STATE v. ROBINSON

Factual and Procedural Background

The defendant, Roosevelt Robinson, was charged with kidnapping. On June 17, 1971, Elizabeth Bell and Diane Peavy were at a trailer where they lived. Defendant and Kenneth Williams arrived, and after Elizabeth and Diane went inside and locked the door, defendant threatened Elizabeth to come out. Kenneth Williams retrieved a pistol and handed it to defendant, who then forcibly took Elizabeth Bell from the trailer against her will, striking her and forcing her into a car. Defendant took her to a house in Fayetteville where he repeatedly beat her until law enforcement arrived. Elizabeth Bell and Diane Peavy testified to these events, supported by physical evidence and statements admitted at trial. Defendant testified that Elizabeth Bell voluntarily left with him, denied possessing a pistol, and claimed a prior consensual relationship with Elizabeth Bell, who he said invited him in writing. The jury convicted defendant of kidnapping, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant appealed from this judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial court erred in sustaining the State's objection to cross-examination of the State's witnesses concerning their past relationships with the defendant.

Whether the trial court erred in sustaining the State's objection to the defendant's testimony regarding his past relationship with one of the State's witnesses.

Whether the exclusion of such testimony was prejudicial to the defendant's case, particularly concerning the issue of consent and witness credibility.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

The defendant argued that testimony regarding past relationships with the prosecutrix and another State's witness was relevant to establish consent to accompany him, thereby negating kidnapping charges.

He contended that such testimony would also serve to impeach the credibility of the State's witnesses.

State's Arguments

The State objected to the admission of testimony about past relationships, arguing such evidence was irrelevant and inadmissible.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
State v. Kirby, 276 N.C. 123, 171 S.E.2d 416	Appellant must show not only error but prejudicial error in the exclusion of evidence.	Used to emphasize that the defendant failed to show what the excluded testimony would have been and thus failed to demonstrate prejudice.
State v. Jones, 249 N.C. 134, 105 S.E.2d 513	Same as State v. Kirby regarding burden of showing prejudicial error.	Supported the court’s conclusion that the defendant did not meet the burden of proving prejudice from exclusion.
State v. Poolos, 241 N.C. 382, 85 S.E.2d 342	Same principle on burden to show prejudicial error.	Reinforced the requirement that error alone is insufficient without showing prejudice.
State v. King, 224 N.C. 329, 30 S.E.2d 230	Wide latitude is allowed in cross-examination, but trial court has discretion.	Cited to acknowledge the defendant’s right to cross-examination but also the trial court’s discretion in limiting it.
State v. Temple, 269 N.C. 57, 152 S.E.2d 206	Relationships between defendant and witnesses must be relevant enough to affect witness credibility or consent.	Applied to conclude no conceivable relationship would have impacted the witnesses’ credibility or indicated consent sufficient to affect the trial’s outcome.
State v. Woolard, 260 N.C. 133, 132 S.E.2d 364	Same as State v. Temple regarding relevance of relationships to credibility and consent.	Supported the court’s conclusion that no relationship justified defendant’s conduct or would affect the verdict.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

State v. Kirby, 276 N.C. 123, 171 S.E.2d 416

Appellant must show not only error but prejudicial error in the exclusion of evidence.

Used to emphasize that the defendant failed to show what the excluded testimony would have been and thus failed to demonstrate prejudice.

State v. Jones, 249 N.C. 134, 105 S.E.2d 513

Same as State v. Kirby regarding burden of showing prejudicial error.

Supported the court’s conclusion that the defendant did not meet the burden of proving prejudice from exclusion.

State v. Poolos, 241 N.C. 382, 85 S.E.2d 342

Same principle on burden to show prejudicial error.

Reinforced the requirement that error alone is insufficient without showing prejudice.

State v. King, 224 N.C. 329, 30 S.E.2d 230

Wide latitude is allowed in cross-examination, but trial court has discretion.

Cited to acknowledge the defendant’s right to cross-examination but also the trial court’s discretion in limiting it.

State v. Temple, 269 N.C. 57, 152 S.E.2d 206

Relationships between defendant and witnesses must be relevant enough to affect witness credibility or consent.

Applied to conclude no conceivable relationship would have impacted the witnesses’ credibility or indicated consent sufficient to affect the trial’s outcome.

State v. Woolard, 260 N.C. 133, 132 S.E.2d 364

Same as State v. Temple regarding relevance of relationships to credibility and consent.

Supported the court’s conclusion that no relationship justified defendant’s conduct or would affect the verdict.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the defendant's assignments of error concerning the exclusion of testimony about past relationships between the defendant and the State's witnesses. It found that the record did not reveal what the excluded testimony would have been, thus the defendant failed to show that the exclusion was prejudicial as required by precedent. The court acknowledged the broad discretion afforded trial courts in limiting cross-examination but emphasized that the defendant must demonstrate that excluded evidence would have materially affected the outcome. Given the substantial evidence that defendant forcibly abducted Elizabeth Bell against her will and caused her physical harm, the court reasoned that no possible prior relationship could have undermined the witnesses' credibility or suggested consent sufficient to change the verdict. Consequently, the court found no prejudicial error in the trial court's rulings.

Holding and Implications

No error.

The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the exclusion of testimony regarding past relationships was not prejudicial. This decision directly upheld the defendant's kidnapping conviction and life sentence. The opinion did not establish new precedent but reiterated existing principles regarding the burden to show prejudicial error and the trial court's discretion in cross-examination limits.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROOSEVELT ROBINSON

1. Criminal Law 169 — failure of record to show excluded testimony Where the record fails to show what the witnesses would have testified had they been permitted to answer questions objected to, the exclusion of such testimony is not shown to be prejudicial.

2. Kidnapping 1 — past relationships with State's witnesses — exclusion of testimony In this prosecution for kidnapping, testimony excluded by the court as to defendant's past relationships with the prosecutrix and with another State's witness would not have destroyed the witnesses' credibility or produced such a connotation of consent as would have affected the result of the trial.

Defendant, charged with kidnapping, entered a plea of not guilty.

Elizabeth Bell, testifying for the State, stated that on 17 June 1971, about 6:15 p.m., she and Diane Peavy were in front of a trailer where they lived with one Kelly Anderson. At that time defendant and Kenneth Williams drove up to the trailer, and she and Diane went inside and locked the door. She was afraid of defendant because he had threatened her. Defendant came up to the trailer and ordered Elizabeth Bell to come out. At that time Kenneth Williams went back to the car and obtained a .38 pistol which he handed to defendant. Defendant then threatened to shoot his way into the trailer if she did not come out. Kenneth Williams discovered her as she attempted to slip out the back door and defendant, still armed with the pistol, ran up to her, struck her, and he and Williams forced her into the back seat of a two-door car. She did not consent to go with defendant.

Defendant then took her to a house in Fayetteville, where he beat her with his fist and whipped her with two wire coat hangers. He intermittently beat her until members of the Cumberland County Sheriff's Department arrived at the house.

Diane Peavy corroborated the testimony of Elizabeth Bell as to the events which took place at the trailer. She further testified that she slipped out of the trailer and called the police.

Deputy Sheriff Doug Colpaert testified that he saw Elizabeth Bell around 10:00 o'clock p.m. on 17 June 1971, and that she had bruises and welts on her head and a substantial bruise on her leg. Written statements made by Elizabeth Bell and Diane Peavy were identified by Sheriff Colpaert and admitted into evidence. These statements tended to corroborate the testimony of both Elizabeth Bell and Diane Peavy.

Defendant testified that he went to the trailer where Elizabeth Bell lived on 17 June 1971 and that she voluntarily and willingly got into his car and left with him and Kenneth Williams. He admitted that he slapped her on the face but denied that he otherwise beat her. He testified that he did not own a pistol or have one in his possession on 17 June 1971. He further stated that he went to the trailer as a result of a written invitation from Elizabeth Bell. He first met Elizabeth Bell in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and at that time she was a prostitute. On cross-examination defendant stated that he did not know the whereabouts of Kenneth Williams or the letter of invitation.

Defendant also offered the testimony of Dottie Pritchard, who stated that Defendant, Kenneth Williams, and Elizabeth Bell came into her living room on 17 June 1971 and that she saw defendant slap Elizabeth one time. On cross-examination she stated that Elizabeth Bell asked her not to let defendant hurt her, and that she (Dottie Pritchard) told defendant that there would be no fights in her house.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty of kidnapping. Defendant appealed from judgment imposing a sentence of life imprisonment.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant's only assignments of error are that the trial judge erred in sustaining the State's objection to cross-examination of State's witnesses Elizabeth Bell and Diane Peavy concerning their past relationships with defendant, and by sustaining the State's objection to his testimony concerning his past relationship with witness Elizabeth Bell. He contends that such testimony would indicate that Elizabeth Bell consented to accompany him at the time of the alleged kidnapping. Obviously, he also seeks to attack the credibility of the witnesses.

The record does not show what the State's witnesses or defendant would have said had they been permitted to answer the questions. Therefore we cannot know whether the rulings were prejudicial. The burden is on appellant not only to show error but to show prejudicial error. State v. Kirby, 276 N.C. 123, 171 S.E.2d 416; State v. Jones, 249 N.C. 134, 105 S.E.2d 513; State v. Poolos, 241 N.C. 382, 85 S.E.2d 342.

Defendant's only citations of authority establish the fact that a wide latitude is allowed in cross-examination. 7 Strong's, N.C. Index 2d, Witnesses, 8, p. 703; State v. King, 224 N.C. 329, 30 S.E.2d 230. It is noted that the citation from Strong also recites the well recognized rule that the latitude of cross-examination rests largely in the trial court's discretion.

There is plenary evidence in this case to show that defendant forcibly and, against her will, took Elizabeth Bell from her home and carried her to another residence in the City of Fayetteville.

Under the circumstances of this case we cannot imagine any relationship which might have existed between defendant and the female witnesses which would have so destroyed the witnesses' credibility or produced such a connotation of consent as would have affected the result of this trial. State v. Temple, 269 N.C. 57, 152 S.E.2d 206; State v. Woolard, 260 N.C. 133, 132 S.E.2d 364. Certainly, there is no relationship which would justify defendant's alleged conduct.

We have carefully examined this entire record and we are unable to discover any prejudicial error.

No error.