STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v
.
Person County
Nos. 02 CRS 51585, 51587-88
CLEOMA DECARLO BLOUNT,
Defendant.
HUDSON, Judge.
At the 18 November 2002 criminal session of superior court, a
jury found defendant Cleoma DeCarlo Blount guilty of assault with
a deadly weapon with intent to kill, felonious breaking and
entering a motor vehicle, and second-degree kidnapping. The court
sentenced defendant to thirty-six to fifty-three months on the
kidnapping charge, and thirty-six to fifty-three months on each of
the other two charges, to begin at the expiration of the kidnapping
sentence. Defendant appeals. We conclude there was no error.
The evidence tended to show that defendant and the victim,
Latrice Westley Lamb (“Mrs. Lamb”), had known each other for years
and that defendant had been romantically involved with Mrs. Lamb's
husband, Winford Allen Lamb. Defendant had a daughter by Lamb, wholived with the Lambs. On 2 May 2002, defendant took Mrs. Lamb's
keys while visiting her daughter at the Lamb home, returning them
half an hour later. The next evening, as Mrs. Lamb got into her
car after work at the North State Medical Center in Roxboro, she
noticed the interior light did not come on. As she drove out of
the parking lot, she heard a noise and turned to see defendant in
the back seat. Defendant, dressed all in black, pointed a gun at
Mrs. Lamb and said she was going to kill her. Mrs. Lamb escaped
from the car and ran to a nearby nursing home. Defendant followed
Mrs. Lamb into the nursing home with the gun, and confronted her in
one of the bedrooms. Defendant forced the gun into Mrs. Lamb's
mouth and pulled the trigger, but Mrs. Lamb moved her head and was
not shot. As the two women struggled for the gun, defendant bit
Mrs. Lamb and kicked out one of her teeth. Mrs. Lamb was able to
get the gun and run away from defendant.
Detective Jason Howe searched defendant's and Mrs. Lamb's
cars. In defendant's car, Detective Howe found telephone cord, a
knife, a hammer, a dark blue toboggan, and a box of latex gloves.
When these items were first mentioned, defendant objected and a
bench conference ensued. The court told defense counsel, “I'll
hear you as we go,” but counsel renewed the general objection. The
defense also cross-examined Detective Howe about these items found
in defendant's car.
Defendant first argues that the court erred in admitting
Detective Howe's testimony about the items found in the car.
Defendant contends that this testimony was irrelevant and shouldhave been excluded pursuant to the provisions of Rule 403 of the
N.C. Rules of Evidence. We disagree.
Defendant made a general objection to the admission of this
testimony when it was first mentioned, but did not state the
grounds for that objection. A general objection without a
statement of the specific grounds for the ruling sought, where such
grounds are not apparent, does not preserve the issue for appeal.
N.C. R. App. P. 10 (b)(1) (2001). Even if this issue were properly
before us, defendant could not prevail. Defendant did not renew
her objection to Detective Howe's further testimony about the items
found in her car. When “the same or similar evidence has been
previously admitted or is later admitted without objection, the
benefit of the objection is lost.” State v. Hunt, 325 N.C. 187,
196, 381 S.E.2d 453, 459 (1989).
Defendant also argues that the court violated her right to be
free from double jeopardy by submitting the second-degree
kidnapping charge to the jury. We disagree.
Defendant failed to raise this issue at trial. A claim of
violation of the double jeopardy clause must be raised and ruled on
in the trial court before it can be considered on appeal. State v.
Mitchell, 317 N.C. 661, 670, 346 S.E.2d 458, 463 (1986). Even so,
case law does not support defendant's argument. The double
jeopardy clause is not implicated where a jury could reasonably
find that the restraint necessary for kidnapping exposed the victim
to greater danger than that inherent in the other felony. State v.
Beatty, 347 N.C. 555, 559, 495 S.E.2d 367, 369 (1998). Here, theevidence tended to show that defendant pointed her gun at Mrs. Lamb
to restrain her inside her car, and later, inside the nursing home,
restrained Mrs. Lamb again by placing the gun into her mouth.
Because placing the gun into Mrs. Lamb's mouth constituted further
restraint that exposed her to greater danger than if defendant
simply shot towards Mrs. Lamb as she was fleeing, the court's
submission of the second-degree kidnapping charge to the jury was
proper and did not violate the double jeopardy clause.
No error.
Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge JACKSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***