An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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 Proced ure.

NO. COA04-754


Filed: 19 April 2005


v .                         Person County
                            Nos. 02 CRS 51585, 51587-88

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 20 November 2002 by Judge W. Osmond Smith, III, in Person County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 March 2005.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Lisa Granberry Corbett, for the State.

    J. Clark Fischer, for defendant-appellant.

    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 ***