STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Rutherford County
No. 03 CRS 52373
CRAIG DEVRIES CURTIS
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General C.
Norman Young, Jr., for the State.
David Childers for defendant-appellant.
MARTIN, Chief Judge.
Defendant Craig Devries Curtis was indicted for first-degree
murder. A jury returned a verdict of guilty, and defendant was
sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole. He
appeals.
The State presented evidence which tended to show that Craig
Devries Curtis (“defendant”) met Lisa Strong when he was nineteen
years old and she was thirty-five years old. The two dated for
three years before moving to Rutherford County, North Carolina in
2001.
On 12 May 2003, Detectives Ron Bailey and Mike Hollifield of
the Rutherford County Sheriff's Department interviewed defendantwhile investigating a missing person's report filed regarding
Strong. Curtis told the officers that he had last seen Strong on
1 May 2003. He told them that she had left their trailer to go
dancing with a black man in a large white car. He said they had an
open relationship and would see other people. Defendant further
stated that he had gone to look for Strong at her place of
employment, but she had not been there. He said he called
relatives in Massachusetts to see if they knew where she was but
was unable to reach anyone. Defendant claimed that Strong had a
history of drug and alcohol abuse and was currently smoking crack
cocaine. Defendant also told the officers that, on 3 May 2003, he
came home and found some of Strong's property had been removed.
On 20 May 2003, Detective Bailey questioned defendant a
second time
. Defendant told the police that, on
30 April
2003, he
had gotten into an argument with Strong over her use
of
crack cocaine.
He told Detective Bailey that during the
course of the
argument, he had pushed her, and she tripped and
fell. He claimed that Strong landed on a knife
lying on some
boots, which stuck into the back of
her head. She died shortly
afterwards, and he buried her the next day.
Following the
interview, defendant took police to Strong's
grave.
On 21 May 2003, defendant gave another statement to
police.
Defendant told police
that the only wound on Lisa Strong's head
would be the
knife wound. However,
an
autopsy
revealed that the
cause of Strong's death was two gunshot wounds. T
he bulletsfound in Strong's head were similar to
bullets found in a
pistol located in the defendant's van.
Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and was
sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Defendant appeals.
Defendant argues the trial court erred when it refused to
allow Dr. Faye Sultan, an expert in clinical psychology, to testify
regarding what she learned about the defendant's background and his
state of mind at the time of the crime. At trial, Dr. Sultan
testified that she had looked at defendant's school records. When
asked what she had learned from the records, the State objected,
and the trial court sustained the objection. When questioned
regarding the relationship between defendant and Strong, Dr. Sultan
testified about the alleged events that led to her death. Dr.
Sultan stated that: “As has been true for Mr. Curtis at other times
in his life when emotion got too intense he simply exploded, and
this time - - -.” At this juncture, the State again objected and
the trial court again sustained the objection. Defendant contends
that these rulings by the trial court prevented the jury from
hearing relevant evidence that likely would have resulted in a
different verdict. Specifically, defendant claims that the
proffered evidence regarding his state of mind would have lessened
the jury's perception about his degree of culpability.
Accordingly, defendant requests a new trial.
We decline to review defendant's argument.
“It is well established that an exception to
the exclusion of evidence cannot be sustained
where the record fails to show what thewitness' testimony would have been had he been
permitted to testify.” “[I]n order for a
party to preserve for appellate review the
exclusion of evidence, the significance of the
excluded evidence must be made to appear in
the record and a specific offer of proof is
required unless the significance of the
evidence is obvious from the record.”
State v. Golphin, 352 N.C. 364, 462, 533 S.E.2d 168, 231-32 (2000),
cert. denied, 532 U.S. 931, 149 L. Ed. 2d 305 (2001)(citations
omitted). In the instant case, defendant failed to make an offer
of proof of what Dr. Sultan would have testified to, and the
substance of her testimony is not apparent from the record.
Accordingly, defendant has waived this argument and the assignment
of error is overruled.
No error.
Judges BRYANT and GEER concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***