Summary
holding that he burden of proof of prejudicial error is on the defendant
Summary of this case from State v. McKenithOpinion
No. 460A90
Filed 5 September 1991
Criminal Law 39, 85.2 (NCI3d) — misconduct toward coemployees — competency for rebuttal — race and ages of coemployees — harmless error In this prosecution for two rapes, two burglaries and two sexual offenses, the State was properly allowed to rebut testimony by defendant's employer that defendant was a good employee by questioning the employer about defendant's misconduct toward waitresses at the employer's restaurant by touching various parts of their bodies and telling them dirty jokes. Assuming that the ages and race of the waitresses was irrelevant to rebut evidence that defendant was a good employee, the admission of testimony that defendant particularly bothered two white waitresses of approximately the same ages as the victims was harmless error since it cannot be said that a different result would have been reached at trial had this testimony not been admitted. Moreover, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the danger of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value of this testimony.
Am Jur 2d, Evidence 340, 344.
APPEAL as of right by defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-30 (2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 99 N.C. App. 615, 394 S.E.2d 456 (1990), affirming judgment imposing life in prison plus fifty-four years entered by McLelland, J., at the 9 November 1987 Session of Superior Court, ALAMANCE County. Heard in the Supreme Court 11 March 1991.
Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Debra C. Graves, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, for defendant appellant.
Justice FRYE dissenting.
Chief Justice EXUM joins in this dissenting opinion.
The defendant was convicted of first degree burglary, first degree rape, and first degree sexual offense. This Court ordered a new trial in State v. Cotton, 318 N.C. 663, 351 S.E.2d 277 (1987), because of the exclusion of evidence that another rape had occurred under similar circumstances and there was evidence that another person had committed the other rape.
When the case was returned for trial the defendant was indicted for the other rape and attending crimes. The cases were consolidated for trial. The defendant was tried for two charges of first degree rape, two charges of first degree burglary, and two charges of first degree sexual offense. Two women testified at the trial. Each of them testified that the defendant broke into her house, raped her, and committed other sexual offenses in the early morning of 29 July 1984. The defendant was found guilty of first degree rape, second degree rape, first degree sexual offense, second degree sexual offense, and two charges of first degree burglary.
The Court of Appeals found no error with one judge dissenting. The defendant appealed to this Court.
The dissent in the Court of Appeals and the argument of the defendant on this appeal deal with testimony elicited by the State on redirect examination of a witness for the State. The State called the defendant's employer who operated a seafood restaurant. On cross-examination the employer was asked if the defendant was a good employee. The employer answered in the affirmative. On redirect examination the following colloquy occurred:
Q. Mr. Byrum, Mr. Moseley asked you previously about whether or not Mr. Cotton was a good employee of yours; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, during the time that Mr. Cotton was in your employ, did you have occasion to personally witness any problems with Mr. Cotton, while he was working for you?
A. Well, the one problem was with the waitress [sic]; it wasn't with doing his job.
Q. What kind of problem was it with the waitresses, Mr. Byrum?
A. He was always messing with them.
Q. How do you mean, "messing with them" Mr. Byrum?
A. Touching them.
Q. Touching them where?
A. On their shoulders, and their bodies, and their rears, and telling dirty jokes.
. . . .
Q. All right; and how old were the waitresses, Mr. Byrum?
A. They usually run like high school up to 50, 55.
Q. So, well, in particular, at the time that he was working for you, you had waitresses there between the ages of what, would you say?
A. 18 and 55.
Q. And, in particular, the waitresses that you — that he was touching on the rear end and touching on the shoulder; how old were they?
A. Between the same ages; it was not just —
A. It was not just one waitress; it was just about all of 'em.
. . . .
Q. And did that also pertain to all of the waitresses, and not just one or two?
A. Well, it was two, more than anybody else.
Q. All right, and do you recall the ages of those two waitresses?
A. One was like 18; and one was 47, I believe.
. . . .
Q. What was the race of these waitresses?
A. White.
The Court of Appeals, relying on State v. Albert, 303 N.C. 173, 277 S.E.2d 431 (1981), and State v. Fultz, 92 N.C. App. 80, 373 S.E.2d 445 (1988), held that when the defendant elicited testimony on the cross-examination of his employer that he was a good employee, the State was entitled to rebut this testimony by demonstrating his weakness as an employee by showing his misconduct with the waitresses. The Court of Appeals held that the superior court went too far and committed error when it allowed testimony as to the ages and race of the waitresses as this testimony was irrelevant in rebutting evidence that he was a good employee. The Court of Appeals held this was harmless error in light of the strong evidence against the defendant and his own equivocal testimony. Judge Johnson dissented on the ground that the evidence was not as strong as the majority contended and there was a reasonable possibility that this erroneously admitted testimony could have contributed to the conviction.
In this Court the defendant argues that the evidence against the defendant was not strong and the erroneous admission of evidence that the defendant had been offensive to women of the same age and race as the victims was prejudicial. He also argues that, assuming the testimony of his conduct with the waitresses had some probative value, it should have been excluded pursuant to N.C.G.S. 8C-1, Rule 403.
Assuming it was error to admit testimony as to the ages and race of the waitresses, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the defendant has not demonstrated he was prejudiced by this testimony. In order to show that erroneously admitted testimony is prejudicial, the defendant must show that had it not been admitted there is a reasonable possibility a different result would have been reached at the trial. State v. Martin, 322 N.C. 229, 367 S.E.2d 618 (1988); State v. Milby, 302 N.C. 137, 273 S.E.2d 716 (1981); N.C.G.S. 15A-1443 (1988). The Court of Appeals held that the evidence against the defendant was so strong there was not a reasonable possibility that a different result would have been reached at the trial. We place our holding on a different ground.
We begin our analysis by noting that the State was properly allowed to question the defendant's employer about the defendant's peccadilloes on the job after his employer had testified he was a good worker. State v. Albert, 303 N.C. 173, 277 S.E.2d 431. The thrust of the dissent and the defendant's argument in this Court is that by identifying two of the waitresses on whom the defendant made improper advances as white that this could have inflamed the jury because the defendant, a black, was being tried for raping two white women. We note that the defendant's employer in his testimony did not limit the defendant's molestations to the two white waitresses. He testified, "[i]t was not just one waitress, it was just about all of 'em" and "[w]ell, it was two, more than anybody else."
From the testimony of defendant's employer we can conclude the defendant had bothered virtually all the waitresses and particularly two white ones. We can assume the race of the two waitresses was irrelevant to rebut otherwise proper testimony and should not have been admitted. Irrelevant testimony is not always prejudicial. In this case the prejudicial effect of this testimony should have been slight. It was to the effect that the defendant bothered all the waitresses and in particular two white waitresses. We cannot say it has been demonstrated that had this testimony not been admitted a different result would have been reached at the trial. We hold the admission of this testimony was harmless error.
The defendant also contends that the admission of this testimony violated N.C.G.S. 8C-1, Rule 403 which provides:
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
Under this rule the court can exclude relevant evidence if the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value. State v. Mason, 315 N.C. 724, 340 S.E.2d 430 (1986). Whether to exclude evidence under this section is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge. State v. Schultz, 88 N.C. App. 197, 362 S.E.2d 853 (1987), aff'd, 322 N.C. 467, 368 S.E.2d 386 (1988).
The defendant argues that whether he was a good worker is collateral at best. He says that to allow testimony of his actions with women, under the guise of proving he was not a good employee, allows very damaging testimony which has little probative value in the case.
A new trial will be ordered for an abuse of discretion in not excluding testimony pursuant to Rule 403 only upon a showing that the "ruling was manifestly unsupported by reason and could not have been the result of a reasoned decision." State v. Penley, 318 N.C. 30, 41, 347 S.E.2d 783, 789 (1986), quoting, State v. Riddick, 315 N.C. 749, 756, 340 S.E.2d 55, 59 (1986). We cannot say that under this test it was error for the court not to exclude this testimony. The defendant elicited testimony that he was a good employee. The court allowed the State to elicit testimony to rebut this evidence. We cannot hold this was not the result of a reasoned decision.
This assignment of error is overruled.
Affirmed.