the said Cherry Hospital and to

make such arrangements as may be necessary or appro-

priate for transportation of the defendant to said hospital

for examination.

This 19 day of August, 1969.

ae : . Grorct M. Fountain

. Judge Presiding ~

REPORT OF STATE HOSPITAL—Discharge Summary

’ NortH CAROLINA

. DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEaLtH

Cuerry Hospitrau Britt, Charles W., Jr.

Goxpssoro, N. C. Hospital #4 508 98

_ Clinical Summary

October 30, 1969

(CONFIDEN TIAL AND PRIVILEGED—For profes

sional purposes only. Not for publication. Not to be used

against the patient’s interests. )

a

- -g

A 21 year old single male on a pretrial observation order |

under GS 122-91, from the Superior Court of Craven

County, dated 8- 19- 69, signed by the Honorable George M. |

Fountain, Judge Presiding, The charge is the felony of

murder.’ gk

The family history shows that one sister had epilepsy and

reportedly one cousin has been at a training center: Began

school age 6, finished the 9th grade at 16, but this is some-

what hard to evaluate as he was taken out ‘of school and sent

to O’Berry Training School when in the 7th grade and also

was in the Frederick Reform School at Petersburg, Va. in

“67. It appears that there was significant retardation and

there may be some error in the patient’s statement because

he admits he found it difficult to learn. Occupation has been

cook and short order chef at the Little Mint in New Bern.

There is no service record. Subject claims to have been.

classed 1-A but never called. Subject is single and claims

to have 2 children but thé family make no mention of this.

Subject does suggest that the girl friend is involved in his

present charge and it appears that she is the mother of

these 2 children ages 4 and 2. Subject’s health relates

mostly “to his mental retardation problem. He did have an

operation for hernia in 1950 at age 2 which the parents

give as the beginning of this intellectual problem, claiming.

that the child had a high fever and the doctor.told them at

the time that the boy would never be ‘jmentally right.’’

Around age 7 or 8 subject was hit on the head with a

swing and -was taken to the Sampson County Memorial

Hospital emergency room.and sent home. Subject’s drink-

ing habits are claimed by himself to have been heavy, espe-

cially when he would get worried but claims that more.

recently ‘he has been drinking much more lightly, He states

he never had DT’s or other complications. Subject denies

the use of drugs although admitted that he has smoked

‘‘refers’’ twice but did not like them. Difficulty with the -

law began about ’62 at abouf age 14 when he was picked

up on a B & E charge and this resulted in his going to

O’Berry Center where he remained until sometime in ’63

or ’64. He was with the Job Corps in Tennessee in ’66.

Sometime in ’67 he was at the Frederick Reformatory

School at Petersburg, Va. but this may have been in re-

” ”

9

spect to a charge in °67 of interstate car larceny when he

served 18 months of a 3 year sentence. Subject was paroled

in 8-68. In 12-68 he was charged with truck larceny and

given 60 days. The present offense took place in 4-69 when

the grandmother of his girl friend was beaten and stabbed

to death.

-On admission here subject was noted to be: a eooperative

young male, showing no unusual appearance, behavior, or

speech. He was ‘alert and in good contact and well

oriented. Hallucinations of any type.at any time were

denied and none were apparent. The IQ seemed to be no

- better than borderline and probably mildly defective. Mem-

ory appeared adequate and insight seemed reasonably good.

Speech was normal, answers were appropriate, relevent,

and adequate and subject was spontaneous. Tlte content

of thought showed no evidence of a thinking disorder,

delusional material, or other abnormality. The affective

‘reaction showed a feeling of persecution bu but no hostility

directed toward the examiner-or the hospital. He did say

that-ev erything always went wrong from New Bern and

would until he got away from there. He showed no sig-

nificant depression or suspicion. Subject states that he

and his girl friend had visited the girl’s grandmother

earlier in the day of the alleged offense. The grandmother

was later, probably the next morning, found beaten to death —

by a 13 year old neighbor girl. He and the girl friend were -

' arrested because they had been at her place that day. They

were later released and rearrested. He stated that his girl.

friend had testified that he left her place that night and

came back all upset. He thinks she said this to protect her-

self and infers but does not actually state that he is inno- _

cent. There were no significant findings other than the

mental retardation of some degree to’ be determined later.

During continuous observation on the ward this subject

. has shown no unusual behavior, He gets on well with the

others and takes part in most ward activities with interest.

In general he appears to be in a cheerful frame of mind.

Psychological testing gave him an IQ of 76, indicating bor-

derline intelligence. Subject cooperated well enough with

considerable dramatic sighing and complaints about the

tasks being so hard. He seemed relatively relaxed and.

10

understood and communicated easily. Some anxiety was

present in the records and there was a tendency to projeet

and blame others for getting him into trouble associated

with self pity. It seemed that he wanted affection and atten-

tion and has apparently been unable to satisfy.these needs

completely. There is nothing to suggest a break with reality —

and all problems appeared secondary to his limited intel-

ligence. Skull x-ray was negative: Electroencephalogram

(EEG, brain wave test) normal. When seen in final con-

ference subject again discussed ce stay at the O’Berry

Training Center here and also | t Petersburg, Va. in ’67.

He stated that his: girl friend, who he said was out on |

$2000 bond, had told on him. He stated that they were

always “Jacking me up’’ around New Bern. He said that

certain people always have it in for you and every time

anything happens they pick you up first, this, obviously,

refers to the authorities. He stated that the alleged murder

was said. to have occurred March 25 and that he was not

sent here until late in August. Careful examination re-

- vealed no findings other than limited intelligence. Subject

understood his situation clearly and wished to be returned

for trial.

Diagnosis: Mentau Retarpation, BorperRLIne LeveL. |

DIsposITION :

1. Return to court as able to stand trial.

2. It.is the carefully considered opinion of the medi-

cal staff of this hospital that Charles Britt is able to

plead to the bill of indictment against him. He knows

right from-wrong, is aware of the nature and probable

On eee of the offense with which he is charged,

an ur opinion, is able to consult with counsel in

the BE of his defense.

KE. C. Fowuier, M.D. ~° Bruce Kyuss, M.D., F.A.P.A.

Clinical Director Assistant Superintendent

BK :ea

ee: CSC Craven County 3 copies (for ‘CSC, solicitor, and

defense attorney)

~~

oe ee ne me

i

;

j

H

i

'

f

‘

2: 2 AX astm tie ttn: aaa

11

JURY, NOVEMBER 14, 1969

; The jury consisted of the following:

1. Fred Ayers | 7. David Harold Latham

2. Eula Hargett 8. Mrs. A. E. Hassell, Jr.

3. Mrs.U.B. Williams 9. Bobby R. Reece.

- 4, Fred S. Nelson _ 10. Beulah Howerin

5. Ernest Thomas Smith. 11. Mrs. Mimie Collins

6. Guy H. Avery - #2. Mrs.G.M. Pickard

Alt: Vera Clark White, Mrs. James Edw. Riggs

ORDER -FOR MISTRIAL .

The jury began deliberating at 9:30 a.m., and were kept.

together untik shortly before one o’clock when they were

excused for lunch and returned at two. About 2:15 the

jury reported they were hopelessly deadlocked, whereupon

the court instructed them as to their. duty to agree en a

verdict if they could do so in good conscience as appears in

the record. The court, thereupon, requested the jury to

return to the jury room and deliberate further which they

did, and ten minutes after three o’clock the jury again .

reported that it is hopelessly deadlocked and there has been

no change in the standing of the Jury since ten o’clock this

‘morning and each of the jurors in answer to the court’s

question has said or indicated by nodding their heads that

it is their belief they cannot agree on a verdict. Upon the

statements by each of the jurors to the effect that they can-

not agree on a verdict the court finds ‘as.a fact that the

jury cannot agree and the ends of justice require a juror

be withdrawn and a mistrial ordered. :

It is, therefore, ORDERED, that juror Number 1. ba with-

drawn ‘and a mistrial ordered.

This 14th day of November, 1969.

GrorcE M. Fountain

Judge Presiding

MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL TESTIMONY

After first being duly sworn, Charles W. Britt, Jr.,

defendant herein,. moves for an order requiring a transcript

of the trial testimony. ,

12

I was arraigned and placed on trial on November ii:

1969, in the Superior Court Division of the General Court - '

of Justice in Craven County for the capital crime of murder

in the first degree. Qn November 14, 1969, after the case

had been submitted to the jury and after the jury, had

- reported a hopeless deadlock, the presiding. judge declared

a mistrial.

I have been advised by counsel that defendants who are

not paupers secure transcripts in such cases which provide

immeasurable -assistance in securing a fair trial and due

process. I am without the money to pay for such transcript

and believe a transcript of the testimony to be an indis-

pensable need for a fair and proper trial as required by the

Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitu-

tion of the United States and Article I, Section 11 of the

Constitution of the State of North Carolina.

Dated: Novenrber 25, 1969. ‘

| CuarLes W. Britt, JR.

te Defendant.

(Sworn to on Nov. 25, 1969.)

r) oe »

MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPT

Now Comes the defendant, Charles W. Britt, Jr., by his

court appointed attérneys, . Lamar Sledge and Robert G.

- Bowers, and respectfully move the court under the provi-

sions of Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of the

State of North’ Carolina and the lifth, Sixth and Four-.

teenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States —

and the opinions of the Supreme Court in Griffin v. Illinots,

351 US 12 (1956) for a transcript of the evidence and testi-

mony at the expense of the State of North Carolina.

In support of such motion the defendant points out that

a non-indigent defendant could purchase a. transcript, and

that the Supreme Court of the United States in Griffin v.

Illinois on page 19 stated, ‘‘There can be no equal justice

where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount

of money he has.’’ Following this decision the court has

required the provision of free transcripts to indigents, see

Draper v. Washington, 372 US 487 (1963) ; Long v. District

Court of Towa, 385 US 192 (1966). the apparent holding of

13

‘the Supreme Court of the United States is the state which

prosecutes an indigent is commanded to furnish him every

substantial litigation asset which a non-indigent defendant

could. buy, at least whefe itgis practical for the coe to do |

so at no costs other than a financial one.

This 25th day of November, 1969.

, KE. Lamar SuEeDGE

Rosert G. Bowers

Appointed Counsel for Defendant,

Charles-W. Britt, Jr.

DENIED. | |

Gro. M. Fountain’. ! }

Dec. 15, 1969 —

DEFENDANT EXXcEPTs Exception No. 87

‘MOTION IN LIMINE

Comes Now, defendant in the above entitled cause, and

before trial and the selection of the jury moves {the court

in limine to instruct the solicitor and all others connected

with the prosecution as set forth on the following grounds:

1. Since it is immaterial to this action whether or not a

fingerprint of the defendant was fourid on a butcher knife

in the house located at 222 Lawson Street in the City of

_ New Bern, the prosecution is precluded from using any

pleading, testamony, remarks, questions or arguments which *

might inform the.jury of such fact.

2. If the above fact were made known to the jury, it

would be highly improper and prejudicial to defendant,

even though the court were to sustain an- objection and

instruct the court not to consider such fact for any purpose. .

‘3. This motion should also be granted because there is

no other way the problem mentioned can be handled at the

trial of the cause, and in all probability any such attempt

_ would result in a mistrial or in error.

4. In State v. Minton, 228 NG.518,.46 SE 2d 296 (1948), -

the court, declaring that the fact that a fingerprint (the

. left thumbprint) corresponding to that of the accused is

found’ in a place where a crime is committed is without

probative force unless the circumstances are such that the

fingerprint, could only have been impressed at the time

e

the ovine: was pappettated, held that testi that the.’

print of the left thumb~of one accused iireakne and

‘entering with the intent to‘commit larceny, and of larceny,

appeared upon the outside of a piece of glass which origi- .

nally oscupied a position near ‘the knob of the front door |

of the place entered, which was a public place, had no ligiti- -

mate tendency to show that he was presenf when the shop

was broken and entered and'the coins taken therefrom.

5. In the'present case at the prior trial of this action, the ©

. Piate’s evidence indicated tlrat the defendant had been, at

222 Lawson Street on,at, least one oecasion prior to the

alleged time of the murder and that the defendant had

handled the knife on the day before the body was discovered. .

Wupperdre, defendant respectfully requests the court to

instruct¢he State and all its counsel -not to mention, refer

to, interrpgate concerning, or attempt to conyey to the j jury

in any mannef, directly or indirectly, the above mentioned

facts, without first obtaining permission of the court out-

side the presence and hearing of the jury, and further

instructed State and all if$ counsel not to-make any refer-

ghee to the fact, that this motion has been filed and granted

“and @arn and caution each and everyone of their witnesses

to strictly follow these same instructions.

This 25th day of November, 1969:

, E. Lamar SLepce

. Rosert. G., Bowers

a _ % Attorneys for Defendant

“Denrep. Exception No. 88°

y a .

. . _ . . . oe ‘ ’ .

ARRAIGNMENT OF A PRISONER IN CAPITAL CASE

' CierK: Charles W. Britt, Jr., stand up, hold up your

right hand. ce

CuerK: You stand charged by :the name of Charice Ww.

Britt, Jrgon the following bill of indictment—(read verba-

tim). How s&y you Charles W. Britt, Jr., are you guilty of

‘ the felony of Murder whereof you fiand indicted, ob not

“guilty? a

Dgrenpant: NotGuilty. ° o-

_ Ctrrk: How will you b@ tried? .

-. Derenpant: By God and my Country. cf

”

-

| a

-CLeRK: May God send youa truedeliverance.

~ Warning PrigoNeér or His. Ricuts nN Carrran Case: re

hear called are to pass between the State and you} upon

your life and death, if, therefore, you will challeng

CLERK : These good mer and women that you ro en |

or any of. them, you must challenge them/.as they come to.

the book to be sworn, before they are shit aie and you shall

be heard. 7 , ?

\

Date: December 15, 1969.: a

JORY, DECEMBER 16, 1969 .

Zu

The jury consisted of the following : , ,

_, 1. Mrs. PF. W. Riggs 7. Charlie White

2. ThomasEborn,Jr. | 8. Wm.A. McKay

3. Mrs. (Joyce) C. WwW.” 9. Jacob Grace.

Daugherty — 10. Margaret C. Willis.

4. Wesley E.Bland | 11. Maggie Hartley

5. Franklin W. Taylor 12. Mrs. Dan B. Hartsell ©

6: Mrs. (Georgia) J. B. :

Hobson . | 7 i

Alternate :L. V. MeCoy

JU. a AND COMMITMENT

In open court, the defendant appeared for trial upon the |

charge or charges of Murder in the First Degree and there-

upon enterzd a plea of Not Guilty.

Having been found guilty of the offense of Murder in

the Second Degree which is:a violation of . - and of .

the grade of-Felony

“It is Apsupcep that the defeninnt be imprisoned for the

term of thirty (30) years in the State Prison. It is ordered

that this defendant be transferred to custody of the State

‘Department of Correction pending ‘his appeal ‘unless.. ap- :

pearance bond in amount of $25,000.00 is posted.

It is OnpERED that the clerk deliver two certified copies of |

‘this judgment ‘and commitment to the sheriff or other quali-

fied officer and that said officer cause the defendant to be °

delivered, with, 7“ copies as commitment authority, to the

r

an

| i 4

appropriate official of the State Department of Correction.

This 18 day of December, 1969. >

| | _ Georce M. Fountain

Presiding Judge

Attorney: for Defendant: R. G. Bowens & E. Lamar Siepce

Attorney for the State: LutHEeR Hamyuton, JrR., Solicitor

Date certified copies of judgment delivered to sheriff for

commitment : 12/19/69

APPEAL ENTRIES

In apt time, thé defendant objects and excepts to the

rulings and judgment of the court and gives notiee of

appeal to the

Further notice waived.

The defendant is allowed 60 days to prepare. and serve |

case on appeal, and the State is allowed 20 days after such

service to prepare and serve countercase.

Appearance bond is fixed in the sum of $25,000.00. Appeal

bond is set at $ 3 ;

This 18 day of December, 1969.

Presiding Judge:

It is ordered that defendant be transferred to custody of ©

the State Department of correction pending his appeal

unless appearance bond in amount of $25,000.00 is posted.

CERTIFICATION TO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

I certify that this document is a true arid complete copy

of the original judgment and commitment.in the case

named, now on file in this office, and that this copy is certi-

fied to the North Carolina State Department of Correction,

as in said judgment directed, as authority for the execu-

tion of the prison sentence therein imposed.

Witness my hand and the seal of the Superior Court:

This 19 day of December, 1967.

Mary P. MclawnHorn

Assistant Clerk of the

Superior Court

17

ORDER OF FOUNTAIN, J. IN STATE v. BEST

Srate or NortH CAROLINA

In Tue GenERAL Court oF JUSTICE—

Superior Court Division

County oF CRAVEN

Tue State or NortH CaRoLina

Vv.

ETHEL J. Best 23-F-C

“Tn this case’wherein the defendant stands charged with

the offense of Murder

It is now OrpEerED: That the solicitor, having elected to

-take a nolle pros, be granted leave to reopen this case for —

cause.

This 1 day of December, 1969..

GrorcE M. Fountain

Presiding Judge

ORDER. FOR ——— Etc.

This matter coming on to be heard upon motion of

Robert G. Bowers, attorney for the defendant, for an order

requiring the State of North Carolina to pay the. necessary

costs of obtaining a transcript of the proceedings herein

and the necessary costs of mimeographing the case on ap-

peal and appellant’s brief under the supervision of the

clerk of the North Carolina Court of pppeale as provided

by GS 74-300 (a) (8);

And it appearing to the court and the court finding as a

fact that Charles W. Britt, Jr., at the December 15, 1969

- Criminal Session of the Superi ior Court of Craven County,

was convicted of the crime of second degree murder, and —

senteneed to thirty (30) years in the State’s Prison on

December 18, 1969, and said defendant gave notice of ap-

peal to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina; and that

said defendant has duly filed his affidavit of indigency and

is unable to defray the costs of his appeal to the North

Carolina Court of Appeals, and Robert G. Bowers and E.

Lamar Sledge are hereby appointed as attorneys for said

defendant in his appeal to the North Carolina Court of

Appeals;

18

Now, THEREFORE, It Is OnpERED, ApJ uDGED AnD DECREED

that the State of North Carolina pay the necessary costs

of obtaining a transcript of the proceedings herein and the

cost of mimeographing the case on appeal and appellant’s

brief under the supervision of the clerk of the North Caro-

lina Court of Appeals.

This 23 day of December, 1969.

. GrorcE M. Fountain

- Judge Superior Court

CASE ON APPEAL

This criminal action in which defendant seeks new trial

was tried at the December Term of the Superior Court of

Craven County, before the Honorable George M. Fountain,

Judge presiding and jury, upon the issues set out in record.

| STATE'S EVIDENCE

The State offered in evidence as-its exhibits the follow-.

ing:

Exursit No. 1: Butcher knife with blade 10 to'12 inches

long, blad® being bent almost at a right angle to the length

of the handle.

Exuisir No. 2: Cast iron skillet approximately 6 to 8

inche$’ in diameter.

Exuiir No. 3: Photograph showing body ‘of murder

-victim Janie Banks inher residence.

Exurit No. 4: Photograph showing outside view of

deceased ’s residence.

Exursit No. 5: Photograph of deceased’: S body showing

small wound in-deceased’s back.

Exuusit No. 6: Paper containing four latent fingerprint

lifts. |

Exurit No. 7: Fingerprint eard containing inked im-

pressions of the fingerprints of defendant Charles W. Britt,

Jr.

Exuuit No. 8: Latent fingerprint lift contained on-rubber

type lifting material. :

_ Exursit No. 9: Latent fingerprint lift contained on n rubber

type lifting material.

, a9

Exursit No. 10: Report of State Bureau of Investigation

concerning fingerprint comparisons.

DEBoRAH ANN Humpueey Testified :

Drrect EXAMINATION

I: am 15 years of age and live at 185, Craven Terrace, in :

New Bern. I have been going to Janie Banks’ house at

222 Lawson Street for a long time. My aunt lives near

Janie Banks on Lawson Street. I would go to Janie

Banks’ house to see if I could run any errands for her

because she was sick sometimes.

I went to Janie’s house-on Tuesday, March 25, 1969 about

4:30 p.m. on my way to the store for my aunt. I was going

to ask Janie Banks if I could bring her anything.

When there was no answer to my knock on the door, I

_ took the mail from her box and opened the door to go in.

Upon opening the door, I saw Janie Banks lying on the

- floor, with blood on her ‘face and a burn mark on the side

of her face. She was lying beside the sofa, her head towards

the stove. I shut the door and ran back and told my aunt.

I did not return to Janie Banks’ house that afternoon.

-Cross EXAMINATION :

None.

Mary Ler Koonce Testified :

Cross EXAMINATION:

I live at Route #3, New Bern, Janie Banks, my 62 year

old mother, lived at 222 Lawson Street and had lived there

for 12 or 15 years. She was not married. She, lived alone,

but Jason Lewis lived there part time. Due to my illness, I

had not seen my mother for two weeks prior to her death.

Cross EXAMINATION : |

None.

Jason Lewis Testified :

DrrEctT EXAMINATION : :

Janie Banks Was, my great aunt. I lived with her part —

time, and part time with my cousin on Queen Street. At

about the time when Janie was killed, I was doing con- |

struction work on a foundation for a water tank at Wash-

20

ington, N. C. I also had a part time job driving a cab. I

would stay with m¥ cousin, but would go to my aunt’s to

change clothes when I was going to drive a cab. I kept my

construction work clothes at my cousin’s house. My dress

_ clothes, which I wore when I drove a cab, were at Janie’s

house. |

The last time Iw ent to Janie’s house was on the Saturday

night before Janie’s death on Monday, to change my

clothes. I did not spend the night, but washed up, changed

clothes and shaved, and left. I did not go back to Janie’s

again until after her death. The last time I spent the night

at Janie’s was the Saturday a week before Janie’s death

on Monday. -

My clothes were in the room next to the kitchen. The

rooms in the house are in a line—the front room, Janie’s

bedroom, my bedroom and then the kitchen.

~ Cross EXAMINATION:

_ Tam not now and never have been married. Nobody else

that I know of lived in that house other than Janie Banks

and me. When I went to Janie’s to change clothes the

Saturday night before her death, I was there about 30

minutes.

_*I went down to the police station and talked to Mr.

-~ Bratcher on the night of the Tuesday when Janie’s body

was found. I was with Mr. Bratcher about 45 minutes or

an hour. Detectives Bratcher arid Dowdy later came to see

- me. Mary Koonce told me to come down here to testify.

Nobody has asked me what I was going to testify to, and

I have not discussed my testimony with Mr. Hamilton or

anyone else; I ‘‘ain’t discussed it with nobody.”’

P.M. BraTCHER Testified :

Direct EXAMINATION :

T am a Captain, Detective Division, New Bern Police

Department, and was. so acting on March 25, 1969. On

that date I went to 222 Lawson Street, New Bern, at ap-

proximately 4:30 or 4:35 p.m., accompanied by Officer

Dowdy. |

When I arrived, a crowd of people had gathered in the

street and cars were parked about. Police Officers T. W.

Connor and P. O. Rogers were on the scene. I opened the

. 21

screen door and the wooden front door, and walked into ~

the living room at 222 Lawson Street. When I walked into

the living room, I saw the usual furniture that is in a living

room—what they call-a divan—some people call it a long

chair, regular living room chairs, television, end tables

sitting in the corners—‘‘and a body laying in the floor in

front of the divan.’’ a

The body was that of a female person, lying diagonally

in front of the divan, flat of its back. The body was fully

clothed, including dress and sweater, and socks, but no.

shoes. A pair-of women’s boots or overshoes was present,

one lying under the head of the body and the other lying

nearby. ; oo

There was a large pool of blood underneath the head of.

the body. Blood had run across the floor toward the door

to the bedroom. ‘‘The body had large wounds about the

head that was opened up.’’ There was a small piece of a

meaty substance about two inches long lying in the pool

of blood in the floor. The blood was red, and mostly dry.

You could: move the top portion of it. _

Between the end of the divan and the heater, which is a_

very small space, I found a butcher knife with a blade

about 10 to 12 inches long, the blade curved or bent from

near the handle. Under the end table beneath the window

was a frying pan about 6 to 8 inches in diameter, which also

had a meaty substance in it.

Witness identified State’s Exhibit No. 1 as the butcher

knife he had described.

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 1

Witness identified State’s Exhibit No. 2 as the frying

pan which witness had described.

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 2

The curvature of the blade of the knife is the same as

when I first pi¢keditup. | .

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

. Exception No. 3

The substance in the frying pan is the same as when I

picked it up.

22

Defendant objects. Objection overruled. |

nn , Exception No. 4

ke ik

Witness identified State’ S s Exhibit No. 3 as a photo-

graph accurately representing the position of the body,

location of the. shoes, the position of the bloodstains,

and the wound to the he: id, as witness had described in

his testimony.

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 5

‘Witness identified State’s Exhibit No. 4 as. photograph

accurately representing outside view of deceased’ S

house on March 25, 1969.

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

, Exception No. 6

’ The house is very small. It is about 16 or 18 feet wide

and 40 or 45 feet long. It has four rooms. The front room |

is the living room, containing a chair behind the front door,

a heater, a sofa, a table with a lamp, and a stand holding

a television set. "A door opens from the living room into the

second room, a bedroom. The bed across one end of this

room had two mattresses on it, along with quilts and

blankets and pillows and other things. To the right was a

dresser. Lengthwise the room was another bed. A door

opened into the third room, also a bedroom. In this room,

on the left side as you enter, is an outside door. A door

- opens from this bedroom into the fourth room, the kitchen.

The kitchen contained cookstove, table, cabinets, and sink

of the usual kitchen type. -A door opens from the kitchen

to a small back porch. There is an outhouse behind the

house.

I noticed the beds in the house. On the bed in the first

bedroom, the blankets and quilts and things were disturbed.

One of the mattresses was turned up. One or two ladies’

purses were lying on the bed, and two or three of them

-were lying on the floor. ‘‘It was just jumbled up in gen-

eral.’ In the second bedroom, a pair of men’s shoes was

sitting beside the bed and a pair of men’s 1: nts were on the

bed. Other than that, it was the usual clothing and stuff.

Defendant moves to strike. Motion overruled.

Defendant excepts.

Exxcertion No, 7

23

I was at the house on this occasion about an hour or an

hour and.a half. I called the coroner and the funeral home.

I walked around the house and the grounds. I dusted for

fingerprints inside the house; took photographs, and after

about one or one and a half hours left and went to the

funeral home.

At the funeral home, I assisted in serinpine “the body.

( ” the left arm was a small wound. In the left back, about

2 or 3 inches off the backbone, approximately over the left

eaney: there was a wound approximately an inch long

and very narrow.

Witness identified State’s Exhibit No. 5 as photograph

of the body, showing the appearance of the wound in

the back as described in witness’ testimony. |

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 8 .

There is a circle on the photograph indicating the small

wound in the deceased’s back.

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 9

I recall that I dusted the TV, the end table, and some of

the purses, for fingerprints. I dusted the knife at. the

police station.

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 10

‘T did not dust the frying pan. I discovered fingerprints |

on the knife. se

- Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 11

The method I used to dust for fingerprints was to apply

black powder with a brush.

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 12

I saw fingerprints on some of these objects.

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

: Exception No. 13 ©

4

24

- Imade lifts of fingerprints—

_ Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 14

—from the knife—

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

EXcEPTion No.15 —

—at the police station downstairs i in the detegfives’ room

at the city hall— .

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 16

—on Wednesday morning, March 26, 1969.

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

- Exception No. 17

@

The knife had been in my possession from the time I picked

it up at the house until I made the lift.

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 18

My experience in making latent fingerprint lifts consists

of— .

“Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 19

—dusting and lifting fingerprints for about, 15 or 16 years,

and I have taken a course in fingerprinting and have a

diploma from the Institute of Applied Science in Chicago.

I lifted the print from the knife—

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

_ Exception No. 20

—by use of black powder and what I call scotch tape and -

put it on a piece of paper with a white background—

_ Defendant objects. .Objection overruled.

Exception No. 21

—and I have that piece of paper here in my file. These

four black splotches underneath the scotch tape on this

white paper are latent fingerprints,—

_ Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No, 22

—all of which came from the knife. °

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Racers No. 23

They did not all came fron the same place on the knife. _

Defendant objects. Objection overruled. .

Exception No. 24

After making the latent print from the knife and trans-

ferring it fo the paper,—

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

EXCEPTION No. 20 |

I turned the paper over to SBI Agent Jones at the SBI

Laboratory in Raleigh on March 31, 1969.

Witness identified State’s Exhibit No. 6 as a p

‘containing latent fingerprints which he had obtained.

At the same time, I turned over to SBI Agent Jones—

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

' Exception No. 26 © °

—tle knife, two more latent fingerprints lifted by means

of a rubber type lift, and four fingerprint cards containing

fingerprints of defendant, James. E. Lewis, Elijah proway

and Ethel J. Best, respectively.

Witness identified State’s Exhibit No. 7 as fingerprint

card of defendant Charles Britt.

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 27

Witness identified State’s Exhibit No. 8 as a small

rubber type lift containing a latent fingerprint, and

identified State’s Exhibit No. 9 as a larger rubber type

lift containing a latent fingerprint. ;

I first saw defendant on Saturday, March 29, 1969 at

I-80 Trent Court, New Bern, which is in the housing project

— ©

Defendant sbjecte Objection overruled.

EXCEPTION No. 28.

—at around 2 30 or 3 o’clock p.m. Defendant Britt was not

~ a . 8S Be

present when I ‘arrived there, but he appeared there four —

or five utes later. Officer Dowdy and I-talked with

Ethel Bgl an defendant Britt for a few minutes’ and

_ Officer Dowdy and I asked Britt and Bes go down to.

. the police sf&¥tion with us. We took them, a’ long with Best’s'

two small children, to the detective room in the basement

of the City Hail. Ww en I got te the basement of the Py

Hall I advised Britt of his rights,—»_

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

EXxcEPTION No. 290 yg. Ta

-—using a card I carry with me.

Defendant objects. ~~

Vor Dre Upon Votuntariness oF DEFENDANT’S .

ALLEGED STATEMENT, IN ABSENCE OF J URY—DIRECT

EXAMINATION.

I have here the same card I used at that time; I read it

to Britt and Best at the same time. Defendant said he ‘

understood his rights and that he would talk to Officer.

Dowdy and me. Defendant was not under arrest at that —

time.

T next saw Britt on Wednesday afiorncon, April 2,1969

at the Little Mint on Broad Street in New Bern, when |

Officer Dowdy and I told Britt and Best we wanted them

to go back down to the police station with us again. We

took them again, along with Best’s two children, to the

City Hall basement. Again I read them the card advising

them of their rights. Defendant was not drinking to my

knowledge on either of | those occasions, and no threats

‘were made against him or promises or inducements made

to him. On April 2, 1969 I advised Britt he would be held

for Grand Jury action i the murder of Janie,

Banks.

I next saw Britt on Whareday, April 3, 1969 at the jail, as 7

the result of a telephone call. Britt, stated he wanted to

tell me Ahe truth about it. I told him. to wait until I got to

some place that. I could advise’him of his rights.’ Before

and after I read the card to him again he related -what

happened. I read the card to him and he said he knew

what his rights were.

I next saw Britt on Friday morning, April 4, 1969, at 5

+ 8

. /

F] *

about 10 or 10:30 a.m., again at the City Hall’ Again I

read this card to him and Best together, advising them of.

their rights. Britt said he understood it.. No threats, prom-

ises, or inducements were made to Britt ie ec of these

occasions, nor was Britt in my opinion under-the influence

of liquor or drugs. Rather, he appeared normal.

Defendant objects. Objection overruled. —

| Excerrio No3h |

Vorr Dire—Cross ExaMINATION ©

On March 29, 1969, when I found Britt at I-80 Trent

Court, no infoyfmation was requested of Britt. Britt and.

Best stated they had been at 222 Lawson Street on Monday

afternoon, and I then told them I wanted them to come ©

downtown. Officer Dowdy and I took them and Best’s two

small children in the police car down to City Hail. At the

City Hall, I read them this same card advising them of

their rights.

I do not know the exact time I got to I-80 Trent Court on

that day. It was in the afternoon, I would say about 2:30

or 3 p.m. I do not recall the exact time we arrived athe

police station,—I would say it took us 15 or 20 minutes to

getsthere. I do not know if we were logged in on the police

-radio when we arrived at the City Hall. I made no written

record of the time and know of no record being made

unless‘such might be contafted in the police radio log. I

do not know exactly how long we were in the City Hall

before I read the card to Britt and Best. I read the card to

them immediately after we got downstairs and got situated,

got everyone seated. I would say we remained there about

30 to 45 minutes. I do not remember téstifying in Novem-

ber that we were there between an hour and an hour and

a half. I wouldn’t say whether we were there 45 minutes,

an hour, or an hour and a half: I made no record at the

time. Both Officer Dowdy and I asked questions of Britt

and Best. I.can’t recall which of us asked which questions.

I asked both Best and Britt questions about the ‘frying pan

ang the knife. When we left City Hall, we took Best, she

children, and Britt back out fo Trent Court. I do not récall

when we got back to Trent Court, but it was light and‘

went from there straight home for supper. - 7

On April 2, 1969, I recall that I stw Best and Britt at the

/«#

ye

é

28

Little Mint. I recall Britt was dressed in pants, jacket, and

shirt. I do not recall the color of his clothes. I could have

testified in November as to the color of clothes he wore. I

believe the jacket was dark and the pants kind of light. I

can’t now remember the color and if I testified in November

as to the color of his clothes, I could have forgotten since

November.

‘It is possible that at the dinie I testified in November I

was unable to recall the date I saw Best and Britt at the

- Little Mint. I do not recall now that in November I couldn’t

remember the date I saw them at the Little Mint.

On that occasion I saw them at about 3:30 or 4 p.m. It

could have been at 3 p.m. I saw them. At that time, I took

Britt, Best, and Best’s two children down to the City Hall.

I showed Britt the SBI fingerprint message and asked him

to explain what his left thumbprint was doing on the knife.

Britt gave me an explanation. I do not.recall what time we

‘arrived at the police station; I made no record of it. I do

not know that anyone else made any record of it. |

I would say we were in the City Hall basement a-couple -

of hours or an hour and a half; it was dark when we came

out. I made no record of the time I arrived or left.

I told Britt that all I wanted was the truth;. that if he

told me anything I wanted him to tell the truth. I did not

tell. him anything that might happen to him if he did not

"tell the truth, or if he didn’t tell me anything. I told him I

had enough evidence that I was going to hold him for the

Grand ‘Jury. I did not know what the Grand Jury was

going to do with him. I did not:tell him I had all the evi-

dence I needed, nor that I had enough to convict him and

~ that I didn’t care whether he said anything to me or not.

I did tell him when [ locked him up in jail that if he waited

to see me again, he could call for me.

On the evening of April 3, 1969, as the reaulé of a tele-

phone call, I went back to the jail and took Britt to. the

police station. I do not know the exact time we arrived at

the police station —I would say it was roughly 7 or 7:15

p.m. I made no record of the time and filed no report of

.the interview. No one was present except Britt and me.

At the City Hall I again read Britt the same card advising

him of his rights. I would say we were there about an

hour. I do not remember testifying in November that we

>.

29

were there an hour and a half, but that could be correct.

Britt stated: he wanted to tell me the truth about what

happened. We sat there and talked approximately an hour

or longer. .

_ I did not reduce anything to writing, or have him sign

any statement, or record any statement, reduce the inter-

view to permanent form in any manner.

I committed his -stafements to memory. I do not remem-

ber everything that happens without the necessity of ever

reducing anything to writing, but I remember a lot. My

memory is not that much in error—maybe a word or two

might be in error, but my memory is not that bad. I did

’ not make or write up any report of any kind concerning

my April 8rd interview with Britt, and I know of. no

report ever made by anyone concerning it. I was the

- only. person there to write up any report on the night of

April 3, 1969. |

(The court made the following finding and ruling upon

the voir dire examination: ,

Upon the questions by the solicitor seckinig to elicit

testimony from Officer Bratcher relating to conversa-

tion between Officer Bratcher and the defendant and

statements made-by the defendant to Officer Bratcher

on March 29th, April the 2nd.and April 3rd, and April

4th of 1969, and from the evidence offered by the State,

and the defendant having declined to offer any evi-

dence, the court finds as a fact that on-each of those

days before any questioning of the defendant, he was

read a card by Officer Bratcher as follows::‘‘Your

rights,’’ Under that: ‘‘Before you are asked any ques-

tions it is required that you be advised of your rights.’’

Under that, ‘‘Number 1: You have a right to remain

silent; Number 2: anything you say can and will be

used against you in court; 3: You have the right to

talk to a lawyer and have him present while you are

being questioned ; 4: If you cannot afford a lawyer you

have the right to request the court to appoint one for

you before: you answer any questions; 5: If you decide

to answer questions without a lawyer, you may refuse

_ to answer any particular question or stop answering

at any time you wish to do so; 6: Having been advised

of your rights do you want to answer questions before

Fs 4

ae)

* you talk with a lawyer?’’ Under that: ¢‘Waiver:.Do

you understand each of the rights I have explained to

you?’’

Whereupon the defendant on each occasion stated

to Officer Bratcher that he did understand his rights

as explained to him. At no time did Officer Bratcher.

or any other person offer any threats against the

defendant or offer him any reward or hope of reward

to make any statement to the investigating police; that

- he had fully understood each of the rights as explained

to him by Officer Bratcher on four.separate occasions

and any statements he made to the officer was know- ©

ingly, freely and voluntarily made-with a full and com-

plete understanding of his rights; that: all statements

made by the defendant were voluntary, without any

‘reward or hope of reward and not as a result of any

duress or threatened duress; that such rights as the

defendant did not exercise were knowingly, voluntarily,

freely and undérstandingly waived by him.

‘““The objection of the defendant is, therefore, over-

ruled.’’)

"Defendant excepts.

Exception No, 32

In Tue PRESENCE oF THE J URY

_P. H. Brarcuer, Direct Testimony Continued : :

Officer Dowdy and I went to I-80 Trent Court at about

2:30 or 3 p.m. on March 29, 1969. We found Ethel Best

and her two small children ‘there. Defendant Britt came

in a few minutes later. Officer Dowdy and I talked with

Britt and Best a few minutes, then asked them if they

would go down to City Hall where we could talk further -

and.they said they would. We took Britt, Best and Best’s

two small children in the police car to the detectives’ room

in the basement of the City Hall. We got situated and all

had chairs. I believe Best held one of the kids and Britt

held the other one. I advised Britt and Best of their rights. .

_ Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 33

asked Britt if he went around to 222 Lawson Street on

_ Monday afternoon, March 29, 1969. Britt stated he and

31

Ethel Best went to 222 Lawson, which is Ethel’s grand-

mother’s home. He stated a babysitter was with Best’s

two children at I-80 Trent Court, and the babysitter

couldn’t stay long, so they didn’t stay long at 222 Lawson

Street. I asked him what he did while at Lawson Street.

Britt said he went to the outhouse, and that he drank two

glasses of water while there. He said the deceased, Janie

Banks, went in the kitchen and brought the water to him

in the living room. He said they stayed there about 10 or

15 minutes, and that it was raining at the time. I asked him

if he had ever seen this knife or the frying pan before

(referring to State’s Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2). He stated no.

That was the extent of conversation with defendant on that

occasion, and‘Officer Dowdy and I took Best, Britt, and

the two children back to Trent Court by automobile.

I next saw defendant Charles Britt on the afternoon of

Wednesday, -April 2, 1969 at the Little Mint on Broad

Street. Defendant was inside the Little Mint, and Ethel

and her two children were sitting in an automobile out

front. Officer Dowdy and I waited for Britt to come out

and we advised him and Best we wanted them to go back

down to the police station. We went to the detectives’

room at City Hall, and I advised Best and Britt of their

rights again. Best’s two children weré present. At that

time I possessed a report from the SBI Laboratory in

Raleigh pertaining to the knife and-fingerprint. This is

‘ the actual report which I then possessed.

Witness identified State’s Exhibit No. 10‘as SBI Labo-

ratory report relative to fingerprint comparison.

I let Britt have this report and told him to read it. I

told him what it was and I would like for him to give me an

explanation why his fingerprint was on the knife.

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

| Exception No. 34

I observed him read the réport, and I asked him again if

he could give me an explanation. Britt said he didn’t know .

his fingerprint was on it. I said, ‘‘You-have read the re- -

port; that’s what the man up in Raleigh to the SBI says.”’

Then Britt stated that the only reason he could figure that

his fingerprint was on this knife was that on Monday after-

32 7 ,

noon when he was at 222 Lawson Street, the: knife was

lying at the end of the divan by the heater; that he picked

it up and started to throw it in the heater, but he didn’t.

He laid it back down. I asked Britt if at that time the °

knife was bent in the same shape itis now. Britt stated it

was not, that it was then straight as the usual knife’s

- blade.

I did have further conversation with Britt on that oc-

casion.

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 35 .

Officer Dowdy and Best and Britt and I talked further, and

I asked Britt what condition the deceased was in when they ©

left that afternoon and. he said she was perfectly normal,

‘that she was all right.

When we got ready to leave that afternoon from the.

City Hall I advised Britt he would be held for the grand

jury in the murder of Janie Banks. I had the police take .

Best and her two children back to Trent Court. I took

Britt to jail and turned him over to the custody of the

jailer. I told Britt at-that time that if he wanted to see

me—.

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

' Exception No. 36

—any further he could call for me; that the jailer would

getin touch with me. |

‘Defendant moves to strike. Motion overruled.

Defendant excepts.

_ Exception No. 37

That was on Wednesday.

I next saw defendant Britt on Thursday evening. I was

at home about 6 or 6:15 p.m. when the telephone rang and

it was the jailer at Craven County jail.

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 38

He stated to me—

percneant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 39

33

—that defendant Britt wanted to talk with me.

Defendant moves to strike. Motion overruled.

Exception No. 40

I advised him as soon as T could get through with supper I _—

would come down and talk with Britt.

Defendant moves to strike. Motion overruled.

Defendant excepts. —_

Exception No. 41

I went down to the jail about 7 or 7:15 p.m. that Thursday

night. After I arrived at the jail—

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 42

I had the jailer bring, Britt- out and started back to the

police station with him and Britt stated he wanted to tell

me the truth about what happened up at 222 Lawson Street

on ‘the afternoon of Monday the 24th. I advised Britt to

- wait until we could get-in a position that I could advise

him of his rights again; that it was required that I advise

him of his rights each time I talked to him. We got to the-

City Hall and I advised Britt of his rights.

Britt stated that on Monday at about 4:30 p.m., he and

Ethel Best went to her grandmother’s at ‘222 Lawson

Street. They had a baby-sitter to stay with the children and

the baby-sitter couldn’t stay long, so they stayed only 10

or 15 minutes at the Lawson Street address. Britt stated _

he went out and used the outhouse. He got two glasses of ©

water which the deceased brought to him from the kitchen.

He and Best left and went back to I-80 Trent Court. The

baby-sitter left and-they remained at Trent Court about 30

_ to 40 minutes. Britt stated he took this knife (referring to

-State’s Exhibit No. 1) from Best’s kitchen and put it in his

pocket. He, Best, and the two children went back around

to 222 Lawson Street. He stated they went in and sat down,

each holding a child, one in one chair and the other in an-

other chair.” Deceased ‘was sitting on the sofa. In a few

minutes deceased got up and went out of the front room

towards the kitchen. Britt said that at that time he passed

. the knife over to Best. _

Deceased came back in and sat on the sofa. .In a few

34

’ minutes, deceased got up to put some wood in the heater,

and at this time Best struck deceased in the back with the

' knife. The knife folded up. The deceased sat down in the

floor and started screaming and hollering, calling names

that Britt didn’t know. He said Best went in the kitchen

and came back out with the frying pan. Deceased was

still sitting up-in the floor hollering. Britt took the frying

pan and hit deceased over the head three, four, or five

_ times—he didn’t know exactly how many. He stated he

' took the knife from Best at the time and started to throw

it in the heater, but he didn’t. B.itt stated he and Ethel

Best both looked for money but could not find any. They

took the two children and went back to I-80 Trent Court.

They stayed there for a while. Britt then went to the Little

Mint to see about a job; he said the man there had told

‘ him to come in and help him clean up. Britt stayed at the

Little Mint until about 10 p.m. and then Britt took Best _

and the two children to a friend’s home on Lincoln Street

and left them. Britt went back to the Little Mint, helped the

man clean up and went back to Lincoln Street where he

picked up Best and the two children and went back to

I-80 Trent Court and spent the rest of the night.

I advised Britt on this Thursday night that the next day

I would pick up Best as soon as I could make arrangements

for the Welfare Department to care for the two children.

The following morning, Friday, I made arrangements for

Welfare Department representatives to meet Officer Dowdy

and me at I-80 Trent Court to take custody of the children.

However, Best’s father was at Trent Court and was al-

lowed to take custody of the children.

Officer Dowdy and I took Best to. the police station. “We

got Britt out of jail, carried him back to the station. With

Britt and Best together at that time, I advised them ot

their rights.

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 43.

We discussed what happened at 222 Lawson Sireet on

Monday, March 24, 1969.

Britt stated again what had occurred, the same as i had

stated it to me the previous night.

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 44

2s

—-—

~

-

I can relate the lifts of fingerprints on State’s Exhibit

No. 6 to a location on the knfe,—

. Defendant objects. Objection overruled. .

Exception No. 45

—by pointing out the spot on the knife where they were.

The print which is at the upper right-hand corner of State’s

Exhibit No. 6 was taken from the knife—

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 46

—on the inside of the bend of the bladz, approximately

-where I have my finger (witness indicating location). I

did not personally make the lifts of prints marked as

State’s Exhibits Nos. 8 and 9.

When I say that I advised the defendant of his rights, I

mean I have a little card that I read to each defendant at -

the time I talk to him. (The witness quoted the same ex-

planation or statement of rights as. previously quoted by

the trial judge and set out herein in the latter’s ruling upon

voir dire examination into voluntariness of defendant’s

alleged statements to the witness.) On each occasion, Britt

acknowledged that he understood his rights

Cross EXAMINATION:

Around the last ‘of March or the first of April si ‘nike

some fingerprint lifts and other items to the SBI Labora-

tory in Raleigh, including a fingerprint card for an Elijah

Brown, and a fingerprint card for a Janies E. Lewis who is

the same person as Jason Lewis who testified here today.

I have identified State’s Exhibit No. 8 and State’s Ex-

hibit No. 9, and I remember testifying with respect to the

same lifts in November.

Q: Do you remember testifying that you made the lifts

and you didn’t know where in the house you found them?

‘A. No, sir, I remember testifying that I was unable to

find any other fingerprints other than the one on the

knife there in the house.

Q. Didn’t you testify whatever these lifts were that

you made them yourself? |

I remember testifying that I dusted the television, and

pocketbooks in the bedroom, and found no fingerprints. I

did not dust the heater.

—_

36

I arrived at 222 Lawson Street on March 25th at. about

4:30 or 4:35. I made no record of the time I arrived... I

took the photograph marked as State’s Exhibit No. 4 at

about 5 p.m. on March 25th. I left the Lawson Street

address at about 6 p.m.; I had been there about an hour

or an hour and a half. I made no record of the time I

departed.

‘I did testify in November that I examined the body and

could look at the brain material on the inside of the head

of the body. As I recall, the meaty substance in the frying

pan and lying in the blood on the floor appeared to be

liverwurst or spam or potted mean, or something similar

that you might find fryinginafrying pan. .

- When I got inside the house on Lawson Street, I walked

around and observed in the room a few minutes, then went

back out and got the fingerprint kit and the camera, and

went. back in. I was inside the house about 20 to 30 minutes.

_ I spent about 5 to 8 minutes using the fingerprint equip-

ment, and about 5 to.8 minutes taking photographs. I made

no measurements with respect to location of the body in

.Telation to other objects; rather, I photographed the body.

That night I talked to Jason Lewis. I did not write or

dictate any report on that date with respect to my miyegHee

tion.

I dusted the knife for fingerprints at the police sition the

next morning. On Monday morning, March 31st, I took

the knife to Raleigh to SBI Agent Jones. I brought back

the fingerprint cards of. Brown, Lewis, and Best.

On March 29th, I saw Britt at I-80 Trent Court. Officer

Dowdy and I had gone:there to talk to Ethel Best. The

defendant came in. Officer Dowdy and I talked to the de-

fendant and Best, told them we were investigating the

death of Janie Banks, and asked them some quéstions. I

_ asked when was the last time they had. been to Janie’s

‘and they said Monday afternoon at about 4:30. At that

point we took them down to the police station, where I

cautioned them as to their rights. I had not advised them

as to their rights at Trent Court because they were not

_ then suspects and I did not know they had been to Janie’s

~ until they told me.

‘We were at the police station on that occasion about 30

to 46 minutés, maybe a little longer. I’did mos ta account

37

of the time, and I do not remember testifying in November,

that we were at the City Hall an hour to an hour and a

half. I kept no written record or report of any conversation

on March 29th. ,

On Wednesday, April 2, 1969, I found Britt ‘and Best at

the Little Mint. I do not recall the exact time I saw them

there. It was about 3:30 or 4 p,m. Officer Dowdy and I

took them to the City Hall, where we remained maybe two

hours. I told Britt at that time that he was being held for

the grand jury, and I took him in custody and placed him

in jail. There was not a warrant outstanding against him

_at that time, to my knowledge. The coroner’s inquest was

held April 7th. No warrant or process was issued against

Britt from April 2nd to April 7th, to my knowledge.

On April 3rd, as a result of a telephone call, I took Britt

over to the identification office at the City Hall. -I did not

make any record of the time I got him out of jail, nor of the »

time I returned him to jail. ‘I made no written report or

record of what transpired on the occasion of that interview.

I did not reduce to writing any statement Britt may have

.made then, nor did I then or at any other time ask Britt

_ to’sign any statement or any other document.

Nothing Britt said to me then was reduced to writing by

anyone, apart from the record of the coroner’s inquest. On ~

the evening of April 3rd at the City Hall, no one was pres--

- ent except Britt and me. |

I lifted one latent fingerprint from the blade of the knife

on the inside of the bend or curve, about an.inch or so from

the handle. On State’s Exhibit No. 6, this lift appears in the ©

upper right-hand corner. The other three latent prints on

State’s Exhibit No. 6 are lifts of the same fingerprint

smudge; I redusted the print each time to try to bring it

out more clearly. The only places in the house that I dusted

for fingerprints were the television table, the television,

and pocketbooks. I did not dust anywhere i in the bedroom

other than the pocketbooks. I did not see anything worth

- while to dust in Jason’s bedroom. -

There were three outside doors to the house—the front

door, the door on the left side of the house, and the back

door. I do not recall which way they opened. |

The first time I asked Britt about the knife was on March

29th, at the City Hall. Britt stated then he had never before

38

seen the knife. The next time I talked to Britt was on

April 2nd, when Britt said he had seen the knife on the’

floor beside the sofa; that it was straight rather than bent |

and that he picked it up and started to throw it away, but

changed his mind and put it back where he had found it.

I asked him to explain why his fingerprints were op the

knife, and he explained.

If I said at the previous trial that I had dusted the water

glass found irf the house, I was in error.

JoHNNIE Pate Testified :

Direct EXAMINATION:

I am a detective with the New Bern Police Department; s°

- I-have been with the department about 19 years, about 7

years with the Detective Division. I know cai defendant,

Charles Britt, Jr.

Witness identified State’s Exhibit No. 7 as a finger-

print card containing rolléd ink impressions of the

ridges on the fingers of both hands of Charles W. Britt,

Jr., defendant. ;

I took Britt’s fingerprints myself, and placed the impres-

sions of each finger in the locations as indicated on the card.

I signed the card, and Britt signed it in my presence.

, Cross Exavimation:

None.

STEPHEN RanpoupH JonEs Testified : vi

’Drrect Examination: |

I am supervisor of.the Identification and Photography

Division of the North Carolina State Bureau of Investiga-

tion. I will have been employed in the Identification Divi-

sion of SBI 7 years as of January 1, 1970. My experience.

includes employment with the FBI in’ Washington,

for 2 years and 9 months prior to military service and my

present employment. The first 3 months I was with the ©

FBI consisted of classroom training i in the science of finger-

print identification. I have been in training in the field of

latent print examination and comparison since January of.

oo

— »

«39

1963. I have been primarily engaged i in comparison of fin-

gerprints since 1964. I have testified concerning finger-

print comparisons in Recorders Courts, District Courts,

| and Superior Courts throughout North Carolina. - v

(In the absence of the jury, the court at the request

of the State found the witness an expert in the field of

fingerprint identification. )

I saw -Mr. Bratcher of New Bern Police Department,

alongwith Officer Dowdy, on March 31, 1969 at the SBI

Laboratory in Raleigh. Mr. Bratcher delivered to me at -

that time six latent print lifts, one butcher knife, and

inked fingerprint impression, cards bearing the names of -

‘Oharles W. Britt, James EK. Lewis, Elijah Brown, and —

Ethel Jeannie Best. :

I examined the latent, prints, sid also the butcher knife’

to.see if there were any fingerprints-still visible on it. I.

could not raise any more latent, fingerprints, nor could I

“even photograph those that were on.the knife so that they

would be legible.

I made a mark of identification regarding the print which

I identified. ‘State’s. Exhibit No. 6 contains in the upper

’ right-hand corner the print which I was able to identify. I _

compared the print just referred to with the fingerprint ©

’ eard, State’s’ Exhibit: No. 7. I compare the ridge Isx

or the characteristics of the ridges in the fingers, and in

order to make anidentification I must find a certain number

-« of characteristics in common,between the two prints. In

this particular instance, I compared the latent print lifts on

this paper with the inked impressions ‘on this fingerprint .

card and notes similarities in the left-thumbprint, under a

magnifying glass of 44 power, I examined this for position -

of ridgy lines, bifurcations, “endings, and ridge dots. These

are the four types of identifying characteristics which are

found in fingerprint ridges. ~

I saw similarity between the two prints—

Defendant objects. Objection. overruled.

(_ _ Exception No. 47

—and in certain respects they weré similar.

Défegdant objects. Objectjon overruled. | F

Exception No. 48 2 | \-

eo a0

- I found enough’ points of identification i in the same approxi-

‘mate location on the latent prints, or in the same relative

positions with each other, as were hoted on this inked

impression eard. |

' From. my examination of the print, I have an opinion

satisfactory to myself as to whether or not the latent print

contained on State’s Exhibit No. 6 is the same as the finger-

print of which there is an inked impression labeled as the

left thumb on the card marked as State’s Exhibit No. 7.

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

| Exception No. 49 .

It is my opinion that the finger that made the latent print

as noted on Stat®’s Exhibit No. 6 and the finger that made

the inked impression as noted on State’s Exhibit No. 7 are

one and the same finger.

~ Defendant moves to strike. Motion neseeuint

' Exception No. 50

I was unable to match the other prints submitted to me

with any of the inked fingerprint i impressions on the other

fingerprint cards.

There was one latent print lift on one of the rubber lifts,

that is State’s Exhibit No. 9, that had enough points to be

identifiable, but it has not been identified.

Cross XAMINATION :

ae | attempted to photograph the knife, using a copy camera

with polaroid film and available light, for the purpose of

bringing out any latent’ print.. This is a generally accept-

able method for locating and lifting or identifying finger-

prints. This is a good method of determining where the

latent print is on the object and how it is situated on it, and

is a better method than dusting with powder. Such photog-

raphy might. preserve the print in the event there is. an

improper. lift from another method.

Lifting material may be of the rubber type, such as was

used in State’s Exhibits No. 8 and No. 9, or of the scotch

. tape type. Some of the scotch type tape deteriorates with

age, and may. have flaws in the sticky or tacky layer if it is

not the type made especially for fingerprint work. I can- .

- not say that the tape used in State’s Exhibit No. 6 is actu-

Sa Aug” “ery

_*4

. 41 .

~ adly the tapé manufactured purposely and singly: for finger-

print work.

I do not know of my own knowledge whee the lifts on

State’s Exhibits No..8 and No. 9 came from. The location

from which ‘those lifts were taken was made known to me

by Officer Dowdy. I did not myself go to 222 Lawson Street

and attempt to lift_any prints there. I would have no

knowledge regarding any error or mistake in the method or

location of the finding of these prints.

W. F. Dowpy Testified:

Direct EXAMINATION:

I am employed by the State Bureau of Investigation, at’

Rocky Mount, N. C., and have been with the SBI since July

1, 1969. ’ Prior’ to that time, I was a detective with New Bern

Police Department. I was so employed in March, 1969 and

at that time had been a detective for about 9 months.

On Tuesday, March 25, 1969, I went with Captain

Bratcher to 222 Lawson Street. I observed the body on the

floor, made a crime scene search of the house, and dusted

* Several items in the house for latent fingerprints.

_ Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 51

I dusted a water glass found in the chair on the left as you

go in the door. I also dusted a whiskey bottle that was lo-

. eated on the bed in the first bedroom as you go in the house,

and several pocketbooks that were on the floor in the same

bedroom. .

‘I made one lift from a water glass and one from the

whiskey bottle, I believe.

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

_ Exceprion No. 52

I made the lift marked State’s Exhibit No. 9 from the water

glass.

I next saw defendant Charles W. Britt, Jr. on ‘Saturday,

March 29, 1969 at I-80 Trent Court. I participated i in ques-

tioning of defendant at the Detective Division at police de-

partment, at which time Captain Bratcher, defendant, Ethel

42 ~

Best and myself were present. I did not have anything to

‘do with warning defendant of his rights at that time;

* Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 53

Captain Bratcher warned the defendant.

Defendant moves to strike. Motion overruled.

Exception No. 54

Captain Bratcher warned defendant in my. presence.

| Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 55.

I was present throughout the conversation on that occasion.

Defendant. objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 56

At that time the defendant said— .

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception N 0. 57

—that on Monday afternoon, March 24th, he and Ethel

Best went to the residence of Janie Banks; that they left

her children at [-80 Trent Court with a baby-sitter. They |

stayed there about 30 minutes; that Britt drank a couple of

‘glasses of water. while there; that they left and returned to

‘I-80 Trent Court; and that J anie Banks was in a normal

condition when they left.

Defendant objects and moves to strike. ;

Objection and motion overruled. Defendant excepts.

«= Exception No. 58

I next saw defendant on April 2nd, Wednesday after-.

- noon, when Captain Bratcher and I picked up defendant

and Ethel Best at the A & W or Little Mint Drive-In on

Broad Street and took them to City Hall. I was with the

' defendant at the same time that Captain Bratcher was with

him.. I was present when Britt made certain statements in

Captain Bratcher’s presence.

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 59

43

Those statements were— a

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 60

—made after defendant read the SBI Laboratory report

- and was asked to explain the presence of his left thumb-

print on the knife. He stated that.on Monday afternoon

when he and Ethel Best were at victim’s house he noticed

the butcher knife which was at that time in straight and

normal condition lying on the floor; that he picked up the

knife and was going to throw it in the heater but instead

threw it back on the floor; and that is = his thumbprint

was on the knife.

I was not present at any conversation between defendant

_and Captain Bratcher on the foliowing Thursday night.

I did not see Britt from that Wednesday afternoon until

the following Friday morning, April 4th. At that time, I

saw him at the City Hall. Captain Bratcher, defendant,

Ethel Best and I were present. I heard the conversation

between defendant and Captain Bratcher, and defendant

said—

_ Defendant objects. Objection over galed

_ Exception No. 61

—on Monday afternoon that Ethel Best had a baby-sitter

and he and Ethel went to Janie Banks’ house on Lawson

Street; that they thought she had some money hid in the -

house; and that he and. Ethel went with intent to take

Janie’s money. Britt stated they went to her house but

could never get Mrs. Banks in a position to take the money,

so.they left and returned to I-80 Trent Court and let the

baby-sitter go. He stated about 30 minutes later he and

Ethel Best arid the two children returned to the residence

of Janie Banks. He stated, I believe, that—

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

; Exception No. 62

—he had a butcher knife in his pocket which he had brought

from I-80 Trent Court; that. Janie went in the kitchen and

got some water and at this time-he gave the knife to Ethel

Best. He stated that Janie came back into the ving room .

_ and sat down on the sofa; that she then got up to put some

44

wood in the stove; that at that time Ethel Best stabbed her

in the back’with the butcher knife. He stated the victim

sat down in the floor and started hollering names that he

didn’t know; that at this time he took this black iron frying |

pan and struck victim over the head four or five times. He -

didn’t remember exactly how many times he struck her. He

stated that he and Ethel went in the victim’s bedroom and

searched through her bed and drawers and the pocket-

books looking for money; that when they didn’t find any

they left and returned to I-80 Trent-Court; that they stayed

- there a while; that he then carried Ethel Best and her chil-

dren to stay with a friend on Lincoln Street. He then went

to the Little Mint to work. After he got off work that night

he.went back to Lincoln Street and picked up Ethel and her

children and returned to I-80 Trent Court where they spent

the rest of the night. .

Cross EXAMINATION:

I arrived at the scene at about 4:45 p.m. on March 25th. I

observed a crowd of about 25 persons in frortt of the house.

- I observed the body closely; then examined the house. All

the windows and doors were locked except the front door

' and there were no signs of a forced entry into the house. -I

: believe we never did find the key to the front door. No meas-

- urements were made as to the location of any objects in the

. living room. I believe I made a diagram of the living room

in my notes.

The bedroom labeled ‘‘Janie’s bedroom” on the black-

board, contained two beds. The bed closest to the door to

-. the living room appeared to have had the mattress turned

up. Several blankets and quilts had been disturbed on it.

Two. pocketbooks had been emptied on top.of the bed, and

a whiskey bottle was on-the bed. I do not recall if anything -

was under the bed. As to the other bed in the room, the mat-

tress had been pulled up. There was a chest in ‘the room,

_ the drawers of which had been pulled out. Size of the room

was about 7 feet wide by 10 feet long, roughly.

The room labeled as ‘“‘Jason’s bedroom’’ on the black-.

board diagram contained two beds. In that room, neither

the beds nor anything else seemed to have been disturbed.

Some men’s clothes were lying on top of a bed. There is a

door to that room from outside the house; I do not recall

the e type of locks on the door.

Se ante mrente wears eae ea ob OS asl

Cae Pee ae Mb RT Bo ee

7 .

ee Poe

Behind that bedroom was the kitchen. There was a stave

in the corner, and a table at the end.of the kitchen as I recall.

I believe there was a sink. I do not recall water fixtures

which would indicate running water in the house. The back

door from the kitchen to the outside had a nail on the inside

' of the door that was used for locking it. The nail was se-

cured when I got to it.

The men’s clothing I found in the bedroom consisted, I

believe, of a man’s pair of pants and a pull-over sweater. I

would call them sport clothes, rather than work clothes.

I was at the house about one hour; then I went to Oscar’s

Mortuary, where I stayed about 20 or 25-minutes. I do not -

recall being present 6n that night when Mr. Bratcher talked

to Jason Lewis.

I was off duty on the night of April 3rd and I was not

present af the police. station that night and have no knowl-

edge as to what transpired there then.

In the Banks’ house, other than the whiskey bottle and

water glass, I dusted for fingerprints some pocketbooks

found in the bedroom. No identifiable prints were found on

. the pocketbooks. .

I lifted from the whiskey bottle which was on the bed in

Janie’s bedroom State’s Exhibit No. 8, an identifiable print

which has not been identified as belonging to any specific

person. . ~ ;

I lifted State’s Exhibit No. 9 from:the water glass found -

in the chair in the living room to the left of the front door.

Mr. Bratcher did the remainder of the dusting done in the

house. To my knowledge, nothing was dusted in the kitchen,

nor in the bedroom adjacent to the kitchen, nor was any-

thing dusted in the bedroom labeled. as Janie’s other than

the pocketbooks and the whiskey bottle.-I am not sure what

Mr. Bratcher dusted in the living room.

%

Dr. Henry R. Lirtie Testified :

Drmect ExaMInaTION:

(Defense stipulated that the witness is an expert

_ in the field of medicine and is licensed to practice

and does practice medicine in North Carolina.) |

On Wednesday, March 26, 1969, I viewed the body of

46

Janie Banks at Oscar’s Mortuary in New Bern. I saw gross

evidence of considerable traumatic blows about the head;

there was a large depressed frontal fracture of the entire

frontal skull. The skull was soft and layers of the scalp

were peeled back in several places; there was a fractured

skull and softening of the skull around the left ear.

There was a fracture of the left cheek borie. There were

some small stab wounds or cut wounds about the lower mid-

back and, I believe, the right wrist: The stab wound in the

back was a little to the left of and on a line wah the

backbone.

' There was some evidence that the body had been cleaned

at the time I saw it, but I could see evidence of ‘small

amounts of blood; there was blood around the clothing and

‘matted in the hair.

I have an opinion satisfactory to myself as to the cause

of victim’s- death, and that opinion is that death was due to

brain damage caused by repeated blows about the head

with a blunt instrument.

Cross EXAMINATION:

_ I did not perform a formal autopsy. I could palpate or

feel the skull bones, but’ the brain itself was not visible.

Reprrect EXAMINATION:

I probed the stab wound in the back of deceased Banks

and found the wound to be horizontal, about an inch and a

haif in length and about half an inch deep. I probed it and

ran into bone, which would be either a portion of the verte-

brae off the spine or a rib coming from the spine. The blow

inflicting that back wound did not hit any vital—

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

_EXcEPTION No. 63

—organ or anything of that sort,—

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

. EXCEPTION No. 64

| -because its depth was only half an inch.

Pa

RECROSS EXAMINATION:

- I could not say with any degree of medical certainty .

whether the stab wound in the back occurred before or after

oe elt ARC =

OR an eens Cerne her) vie. SEO a

47

“wo

death. The wound appeared to have been made at the same

time that the other wounds were made,-but there would be

no way of determining with any degree ‘of medical certainty

whether the back wound was made before or after any other

- wounds. ..

ETHEL J. Best Testified :

. Direct EXAMINATION :

I'am 23 years old. J anie Banks was my grandmama. I

have known Charles W. Britt, Jr., since I was 19.

On Monday, March 24, 1969, I went to my -eaareaaaael 8

house.

3 Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 65

’ I was there on more than one occasion— *

_ Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 66

—that day; I went twice. The first time was at about 3 or

3:15 in the afternoon. Charles Britt was with me. Charles

knocked on the door and my grandmama came and: opened

the door and told us to come in. We went in and she was

sitting on the sofa; Charles sat in one chair and I sat in an-

other. We talked; Charles asked her for a glass of water,

_ and she went to the kitchen nd. got the water and brought

it back to him. In a few minutes, we left. She told me to

come back a little later on; that ‘she was going to get up

some clothes for my. children. -Charles and I left and went

back to my apartment at I-80 Trent Court. We stayed

there for a few minutes with the children and went back to .

my grandmama’ s again.

"Defendant objects. Objection sverruled.

: ExxcrePzion No. 67

Charles knocked on the door again.- That was about

0:30 p.m. We were there a few minutes and Charles asked

her for another glass of water, and she soon went back

toward the kitchen. She stayed a few minutes and stopped *

in her bedroom on her way back from the Kitchen. Charles

48

said, ‘‘How come it’s taking so long?’’ She got back with

the glass of water. He drank some. She didn’t sit back

- down, but went over by the heater and stooped down. The, -

glass of water fell over or was knocked over. She kind of

held her head up. Charles was smoking a cigarette and I

thought he was going to put the cigarette duck i in the heater

but he stabbed her in the back with the knife, and she said,

‘‘Oh.’? I jumped up and grabbed my: children and told him

I was going to leave.

Defendant objects. Objection pyertuled. wy

' Exception No. 68

He. told me I better not leave or he was going to kill me:

‘Befendant objects. Objection overruled.

Exception No. 69

I told him I didn’t know he was going around there to kill

my grandmama. He threw the knife down on the floor and

put his arm around her mouth so she couldn?t holler, and

grabbed an iron poker beside the. heater. He beat her in the

- back andacross the shouWer and beat her down to the floor.

Then he went out of the front room toward the kitchen and

came back in with this frying-pan here. Just as he got back ,

in the front room, she had started to get up; she was trying

to make it up off the floor. He started beating ler with the

frying pan. He beat her until he beat her brains out.

Defendant objects and moves to strike.

Objection and motion overruled.

Exception No. 70

, ~~

He ransacked some pocketbooks and turned the mattress

back, but he didn’t find any money while I was there; so he _

said he did all of that and he didn’t find any money. When

he came back in the front room I told him I was ready to go

- because I was-scaréd, and he said he knew I was scared be-'

cause that was ‘the first time I have seen anything done —

like that. He told me again I better not go anywhere orteH

anybody, or else he would kill me.~f had to stay there be» ~

cause I was scared and if I had Jeft}I know he would have

killed me. We were there tle setond time until about 6:15 |

or 6:30, because when the killing was going on—

| Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

: | . Hxonprion No. 72

A dire eel SOA IN Sha Be dba htt Bee oo)

49

—the six o’clock news was on.

Charles shut the door when we left, but before we got to

the corner, he told me to go on home, that he was going back

to the house. I went home to I- 80 Trent Court. He got

home about a half hour after I did. He said he went back

. to grandmama’s and pulled off her sweater and threw it be-

hind the bed, se nobody could find any fingerprints. And he

_ Said he went back there and finished killing. her.

Charles stayed at my place the rest of that night. Next

morning, he said*he was going to take:me over to Lincoln

_ Street; that he had to go to the Little Mint for something.

and hé didn’t want to leave me alone, because he thought

maybe I would tell and h€didn’t want me to tell it and that’s

why‘he took me over there: JA

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

_ EXCEPTION No. 73

He told me to stay there until he came back, so I did. It was |

my cousin’s house that I went to on Lincoln Street. _

I recognize this knife. (State’s Exhibit No. 1). ‘Iti is mipe;

I bought it downtown at McLellan’s.

Mr. Bratcher talked to me ahout ‘this. “matter several

times. The firstetime, Mr. Bratcher and Mr. Dowdy came

to my apartmeng and wanted me’to go down to the police

station. Another time was when I was at the Little Mint\in in

Charles’ brother’s car which Charles was driving. ,On an-

other occasion, Mr. Bratcher talked with me on the Thurs-

- day morning following Charles’ arrest on Wednesday. On

one occasion, Mr. Bratcher and Detective Dowdy took .-

Charles and me to the police station, where we all were to-

géther in the same room.

Mr. Bratcher came to my apartment with ladies from the

‘Welfare Department to-make arrangements about the chil-

‘dren— Pe ei

N

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

~ .Exception No. 74

—about looking after the children— . \

Defendant objects.: Objection overruled.

P ’ EXcEPTION Na TS

—and they were ine—

e Defendant abjects. Objection overruled.

FF. | Exception No. 76 |

—to take custody. of my children, but my daddy said he—

Defendant objects: Objection overruled.

Exception No. 77

—would look after them. On that day,’ a Friday’ after

Mr..Bratcher and Mr. Dowdy had talked to-me alone, they

took me to the jail and we talked in the | presence of: Charles.

At-that time, Charles accused me 6f stabbing my grand-

mama in the back.

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

esi | No. 78

T told him— .

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

| Exception No. 79

—I didn’t do it.

Defendant moves to strike. Motion ‘overruled. _De-

fendant excepts. |

Exception No. 80

I told the officers—

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

a ala No. 81 wa

I told Mr. Bratcher that 1 didn’t stab 1 my grapdmnama in

the back with the knife.

Defendant moves to strike. Motion overruled.

Defendant excepts. . r

' _xcEPTION No. 82

| opens te the knife— |

Defendant objects. Objection overruled.

agi a No. 83

I told him the knife came tron my anartieciit,

Defendant maves to ss Sa Motion overruled.

Defendant <<

_ Exception No 84.

- 9

rn, | Ic ier reer

wade ame hie Wesalitcintaile

te Se Tee eos one

r

sre

¢,

<

ol

ae

Cross Exam INATION : ~N

My children are aged 4 aiid. 2, I am not arid never have a

‘been married.

‘ I am under indictment, charged with Charles, for murder

of mygrandmother. |

The last time I talked to Mr.'Bratcher about this casé was

the Friday when they arrested mg..

I have talked: to- Mr. Hamilton about testifying today.

_ He and my lawyer and I got together on it and we talked

about it, about a week or so ago. .

Q. The whole point is that you’re trying to a7 Charles

did is and get yourself out of the trouble, isn’t it —

*A. Well, look I was there.

Q. Isn’t that what you are trying to.do,’aren’t you trying .

to get yourself out of trouble?

A. I was told to come up here and testify and that’s what

Tam doing. If I hadn’t been told to come up here T wouldn’t

- beuphere. .

'Q. But you are still trying to get yourself out of trouble,

‘a ’t you? :

Trying to get myself out of trouble? I’m just doing

‘what I was told to do.

Mr. Bowers: Come down. ™

Mr. Hamitton: The State rests if it pleases the court. '

Court: Any evidence for the defendant?

ye * é ‘ ;

-

> “, . —

% ~ _ . . . | °

“% ° 2 7

° AY :

, 4

}Mr. Hamiiton: In view of the questions asked by the »

this time that the solicitor for the State told the last:

ry for the defendant the State is willing to stipulate

tness that he would not prosecute-her in this ease.

Court: Will theresbe evidence for the defendant? -

Mr. Bowers: No, sir, at this point, your Honor, at the |

—— of the prosecution’ s case in chief, the def@idant

moyes: judgment as of nonshit; 2. To dismiss the

bined Ktal failure to establish a prima facie case as a

matter of law, and 3. To dismiss the indictment for failure

- to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Court: Each motion is overruled and denied.

‘Mrz. Bowers: The defendant excepts. We offer no evi-

dence and rests and renews the motions at the énd’ of all .

evidence.

’ Exception: No. 85 .

?

ry

a2

Court: Each motion is overruled and denied.

Mr. Bowers: An exception, your Honor.

EXcEPTION No. 86

Mr. Hamilton began his summation ie the jury and

the follow!ng was objected to:

‘‘The only evidence is when this man 1 told the

police about using her own knife to stab her grand-

‘mother ;”’

- Objection Overruled

‘‘That’s the only explanation offered, the only

statemerit that he made concerning this knife, that

he had anything to do was when he picked it up and

threw it back down on the floor. .

Mr. Bowers: I object to the solicitor’s comment

on the witness’ failure to take the witness stand, —

directly or indirectly.’’

CHARGE TO THE J URY

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is a criminal

action in which the defendant Charles W. Britt, Jr., is

. charged in a bill with the capital crime of murder in the.

first degree.of Janie. Banks, it being alleged in the bill of

"indictment that the’ offense was committed on March 24,

1969. .

The-defendant has entered a plea of not guilty and upon

his plea he is presumed innocent. The burden of proof is

upon the State to satisfy ‘you on the evidence and beyond a

reasonable doubt ofthe defendant’s guilt.

A reasonable doubt is not a vain, imaginary or fanciful

doubt but it is a sane, rational doubt arising out of the

evidence or lack of evidence, or from its deficiency. When

it is said that the jury must be satisfied of the defendant’s

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt it is meant that they must

be fully satisfied or entirely convinced or satisfied to a moral

certainty of the truth of the charge. If after considéring,

comparing and weighing all the evidence the minds of thé

jurors are left in such condition that’ they cannot say they

- have an abiding faith to a moral certainty in the defendant’s

. guilt, then they have a reasonable doubt, otherwise not.

A reasonable doubt as that term is employed in the admin-

“ a OT "al

' o3 a mo

istration of the criminal law is an honest substantial mis-

giving, generated by the insufficiency of the proof, an insuffi-

ciency which fails to convince your judgment and conscience

and satisfy your reason as to the guilt of the accused. It is

not a doubt suggested by the ingenuity of counsel nor by

your own ingenuity not legitimately warranted by the testi-

-mony nor is it one born of a merciful inclination or disposi-

tion to permit the defendant to escape the penalty of the

law nor one prompted by sympathy for him or those con-

nected with him. . (

The State has offered evidence which it contends tends to

show that Janie Banks lived on Lawson Street here in‘New ©

Bern; that she lived alone most of the time but’ that her

“grandnephew roomed there at times; that her body was

found on March 25th about 4:30 in the afternoon on the floor _ -

of her living room and that officers were called and soon’

thereafter arrived and made an investigation concerning

her death. ~ as

The State contends that shortly thereafter the defendant

was interviewed by police officers of the City of New Bern,

and that he was interviewed again, as I recall, first on

March the 29th and then on April the 2nd. The State con-

tends that each time he was interviewed by the officers that |

one of them, Mr. Bratcher, gave him information concerning -.

his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have couhsel ;

and other such warnings as the State contends were given;

that the defendant at first said that he had been to the house

of Janie Banks on March 24th with her granddaughter and

that they stayed a short while and the Little Mint restaurant

and came to the police station, and that the officer told

the defendant at that time that he had a report from the SBI

concerning a fingerprint and let the defendant read it, and

asked him then if he had anything to say about the knife

in the home of Janie Banks, and that the defendant said at

that time that he did see a knife on the floor and picked it up

to put it in the stove and changed his mind and put it back

on the floor ; that the defendant was then put in custody and

the following night requested or that Mr. Bratcher received

a call to come to the jail and that he did, and that the

defendant talked to him further that night about the charge.

The State eontends that the defendant told Mr. Bratcher

that he had gone with Ethel Best and that after they had:

~

left and picked up‘her children, that they went baci to her

house; that he had carried the knife or a knife to her house,

to Janie Bank’s house, and that she went out-in the\room ;

that he gave the.knife to Ethel Best, and that wheirshé was,

that is When Janie Banks went to put some fuel on th fire

that Ethel Best’ struck her in the back with a knife ;\ that

$he sat down’on the floor and screamed and called na

that he had never heard before and that Ethel got the frying

pan from the.kitchen and gave it to him and he hit her ov

the head with it several times. ©

The State contends, however, that the defendant, that

the evidence favorable to it tends to show that the defendant

_ was there on ‘two occasions.on Monday afternoon and that

he was with Ethel Best. The State contends, however, that

on that afternoon that Ethel Best did not know he. had

brought a knife from her house or her apartment and that

the defendant struck her with the knife and got the frying

pan and beat her across the head; that he would not let

Ethel Best go when she wanted to leave but. left with her

later and told her he was going back to finish killing her

or words to that effeet and that he did go back. The State

contends that that the blows on her head were sufficient to

cause death and did in fact cause death and the State con-

tends that irrespective of who struck her with the knife, the

State contends that the defendant did, in fact, strike her in

the head with the frying pan and that he is the one who

caused her death.

The State contends further that the left thumbprint of

the defendant was, in fact, found in the curve of the knife

as it was found in a bent condition, and that some other

fingerprints were found but were not identified and that the

only print that could be identified was the one found on the

knife and the State contends it was the defendant’s finger-

print.

The State further offers evidence which it contends tends

- to show that the defendant after the alleged attack on

Janie Banks, searched her bedroom or looked in her bed-

room in an effort to find some money; that he was not

successful in doing so and made the comment, so the State

contends to Ethel Best later that he had gone to a lot .

_of trouble and done quite a bit for nothing because he had

not been able to find any moncy.

atl

5)3)

So, the State contends members of. the jury, thd the

defendant, his real purpose in, that he did in fact strike her

and that his real purpose Was in an effort to get some money

from her which he was not sucgessful in doing but the Ne

contends that he did with premeditation and deliberation

_and with malice kil Janie Banks.

“Now, the defendant has elected not to testify as a witness

in his own behalf. I instruct you, however, that the statute ©

relating to that circumstance provides that in the trial of all .

- indictments, complaints or other proceedings ‘against -per- _

‘sons charged with the commission of erimes, the person so

charged ig at his own request but not otherwise a competent

witness and his failure to make such request shall not create

any presumption against him. Therefore,. I instruct you

that the defendant’s failure to request that he testify as a

“witness in his Own. behalf shall not create any presumption

against him. . .. |

The’ defendant contends, however, that you should have.

a reasonable doubt as to his guilt and the ‘defeydant con-

tends that if you find that he committed any act against her

that you should’not find that it caused her death or that if

you should find that he did causé her death, that -you should

not find that he did so with malice or with premeditation and

deliberation. , .

The defendant contends.that the evidence of the State is

insufficient in many respects to justify any finding against’

_. him. He contends that you should not rely on the memory.

of either or both of the officers as to what was said or what

they saw or anything that occurred back in March and .

early April of 1969. He contends that it would be unreason-

able for him to have gone to Janie Bank’s home to hartn:

her when he was with her granddaughter. He contends

that had he intended to hurt her it would not have been

necessary for him to have told Ethel or to have taken her

with-him. He further contends that other people, that you

should find from the eyidence and that the evidence and that

tlte evidence discloses that other people had access to her

home; that other people had been in her home; that there’s

an uncertainty as to whether she was actually killed or when

she-died. The defendant contends that there’s no assurance |

from the evidence in the case that she died on Monday after-

noon or Monday morning or Monday night or Tuesday. The

2 56

* defendant contends that you would have to deal in specula-

tion to determine not only how she was killed but when she : |

was killed and who killed her. a

The defendant contends that even if his fingerprint was

found on the knife that he didn’t use it as against her. He

contends that simply touching a knife, if he did.in fact touch ? i

_ it, is of no legal significance or factual significance. So he ¥

‘contends members that he had, members of the jury that :

he had a job; that he was working at the Little Mint; that

he had no reason to steal or attempt to steal any money from , ;

Janie Banks and that if he intended to steal mteney from. |

her that it would have been no reason for him tq ill her in :

‘ order to do so; so he contends members of the jury that you i

should have a reasonable doubt as to his guilt and that you ; i

should acquit him. | 7

It isa _ question of fact for you to determine from the 7

evidence in the case. I have only briefly and very briefly |

summarized the evidence. It is your duty, however, .to

remember al] of the evidence. The law requires the trial _ a |

_judge to state only so much evidence as is necessary to ;

~explain and apply the law arising upon the evidence. It is

your duty, however, to remember all the evidence and to

find the fact from the evidence as you recall and understand

it to be. |

If your recollection of the evidence is in conflict with — :

counsel or éounsel for the defendant or the solicitor, then i

you’ll be guided by your own recollection for the reason

that you are the sole triers of the fact. _. OO -

_Now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the statute, ccieral

‘statutes relating to the charge of murder provides that a —

murder which has been perpetrated by means of poison,

_. lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, torture, or by any

other kind of wilful, deliberate and ‘premeditated killing

shall be deemed to be murder in the first degree and shall

be punished with death, provided, if at the time of rendering ©

its verdict in open court the jury shall so recommend, the >

punishment shall be imprisonment for life in the State’ Ss - '

Prison and the court shall so instruct the jury. All other

kinds of murder shall be deemed miureer in the second .

degree.

Now, the statute uses the expression that any<éther kind

of wilful, deliberate and premeditated killing shall be

_ against the prisoner.

57.

deemed to-be murder in the first degree. Now, in construing

that language our Supreme Court vf North Carolina has

said that murder in the first degree is fhe-unlawful killing

of a human being with malice, and with premeditation and

deliberation. The intentional killing of a human being with .

a deadly weapon implies malice and if nothing else appears

constitutes murder in the second degree. The additional

elements of premeditation and deliberation necessary to

constitute murer in the first degree are not presumed from

killing with a°deadly weapon. They must bé established

beyond a reasonable doubt and found by the jury before

a verdict of murder in.the first degree can be rendered

- Premeditation means thought beforehand for some length -

of time, however short. Premeditation means to think

beforehand and when we say that the killing must be accom-

panied by deliberation and premeditation it is meant that

there must-be a fixed purpose to kill which preceded the

act of killing for some length of time, however, short, al-

‘though the manner and length whieh, length of time which

' the purpose is formed is not material, if however, the pur- --

pose to-kill is formed simultaneously with the’killing, then .

there is no premeditation and deliberation and in that event

the homicide would not be murder in the first degree.

Deliberation means that the act is done in a cool state of

blood. It does not mean brooding over it or reflecting upon _

it for a week, a day or an hour, or any other appreciable

time, but it means an intention to kill executed by ‘the

defendant in a cool state of blood, in furtherance of a fixed

design to gratify a feeling of revenge or to accomplish.

some unlawful purpose and not under the influence of vio-

tent passion suddenly aroused by some lawful or justifiable

or legal provocation. | >. a

Now, the expression cool state of blood: as to that court

has said that althéugh there may have been time for delib-

eration, if the purpose to kill was formed immediately and

executed in a passion, especially if the passion was aroused

by a recent provocation or mutual combat, then. the murder

is not deliberated and premeditated. However, passion does:

not always reduce the crime since a man may’ deliberate,

may premeditafe and may intend to kill after premeditation

and deliberation, although prompted to a large extent and

58

to alatge extent controlled by passion at the time; if the

design to kill was formed with deliberation and premedita-

tion it is immaterial that the defendant was in a state of.

passion or excited when the design was carried into effect.

Now, premeditation and deliberation are not usually

susceptible of direct proof and-are therefore susceptible of —

proof by circumstances ‘from which the facts sought to be .,

proven may be. inferred. Among the circumstances to ‘be

considered in determining whether a killing was with pre- —

meditation and deliberation are: 1.: Of provocation on the

part of the deceased. The conduct of the defendant before

and after the killing; threats and declarations of the de-

fendant before akd during the course of the occurrence,

giving rise to the death of the deceased, and the dealing of:

lethal blows after the deceased had been ‘felled and rendered

helpless.

So, members of the jury, the elements of premeditation”

and deliberation are, of course, necessary elements of the

crime of murder in the first degree. Also malice is a neces-

sary element. ;

Our couft has said that malice is not only hatred, ill will

ox_spite as it is ordinarily understood, to be sure that is -

but it also means that condition of mind which

prompts‘a person to intentionally take the life of another

without just cause, excuse or justification. It may be shown

by evidence of hatred, ill will or dislike and malice is

implied in law from the intentional killing with a deadly

weapon. Malice is expressed, that is malice may be éx- ;

pressed or it may be implied. Malice is expressed when a

person wilfully and deliberately and with a fixed purpose

intentionally and unlawfully kills another. Malice is implied

where an act dangerous to another is done so recklessly

and wantonly as to evidence depravity of mind and dis-

regard of human life. Malice may arise either from ill will |

or grudge. It also may be said to exist when there has been ©

a wrongful, intentional and unlawful killing of a human be-

ing without lawful excuse or mitigating circumstances. -

Now, as I just.said a moment ago the intentional killing

- of a human being with a deadly weapon imphes or rather

creates a presumption, first: that the killing was unlawful

and second: that it was done with malice. That presump-

oa et

09

‘tion, however, does not arise unless the killing is done with

- a deadly weapon.

Now, a deadly weapon is any instrument which according

to the mannercof its use ‘is likely to produce death or serious

bodily harm. Of course, a frying pan is not, in law, a deadly

weapon. It is not designed as a weapon; however, it is for

you to determine whether it was in fact, whether ‘a frying

pan was in fact used in such a manner as to likely produce

death or serious bodily harm. If it was so used then it would

be a deadly weapon according to the manner of its use.

If it was not so used then, of course, it would not be a deadly

weapon: Notwithstanding how you find as to that it’s still a

question for you to determine.as to whether the defendant

committed the homicide alleged and if so whether he.did so

with malice and with premeditation and deliberation. If the

defendant caused the death of Janie Banks, that is to say

if he killed her by beating her in the head with a frying pan

but if he did so without malice, of course, he could not he

guilty of murder in the first degree, or if he did- so with

_ Malice but without premeditation and deliberation, he conld

not be guilty of murder in the first degree. On the other

hand irrespective of whether you determine a fying pan,

-from the evidence in this case, to be a deadly weapon, if you:

find: from the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that -

the defendant did, with malice and with premeditation and

deliberation intentionally kill Janie Banks, then that would |

constitute a finding of guilty of murder in the first degree.

Otherwise it would not. |

Now, it is not necessary for one to premeditate any par-

ticular length of time nor to deliberate any particular length

of time concerning the killing of anothéf human being.

It is necessary, however, that there be a fixed esign to kill

purposely formed, deliberated upon for so iod of time,

however short, before the- actual killing and if there is a

fixed purpose to kill but if it is formed simultaneously with

the killing, then that does not constitute premeditation and

deliberation. >

Now, members of the jury, if you find from the evidence

and beyond a reasonable doubt that either the defendant or-

Ethel Best struck Janie Banks in the back with a butcher

knife and rendered her helpless by doing so, and if you

. Should further find from the evidence and beyond a reason-

60

able doubt that the defendant thereafter struck her about.

the head with a fying pan with sufficient force and a suffi-

cient number of times to cause her death and that he had

a specific intent to kill, and that such intent was formed

before the actual killing, and that he had premeditated and

deliberated upon his act for some period of time preceding

the act of killing, then it would be of no consequence, no

legal consequence, that is as to who actually inflicted the

knife wound on her back. ' - |

Now, as to that the State contends that the defendant |

inflicted. all wounds on her but that even if you should find

that Ethel Best struck her with a knife, the State contends

that the defendant then was aware that she was helpless to

do anything to him or to prevent him from stealing if he

wanted to steal something from her place or that she was

helpless to do anything‘to prevent him from doing whatever

he wished to do. So the State contends that seeing her in

that condition, notwithstanding how she got in that condi-

' tion that that is a circumstance that you should consider in

passing. upon the question of whether there was premedita-

tion and deliberation. The State contends .that he dealt.

lethal blows to her after she had been felled and rendered ©

helpless; that his declarations were such that is to show a

fixed design to kill. The State contends that he came pre-

pared to kill; that he brought a knife from Ethel Best’s -

apartment for that very purpose and that when he. saw

that the knife wound had not had the desired effect that he

_ beat her over the head until she was dead; that after he left

her place that he went back to make sure she was dead. So,

the State contends members of the jury that the circum: -

stances are such as to justify a finding that the killing of

the deceased was accompanied by malice and as a result.

of premeditation and deliberation.

The defendant contends that you should not so find. He

contends it was not his knife that has been offered in evi-

dence and that even according to Ethel Best that the knife

belonged to her. He contends that he had no reason to

’ take a knife from Ethel Best’s apartment to carry it to

-

. Janie Banks’ home and that you should not find that he .

did so. He contends that he had no reason to strike her or

to knock her in the head with a frying pan or to do anything

else to her. He.contends that others had far greater oppor-

. se 61 -

tunities even if you should find that he was: at her place, -

though‘he contends that you should Mave a reasonable doubt

as to that. He contends members of the jury that you

should not rely on what Ethel Best says; that Ethel. Best

was charged with murder in the first. degree. The solicitor

has said that he will not prosecute her; so the defendant

contends that she is saying whatever is necessary ta per-

suade the solicitor’s office not to prosecute her on the ©

murder charge.’ So, the deferidant contends ladies and

gentlemen of the-jury that you should not believe Ethel

Best and that you should not give full weight to the testi-

mony of the officers based upon their recollection of what .

may have been said or that if you should find as he con-

tends that he made statements to the officers or to either of

' them which indicated that he told, that he had some con-

nection with the death of Janie Banks, he contends that »

you should not find that it was true; that notwithstanding

what he may have said he contends that there’s nothing to.

justify a finding that he did, in fact, do anything to cause

her death. ; .

However, the State contends that you. should believe.

Ethel Best. The. State contends that there’s no reason ‘to

prosecute her when all the evidence is to the effect that the

defendant is the only guilty party and that for that reason

the solicitor elected not to prosecute her. . fs

So the Staté contends members of the jury that you ought

to believe her and the defendant contends you should hot.

However, it’s a question for you to determine from the

evidence as you recall and understand it to be. ;

If pon a consideration of all the evidence the State has

_ satisfied you from the evidence and beyond a reasonable

‘doubt that the defendant with premeditation and delibera-

tion or as a result of premeditation and with malice, killed

Janie Banks, then. it would be your duty to, well, let me

correct that, please: that would constitute a finding of

- Zuilty of the charge of murder in the first degree. If it has

failed to so satisfy you, you would not convict him of murder -

in the first degree but would acquit him of that and consider.

~ his guilt or innocence of murder in the second degree.

‘As I said murder in the second degree is the unlawful,

intentional killing of a human being with malice but without

premeditation and deliberation. So if the defendant in-

62 -

tentionally killed Janie Banks and if it was done, that is

if it constituted a wrongful, intentional and unlawful killing

without lawful excuse or mitigating circumstances, or as‘a

result of hatred, ill will or spite, then that would constitute

a finding of malice or would constitute malice rather.

Now, I’ve used the expression intentional killing both

as to murder in the first degree and murder in the second.

degree. There is some difference in the meaning, however,

as it is appiied to those two separate degrees of murder. -

An intention to kill or an intentional killing as used in the

charge of murder in the first degree means a specific intent

to kill, whereas murder in the second degree, and inten-

tional killing, means an intent to inflict the injury which

did in fact cause death. Therefore, if the defendant is

acquitted of the charge of murder in the first degree and if -

he was without a specific intent to kill Janie Banks, but

did intentionally jnflict wounds on her which, in fact, caused

her death, then as to that that would constitute an inten- :

tional killing“and if the defendant did inflict wounds upon

her and intentionally did so and if those wounds produced

her death and if he did so with malice, then that would con-:

stitute murder in the second degree and if you find that

the defendant struck her on the head with the frying pan

_ that has been offered in evidencé and that he used it in such

a manner as to constitute it a deadly weapon, then there

_ would be a presumption that the killing was unlawful and

that it was done with malice, and an unlawful killing

with malice is murder in the second degree. If you fail to

find that the defendant struck her with a frying pan that

was offered in evidence, then, of course, or if you fail to find

that, or if you find that he did strike her with the frying ~

pan that was offered in evidence but fail to find that it was

used as a deadly weapon, then no presumption would arise.

Now, members of the jury, if the defendant unlawfully

and with malice killed Janie Banks, and if you should so—

find from the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt it

would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty of murder

in the second degree. If you have a reasonable doubt as.

to his guilt of that you would acquit him of that charge, in

which he, event you would consider, his guilt or innocence

of manslaughter.

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being

an Helle ts <li taped SAG Match Ae

63

without malice and without premeditation and deliberation.

So, if you should find from the evidence and: beyond a rea-

sonable doubt that the defendant unlawfully killed Janie —

Banks but fail to find from the evidence and beyond a rea-

. sonable doubt that he did so with malice as I have defined

that then that would constitute a finding of guilt of man-

slaughter.

He contends members of the jury that. he had no malice

against her; he contends that.there is no evidence that he

_ had ever seen her before that day. He contends that he had

no ill will against her. He further contends that it was, that

he had no. desire to steal from her or to rob her or to take

money or: anything else from her place. He contends that

if you should find that he did, in fact, inflict the wounds _-

upon her which caused her death, that you should not find ©

that he did so with malice. He contends, of course, that you

‘should not find that he. inflicted any w ounds on her or had

had anything whatever to do with her death. He contends

that you should have a reasonable doubt as to that but that

if you find that he did have anything to do with her death

you should not find, so he contends that he did so with

malice.

The State contends on the other hand members of the

jury that you should not come to consider manslaughter or

even second degree murder but if you do that you should

find that the defendant was prompted by malice, if not ill

will against her, and it is malice so the State contends to

show complete disregard of human life; that it was a

wrongful, an intentional and deliberate act, "and so the State

contends that there were no mitigating circumstances; that

there was no provocation; that Janie Banks had made no

threat against him or done him any harm or attempted to

do so; so the State contends members of the jury that the

conduct of the defendant such as it was and whatever you

find it to have been was prompted by malice.

Now, if the State has failed to satisfy you from the evi-

dence and beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant

unlawfully killed Janie Banks, then it would be your duty to

return a verdict of guilty of manslaughter. If you have a

reasonable doubt as ‘to that then it would be your duty to

return a verdict of not guilty.

So, members of the jury, you may return one of the fol-

b+

lowing verdicts, depending upon how you find: either guilty ~

of murder in the first degree, or guilty of murder in the

_ first degree with a recommendation at the time of returning |

your verdict that the defendant’s punishment be i imprison-

_ment for life in the State’s prison, or guilty of murder in

the second degree or guilty of manslaughter, or not guilty.

Now, the portion of the statute that I read to you at. the

outset relating to punishment for murder in the first degree

provides that murder in the first degree shall be punished by

death, provided if at the time of rendering its verdict in

open court the jury shall so recommend, the punishment

shall be imprisonment for life in the State’s prison,- and

the court shall so instruct:the jury. So in obedience to this

_ statute I instruct you that. prior to the enactment of this

statute which I have just read the punishment for the crime

of murder in the first degree was death and a recommenda-

tion by a jury had no legal effect.

Now, I charge you that under this statute a recommenda-

tion by the jury-in open court at the time of rendering

. its verdict of the prisoner convicted of murder in the first

degree, that his punishment shall be imprisonment in the

State’s prison for life instead of death, has the legal effect of

reducing ‘the punishment from death to life imprisonment _

in the State’s prison.

jury the untestrained, discretionary right to mitigate the

punishment of one convicted of the crime of murder in the

first degree from death to life imprisonment in the State’s

prison by recommending in open court at the time of render-

ing its verdict that the punishment shall be imprisonment

for life.in the State’s prison, and I instruct. you further if

you should find from the evidence in the case and beyond

a reasonable doubt that the prisoner committed acts suffi-

I charge y Meine that the statute vests in the trial °

cient to constitute the erime of murder in the first. degree .

and should not elect in your own unrestrained, discretion-

ary, discretion that his punishment:should be reduced from

death to life imprisonment, then you would return a verdict

finding the prisoner guilty of murder in the first degree

without any recommendation that his punishment be im-

prisonment for life in the State’s prison instead of death.

-. On the .contrary, however, if you should find beyond a

reasonable doubt from the evidence that the prisoner com-

.

VEER, ai Nit Lda INE gh

Gath MS vine MBE 4.

6) & -

mitted acts sufficient to constitute murder in the first degree, -

and should find him guilty of murder in the-first degree, and -

should you elect in your unrestrained discretion that his

punishment should be reduced from death to life i imprison-

ment, then your verdict would be guilty of murder in the’

first ‘degree with a recommendation that the prisoner S

punishment be imprisonment for life in | the State’s prison

instead of death.

So, members of the jury it’sa question for you to deter-

mine from the evidence as you recall and understand. it to

be from the facts as you find the facts to be from the evi-.

dence in the ease, when considered in the light of the law

as I have attempted to explain it to you. Nothing that I.

- have said or done or any ruling that I have made during

- the progress of the trial should be considered by the jury as

an expression or an intended expression of opinion as ‘to

what your verdict should or should not be. It’s a matter

entirely for you to determine from the facts as yow find

them to be and the law as I have explained it to you.

_ So, members of the jury, upon a consideration of the

- evidence if the State has satisfied you from the eyidence

and beyond a reasonable doubt that fhe defendant unlaw- ©

fully and intentionally, and with malice and premeditation

and deliberation killed Janie Banks, then you would return

one of the following verdicts: guilty of murder in the first °

degree, or guilty of murder in the first degree with a recom-

mendation that the prisoner’s punishment be imprisonment

for life in the State’s prison instead of death. If the State

has failed to so satisfy you from the evidence and beyond a

reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of murder 1 in

the first degree you would acquit him of that and then con-

sider his guilt of. murder in the second degree or his in-

nocence of that. If you come to consider that question and

if the State has satisfied you from the evidence and beyond

a reasonable doubt that the defendant unlawfully and with

malice killed Janie Banks you would return a verdict of

guilty of murder in the second degree; if you have a reason-

able doubt as to his guilt of that offense you would acquit

him of that in which event you would consider his guilt or

innocence of manslaughter. If you come to consider that

question and if the State has satisfied you from the evidence

and beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant unlaw-

66

fully killed Janie Banks you would return a verdict of guilty

_ of manslaughter. If the State has failed to so satisfy you

as to that charge or if upon a consideration of the evidence

you have a reasonable doubt as to his guilt you would return

a verdict of not guilty.

Well, let me say this to you, one further thing ladies and

gentlemen : when you return with your verdict the clerk will

call the roll of the jurors and ask which of you, which juror —

will speak for the jury; therefore, while you’re in the jury

room and before you return with your verdict agree on

‘who will announce the verdict for you. The 13th juror may

_ now be excused as the jury goes to the jury room. .You need

not go in with them. All right, you may retire.

EXCEPTION No. 89 .

(The jury retired at 4:15 o’clock p.m., and the jury

returned to the courtroom af 5:17 o’clock p.m., and

the following occurred :) :

Court: You may take the verdict.

CLERK: Stand up, please. Ladies and gentlemen of the

jury, answer to your‘names, Mrs. F. W. Riggs, (all jurors

answered) Thomas Eborn, C. W. Daugherty, Wesley Land,

Franklin Taylor, Mrs. J. R. Hobson, Charles White, William

A. McKay, Jacob Grace, Margaret Willis, Maggie Hartley,

Mrs. Dan Hartsell, have you all agreed on your verdict?

Jurors: We have - v

CierK: Who will speak for you?

Juror: I will.

. CuierKk: Charles W. Britt, stand’ up, and hold up your

right hand, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, look upon the

prisoner, what say you is he guilty of the felony of murdét—

Court: Just say how do you find?

CLERK: How do you find the defendant? '

Juror: Guilty of second degree murder. .

‘CLERK: Guilty of second degreé murder; ladies and

gentlemen of the jury you return as your verdict and the

court recordeth that Charles W. Britt is guilty of second

deere murder, so say you all?

- Jurors: Yes.

Court: Thank you. (Jury departs) Do you have any

ae to say?

Sie

5

ee

67

Mr.- Boweks: Could we have until tomorrow morning

on this? ; —_

Court: Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the clerk will mail

you a check in a.few days. All right, sheriff he’s in your

custody.

(The court, then at 5195 o’clock recessed until 9 :30

o’clock, Thursday, December 18, 1969.) ;

MORNING SESSION

Court: Anything further?

Mr. Bowers: Your Honor, I know your Honor has read

it but I would like for you to-read the psychiatric report.

‘Court: As T understand it was relatively good. ‘

Mr. Bowers: May we call his mother around.

Court: Yes.

( Lola Frances Gibson, mother of the defendant t testifies .

inmitigation) ss

~ Anything further?

Mr. Bowers: I think that’s all, your Honor. Just for

the purpose of refreshing your recollection, he was turned |

to stand trial as a mental retardation but not psychotic.

Court: All right, stand up Charles: the judgment of the

court is that the defendant be confined to the State’s prison

for a term of 30 years (thirty),

Mr. Bowers: Your Honor, of course, we move to set the

verdict aside and we would, of course, move for a new

trial and upon your Honor’s ‘denial of such motion we give

notice ofappeal to the Court of Appeals.

Court: All right, give the defendant 60 days and the.

State 20; let the commitment show that a bond is set in the

sum of $95, 000.00 appearance bond. Let the commitment

. show that he is to be transferred to the custody of the De-

partment of Corrections pending the appeal unless he gives

the appearance bond or otherwise discharged as by law

provided, and if he doesn’t get relief on the appeal he’ll be |

given credit-on that time.

Mr. Bowers: You want us to prepare an order for the

transcript?

Court: Mr. Hood will do that, he has the proper . form.

68

GROUPING OF EXCEPTIONS AND ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Appellant herein assigns as error the following as violat- —

ing his rights under the Constitutions of the United States

and of this State: Se

1. The court erred in refusing to grant the appellant’ s

motion for a transcript of the evidence and testimony i in the

: prior trial which ended in a mistrial.

_ Exception No. 87 (Rp 13) © ; eee

2. The court erred in admitting into evidence : a akpotted,

_ oral confession supposedly given at the police station with-

out benefit of counsel or corroboration.

Exceptions Nos. 29, 30, 31 and 32 (R pp 28, 30, 34)

3. The court erred i in ref using to allow the appellant’s mo-

tion In Limine.

Exception: No. 88 (R Pp 15)

4. ‘The court erred in BEEnNaIne into evidence latent

__ fingerprint lifts..

EXXcEPTIONS Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,

22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 45, 46 (R pp 26, 27, 98, 39)

5. The court. erred in admitting fingerprint testimony

when there was evidence that the fingerprints of the de-

fendant could have been placed at the scene at a timé other

than the time of the commission of any crime.

Exception No. 88 (R P. 15) _

6. The court erred in admitting fingerprint testimony

when it appeared that there was atleast one other finger-

print of another person at the scene which could not be

accounted for. \

Exception No. 88 (R p 15)

7. The court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the

indictment against the defendant is no evidence of guilt and

carries no presumption of guilt.

Exception No. 89 (RK p 78)

8. The court erred in failing to instruct the jury while

it is the duty of a juror to discuss and consider the opinions

of the other jurors, he must decide the case upon his own

A REEMA UE AN MIE ies Rei Ubi N Air Yigg hd

69

-opinion of the evidence, and upon his own | judgment and

conscience.

Exception No. 89. (R p 78)

9. The court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the

‘defendant i is entitled to every inference in his favor which

can be reasonably drawn from the evidence, and where two

__inferences may be drawn from the same facts, one con-

_ sistent with guilt and ‘one consistent with. innocence, the

defendant is entitled to the inferencé which is consistent

with his innocence.

Exception No. 89 (R p 78)

10. The court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the®

presumption of the defendant’s innocence is not an idle

. phrase to be taken lightly by the jury; but it must be borne

in mind by the jury that it i is an important right belonging

to every person accused of crime. ° :

Exception No.. 89 (R p 78)’

11. The court further erred in failing to charge the jury

that such presuniption of innocence continued throughout

the trial and jury’s deliberation, until overcome by evidence,

and evidence alone, to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt.

EXCEPTION No. 89 (R p 78)

Rosert G. Bowers

Appointed Counsel for Defendant,

Charles W. Britt, Jr.

KE. Lamar Senge -

Appointed Counsel for Defendant,

Charles W. Britt, Jr.

STIPULATION

Ir Is Sripu_tatep by and between the parties through

_ their respective counsel that the foregoing shall be and will

constitute the record and. the case on appeal and that the

same Was duly served in apt time.

Rosert G. Bowers

Appointed Counsel for Defendant

New Bern, North Carolina

KEK. Lamar Suepce -

Appointed Counsel for Defendant

New Bern, North Carolina

70

LutHER HamILTon, JR.

Solicitor

Morehead City, North Carolina

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE

I, Dorothy Pate, Clerk of the Superior Court in and for ~

Craven County, do hereby certify that a regular session of

‘ the Superior Court Division: in the said county was held

in April, 1969, and the Grand Jury, which was properly |

formed, returned a true bill against Charles W. Britt, Jr.,

a copy of which is the foregoing case on appeal; that a’

regular session of said court was held in November, 1969,

and the Honorable George M. Fountain was presiding

judge; that.the case of. State against Charles W. Britt, Jr.,

was tried before Judge Fouritain and a duly constituted and

impaneled j jury, and the same ended in a mistrial; and that a ~

‘regular session of the said court was held in ‘December,

1969, and Judge Fountain was, again, presiding; that case

of State vs. Charles W. Britt, Jr., was tried before Judge

Fountain and a duly constituted and impaneled jury, and

the verdict rendered that the defendant was gyilty and the

judgment rendered thereon : appears in the record.

That the defendant gave notice of appeal in open court

‘to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina, in forma

pauperis, and the case on appeal is transmitted herewith.

Witness my hand and official seal, this the 13th. day of

March, 1970. |

, Mary P. McLawHorn

Assistant Clerk of the

Superior Court

| , (SEAL)

ee EE nd gee a

Court or AppEats or NortH CAROLINA.

oe © ;

State or NortH Carouina

Ve: o

Cuares W. Bart, Jr.

No. 7038C270. .

May 27,1970. _

Certiorari Denied July 31, 1970.

The defendant was tried upon a bill of indictment charg-

ing him with murder in the first degree of Janie Banks.

The evidence for the State tended to show that the de-

fendant went to the home of Janie Banks on 24 March 1969

and stabbed her in the back with a knife. Then “ (h)e thnew

the knife down on the floor and put his arms around her

mouth so she couldn’t holler, and grabbed an iron poker

beside the heater. He beat her in the back and across the

shoulder and beat her down to the floor. Then he went out

of the front room toward the kitchen and came back in with

this frying pan here. Just as he got back in the front room,

she had started to get up; she was trying to make it up off

the floor. He startéd beating her with the frying pan. He

_ beat her until he beat her brains out.’’ Thereafter, the de-

fendant ransacked the house before leaving. The defendant

offered no evidence.

; The defendant, an indigent, was represented at the No-

. vember, 1969 trial, at the December 1969 trial, and on this

appeal by the same two attorneys who were appointed on

3 June 1969 to represent him. .

The first trial ended in a mistrial on 14 N ovember 1969

when-the jury could not agree on a verdict.

The second trial ended on 18 December 1969 after the

jury had found the defendant. guilty of -murder in the

- Second degree and the court had sentenced him to the State

Prison for a term of thirty years. ;

Defendant, in apt time, gave notice of appeal. | |

Atty. Gen. Ropert Morcan and Staff Atty. Curistine Y.

Denson, Raleigh, for the State.

, 71

- 72

Roza’ G. Bowsns and E. Laman SLEDGE, New ap al

* the defendant appellant.

Matiarp, Chief Judge. , ~ =~ = |

On this record, the defendant entered 89 exceptions. In

his assignments‘of error, he refers to only 26 of them. The

other 63 are deemed abandoned. Rule 28 of the Rules of

Practice in the Court of Appeals. These 26 exceptidns are —

considered under the five questions prenented on this

, appeal. |

1. Deffndant asserts that the trial judge committed error

in refusing to order that the defendant be furnished with a

transcript of the first trial. The only. reason asserted by the

defendant in his motion for a transcript was that because a

_ non-indigent: defendant could, purchase a transcript, that

he, an indigent, as entitled to a transcript of the evidence

and testimony Sp at the first trial which resulted in a

mistrial. He dods not aHege that the court reporter who

took the evidence at the ffrst trial was not available ‘to him

as a witness. He was represented at both trials by the same

lawyers. Forsberg v. United. States, 351 F.2d 242 (9th Cir.

1965). ‘Th¢ second trial took place about a month after the |

- first trial.: Thete-was no showing that the cross-examination

. by the defendant of the State’s witnesses was restricted in

any way. There was no argument by the solicitor relating to

discrepancies in the testimony as there was in United. States

ex rel. Wilson v. McMann, 408 F.2d 896 (2d Cir. 1969). The

defendant had the right to use the court reporter if there .

was a conflict in the State’s testimony. We think that the

cases cited by the defendant i in support of his contentions.

aré distinguishable. wr

It the case of Nickens v. United States; 116 U.S.App.D.C,

338, 323 F.2d 898 (1963), certden., 379 U.S. 905, 85 S. Ct.

198, 13 L.Ed.2d.178 (1964), the Court said:

‘There is no absolute right to have the transcript of x .

prior trial against the contingency, now urged, that .

some witness at the second trial may eve inconsistent _—

testimony. Any inconsistency in testinfony arising af *?

- the secqnd trial could re ily be:dea]t with by calling

the reporter of. the prior t to read the earlier festi-_

mony. Appellant had the same counsel at both trials.

The District Court did not abuse its discretion in deny-

-

a, ee pee

.

ceased in the back,

, >

73

!

ing appellant’s bare demand for a. transcript. in these -

circumstances.’’ * ~~ cot |

We are of the opinion and so hold that the factual situa-

‘tion here does not reveal such a need for the transcript of_

the evidence at the first trial that the denial thereof was a

deprivation of a basic essential of the defendanit’s defense.

State .v. Keel, 5 N.C.App. 330, 168 S.H.2d 465 (1969).

2. Defendant asserts that the trial judge committed error

in refusing to instruct the prosecution as requested in his

motion in limine. By this preliminary motion, te Set endacit

sought to prohibit the introduction of evidenc€ of the de-

fendant’s fingerprint. The defendant’s fingerprints were

found on the butcher knife used to stab the deceased. The

butcher knife was found in the home of the deceased after

her death. We think that this evidence was competent,

and, therefore, the denial of defendant ’s motion was proper.

' 3. Defendant contends that the trial court committed

error in admitting the fingerprint evidence (1) because the

defendant was shown to have been at the scene of the crime

earlier that day. and (2) there was at least one fingerprint

on the knife which was unidentifiable. The cases cited. by

defendant in support of this contention are distinguishable.

We hold that the fingerprint evidence was competent. It

tended to corroborate the testimony of the State’s witness

that the defendant had used the-knife in stabbing the de-

4. The defendant contends that the trial court committed

error by failing to instruct the jury that ‘‘each must decide

the case upon his own opinion of the evidence, that the de-

fendant was entitled to every inference in his favor and that

where two inferences one consistent with innocence and one

inconsistent, the defendant is entitled to the inference which

is consistent with innocence; and as to the importance. of

the presumption of innocence under our law.’’ The de-

fendant made no written request for instructions on any

particular phase of the case. The court properly charged

that the defendant was presumed to be innocent, and that

‘*(t)he burden of proof_is upon the State to satisfy you on

‘the evidence and beyond a‘ reasonable doubt of the de-

fendant’s guilt.’’ Thus, the court properly required that in

order to convict, the State must prove the defendant guilty

from the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.. We hold

“he cites

ay

74.

that no error is made to appear in the charge of the court

to the jury.

5. The defendant contends that the trial court committed

error in failing to allow his motion for nonsuit. There was

ample evidence of the defendant’s guilt to require the sub-

mission of the case to the jury. The exceptions to the denial

of the motion for judgment as of nonsuit cannot be

sustained.

Inthe inl we find no error.

No Error.

Morris and Grawam, JJ., concur.

seo ‘

_ Le ek el ie

GREE, iii wah tastpihecke

x

SUPREME COURT OF N ORTH CAROLINA

. Aprian J. Newron, Clerk

AREA CODE 919 829-3723—>». 0. Box 2170

RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA: 27602 ©

July 31, 1970

MRS. FREEDA D. WATKINS

MRS. FRANCES P. RANDOLPH

MRS. DIXIE J. ABELL

_ DEPUTY CLERKS

Mr. Robert G: Bowers, Attorney

P. O. Drawer 1557

New Bern, N. C. 28560

| Re: State v Britt __

#110PC, Spring Term 1970

- Dear Mr. Bowers:

o

Petition for writ of certiorari to the North Carolina

Court of Appeals to review its decision is filed with the

following order: !

‘‘DENIED by order of the Court in conference this the

' 31 day of July 1970. Huskins, J. for the Court.’’

No written opinion is filed.

: | Yours very truly,

/s/ Adrian J. Newton

Aprun J. Newton |

Clerk of Supreme Court

AJN/da .

Cex

Attorney General.

*(Mrs) Christine Y. Denson, Staff Atty.

Mr. E. Lamar Sledge |

15

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES |

No. 6073, October Term,.1970

CuarLes W. Britt, JR., PETITIONER

Vv.

NortH CaRoLiNna

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO the Court of Ap-

peals of the State of North Carolina. :

ON consIDERATION of the motion for: leave to proceed

herein in forma pauperis and of the petition for writ of

certiorari, it is ‘ordered by this Court that the motion to

proceed in forma pauperis be, and the same is hereby,

granted; and that the petition for writ of certiorari be, and

the same is hereby, granted.

March 22, 1971

wW U.S. Government Printing Office: 1971—423-257/609-

— 76

40