State v. Patterson
420 S.E.2d 98, 23 A.L.R. 5th 917, 332 N.C. 409 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A composite picture of a perpetrator, prepared by police based on an eyewitness's description, is not a 'statement' under North Carolina Rule of Evidence 801(a) and therefore is not inadmissible hearsay.
Facts:
- Thomas Avant and the defendant, Patterson, agreed to rob a Shoney's Restaurant in Greensboro.
- On April 9, 1977, around 1:00 or 2:00 a.m., they entered the restaurant, and Patterson, carrying a .22 caliber pistol, announced it was a 'stick up.'
- When the manager, Ralph Schultz, was unable to open the office safe, Patterson struck him on the head with the pistol two or three times.
- Avant took all the money from the cash register.
- Patterson and Avant then locked all the employees in a cold storage room before leaving the restaurant.
- The day after the robbery, a police investigator created composite sketches of the robbers using an 'Identi-kit' based on descriptions provided by four eyewitnesses.
- Several days later, Avant was arrested; he then sent a message to Patterson telling him to 'get out of town.'
- Twelve years later, Patterson was located in California.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant, Patterson, was indicted for robbery with a firearm.
- Patterson was tried in the Superior Court, Guilford County, which is a state trial court.
- A jury found Patterson guilty of the charged offense.
- The trial court entered a judgment against Patterson, imposing a sentence of life imprisonment.
- Patterson, as the appellant, appealed the conviction to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals found no prejudicial error in the trial and affirmed the conviction.
- The North Carolina Supreme Court, the state's highest court, granted Patterson's petition for discretionary review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a composite picture of a perpetrator, prepared by police based on an eyewitness's description, constitute an inadmissible 'statement' under the hearsay rule (North Carolina Rule of Evidence 801(a))?
Opinions:
Majority - Mitchell, Justice.
No, a composite picture of a perpetrator prepared by police pursuant to the directions of a witness does not constitute a 'statement' under North Carolina Rule of Evidence 801(a) and is therefore not hearsay. The court reasoned that such a composite picture is the functional equivalent of a photograph, as it merely reflects the perpetrator’s likeness as recorded by the witness’s eyes, not the witness’s camera. Because it is a nonverbal mode of testimony akin to a chart or map, and not an 'assertion' intended by a declarant, it does not fall within the definition of hearsay. While the court held that the sketches in this specific case were erroneously admitted due to a failure of proper authentication, it found the error harmless because two eyewitnesses provided unequivocal in-court identifications of the defendant.
Concurring - Frye, Justice.
Yes, a composite picture is hearsay and should have been excluded. The concurrence argues that a sketch is merely a silent depiction of a witness's verbal 'assertion' about a suspect's appearance. Had the police artist simply repeated the witnesses' verbal descriptions, it would be undeniable hearsay; transforming those words into a picture does not change its fundamental nature as an out-of-court statement offered for its truth. The concurring justices agreed with the majority's final result only because the admission was harmless error, given the other overwhelming evidence of guilt, and because the pictures were also inadmissible for failing the authentication requirement.
Analysis:
This decision establishes an important precedent in North Carolina evidence law by classifying police composite sketches as non-hearsay. By treating them as the 'functional equivalent of a photograph,' the court makes them more easily admissible as substantive evidence, distinct from out-of-court testimonial statements. This ruling aids prosecutors in using such visual aids to identify suspects. However, the strong concurrence highlights a significant jurisprudential disagreement, arguing this approach blurs the line between pictorial evidence and testimonial assertions, potentially circumventing the protections of the hearsay rule.
