State v Pratt

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA11-358 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 18 October 2011 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Forsyth County No. 10 CRS 53575 REGINALD LEWIS PRATT Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 30 November 2010 by Judge Richard W. Stone in Forsyth County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 September 2011. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Ann W. Matthews, for the State. Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Charlesena Elliott Walker, for defendantappellant. THIGPEN, Judge. Defendant appeals from judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of assault on a female. Defendant first argues instructions to the jury. questioned Ms. Manning the We find no error at trial. trial court erred in its On cross-examination, defense counsel about charges she took out against defendant and phone calls she made to the police during the four -2months leading up to the incident in question. Ms. Manning admitted she accused defendant of assaulting and threatening her in January, further charges. and of admitted she raping did her not in February appear in and court March. to She pursue the During the jury charge, the trial court instructed the jury that evidence was received tending to show defendant raped, assaulted and threatened Ms. Manning in the past and that such evidence could be considered for the purpose of showing motive, intent and absence of mistake. Defendant did not object to this instruction at trial and now argues the trial court committed plain error in instructing the jury as such. As the defendant did not object to the trial court s instruction, plain error analysis is the applicable standard of review. State Collins, 334 N.C. 54, 62, 431 S.E.2d 188, 193 (1993). v. Under the plain error rule, defendant must convince this Court not only that there was error, but that absent the error, the jury probably would have reached a different result. State v. Jordan, 333 N.C. 431, 440, 426 S.E.2d 692, 697 (1993). In permits this case, evidence of defendant other acknowledges crimes, wrongs, motive, intent, or absence of mistake. that or Rule acts to 404(b) prove However, he contends Ms. Manning never testified that the acts she accused defendant of -3committing actually happened or that the allegations she made to the police or magistrate were true. Defendant contends because Ms. Manning never testified he did as she claimed, her testimony did not serve as a basis for the trial court s instruction to the jury and he is entitled to a new trial. First, we note defendant erroneously asserts Ms. Manning never testified that her accusations were true. On re-direct examination, the State elicited the following testimony from Ms. Manning: [STATE]: Ms. Manning, you said that four prior incidents did occur with this Defendant earlier that year; is that correct? [MS. MANNING]: Yes, sir. [STATE]: So your testimony here is they actually did happen, you didn t make them up; is that right? [MS. MANNING]: No, I did not make them up. Furthermore, this Court has stated, [s]ince the scope of Rule 404(b) includes wrongs or acts, the Rule does not on its face require such extrinsic acts result in criminal liability. State v. Suggs, 86 N.C. App. 588, 591, 359 S.E.2d 24, 26, cert. denied, 321 N.C. 299, 362 S.E.2d 786 (1987). [C]onviction of other crimes is not a prerequisite to their admissibility under Rule 404(b). Id. at 592, 359 S.E.2d at 27. Accordingly, we -4conclude the trial court did not err in its instruction to the jury. Lastly, overruled defendant his argues objections the to the trial court deputy s erred when it testimony that by feeling a large knot on the back of Ms. Manning s head he had verified her claim that defendant punched her in the back of her head. Defendant contends the deputy s opinion testimony improperly vouched for Ms. Manning s credibility and he is entitled to a new trial. The standard of review for admission of evidence over objection is whether it was admissible as a matter of law, and if so, whether the trial admitting the evidence. court abused its discretion in State v. Bodden, 190 N.C. App. 505, 512, 661 S.E.2d 23, 27 (2008) (citation omitted), disc. review denied and (2009). appeal dismissed, 363 N.C. 131, 675 S.E.2d 660 Under the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, a lay witness may testify in the form of opinions or inferences only if the opinions or inferences are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. State v. McVay, 174 N.C. App. 335, 339, 620 S.E.2d 883, 885-86 (2005) (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 701 -5(2003)). Our Courts have held a witness may state the instantaneous conclusions of the mind as to the appearance, condition, or mental or physical state of persons, animals, and things, derived from observation of a variety of facts presented to the senses at one and the same time. State v. Spaulding, 288 N.C. 397, 411, 219 S.E.2d 178, 187 (1975) (quoting State v. Skeen, 182 N.C. 844, 109 S.E. 71 (1921)), sentence vacated on other grounds, 428 U.S. 904, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1210 (1976). These statements are referred to as shorthand statements of facts. Id. Here, we conclude the amounted to nothing more than shorthand statements of fact based on his knowledge and observations. implicate the defendant s deputy s testimony We conclude the testimony did not guilt, but rather explained the deputy s perception of Ms. Manning and the large knot he felt on the back of her head. Accordingly, this overruled. NO ERROR. Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge HUNTER, JR. concur. Report per Rule 30(e). argument is

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.