STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Robeson County
No. 99CRS10572
EDDIE HATCHER
Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Associate Attorney
General Sonya M. Allen, for the State.
Sue Berry for defendant-appellant.
EAGLES, Chief Judge.
Defendant Eddie Hatcher was charged with assault with a deadly
weapon inflicting serious injury. The State's evidence tended to
show that on or about 19 May 1999, defendant was at a neighborhood
grocery store in Maxton, North Carolina when he saw Michael Anthony
Locklear. The two men did not speak. After completing his
shopping, Locklear left the grocery store. Defendant followed,
armed with a shotgun. Defendant shot once in the direction of
Locklear, who was in the store's parking lot. Locklear turned to
run, then turned back around, and raised his arm. Defendant fired
a second shot, and at that time, Locklear turned away and ran
around the side of the building. Defendant gave chase, and shot atLocklear again. Locklear, wounded in the legs, fell to the ground.
Defendant then got into his truck and fled the scene.
Defendant hid in a swamp for two weeks, where he lost the
shotgun he used to shoot Locklear. Thereafter, defendant was
arrested and made admissions to law enforcement officers regarding
his involvement in the shooting of Locklear. Defendant had been
looking for Locklear because defendant suspected that Locklear had
burglarized his house. Just two days before the grocery store
shooting, defendant had gone to the residence where Locklear was
living with friends, and threatened to kill “everything in the
house,” if they did not put Locklear out of the house. While
awaiting trial, defendant wrote a letter to Robeson County District
Attorney Luther Johnson Britt, III, in which he admitted that he
shot Locklear because he believed that Locklear had burglarized his
home.
At trial, defendant presented evidence that Locklear had a
reputation of being a frequent drug user, and had on occasion,
displayed a gun and threatened the lives of others, including
defendant. Defendant testified that on 19 May 1999, Locklear
approached him in the grocery store parking lot with the handle of
what appeared to be a handgun showing from his pants pocket.
Defendant stated that he retrieved his shotgun from his truck and
fired towards the ground in front of Locklear in self-defense.
Defendant testified that he subsequently ran around the opposite
side of the grocery store, watched Locklear run toward the woods,and fired two more shots in the air to be sure that Locklear did
not return.
During cross-examination, over the objection of defense
counsel, the State questioned defendant about the contents of the
letter written to District Attorney Britt, in which he admitted to
shooting Locklear. Defendant admitted that he wrote the letter in
which he stated, “I mean, come on Mr. Britt, Little Mike (Locklear)
is not exactly a pilar (sic) of the community. No home has escaped
his sticky fingers. And he was carrying a pistol around
threatening people. I was only trying to teach him a lesson.”
The jury found defendant guilty of assault with a deadly
weapon. The trial court sentenced defendant to seventy-five days
in the county jail. Defendant appeals.
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in
overruling his objections to the State's cross-examination of him
with a letter written by him to the district attorney, in which he
admitted to shooting Michael Locklear. Defendant contends that
cross-examination through the use of this document was precluded by
G.S. § 15A-1025.
Plea negotiations in North Carolina superior courts are
governed by G.S. §§ 15A-1021 through 15A-1027. G.S. § 15A-1025
provides,
The fact that the defendant or his counsel and
the prosecutor engaged in plea discussions or
made a plea arrangement may not be received in
evidence against or in favor of the defendant
in any criminal or civil action or
administrative proceedings. This section was designed to encourage plea discussions and
agreements by protecting defendants and prosecuting officials from
being “'penalized for engaging in practices which are consistent
with the objectives of the criminal justice system.'” State v.
Wooten, 86 N.C. App. 481, 482, 358 S.E.2d 78, 78 (1987) (citations
omitted).
Here, however, there were no plea negotiations underway when
defendant wrote the letter to the local District Attorney admitting
that he shot the victim and personally offering to enter into a
plea agreement. This letter was an unsolicited admission of guilt
by defendant and was not protected by the provisions of G.S. § 15A-
1025. There was no evidence offered to show that the District
Attorney ever responded to defendant's letter or ever entered into
plea negotiations with defendant as a result of receiving that
letter. Despite the subjective desires of defendant, the letter
was no more than a gratuitous admission-- admissible as a voluntary
and knowing confession. See State v. Richardson, 316 N.C. 594, 342
S.E.2d 823 (1986) (finding that the defendant's taped-recorded
confession to police officers was knowing and voluntary since the
defendant, a mature adult with knowledge of the criminal justice
system, had earlier initiated the discussion regarding the effects
of his cooperation and police officers told him that they did not
have any authority to negotiate a plea bargain). Accordingly, we
conclude that the trial court did not err in allowing the State to
cross-examine defendant in this regard. Even assuming arguendo that the trial court erred in allowing
the State to cross-examine defendant about certain contents of his
letter to the local District Attorney, we note that defendant
cannot show prejudice so as to be entitled to relief here. The
State presented plenary evidence, other than the admissions made in
the subject letter, to show that defendant shot Michael Locklear in
retaliation for Locklear breaking into his residence. Special
Agent Larry Gatrell, of the North Carolina State Bureau of
Investigation, testified that defendant told him that he shot
Locklear and joked about how Locklear hopped and squealed when he
shot him in the legs. Defendant noted that he could have killed
Locklear but stated that he just “wanted to hurt him to teach him
a lesson that you don't break into other people's homes and steal
their things.” In addition, Keshia Chavis testified that defendant
came to her home looking for Locklear on 17 May 1999 -- just two
days before the shooting -- and threatened everyone in the
residence because he believed that Locklear had burglarized his
home. Since defendant can show no prejudice in the trial court's
decision to allow the State to cross-examine him regarding the
admissions in his letter to the local District Attorney, this
argument fails.
Accordingly, we hold that defendant received a fair trial,
free from prejudicial error.
No error.
Judges TIMMONS-GOODSON and McCULLOUGH concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***