Sex dating in earl north carolina


The jury recommended a sentence of death for each conviction and the trial court entered judgment accordingly. In responding, defendant explained that he was tired and would answer more questions after he slept.

The jury also found defendant guilty of three counts of first-degree burglary and three counts of first-degree rape. Under these circumstances, defendant's “no” was ambiguous, and the officer did not violate defendant's constitutional rights by asking for amplification. SENTENCING PROCEEDING ISSUES Defendant argues that the trial court erred in relying on his criminal conduct that occurred after the murders when it determined not to submit as a mitigating circumstance defendant's lack of significant prior history of criminal activity, pursuant to N.

sex dating in earl north carolina-9

Trauma to both her vagina and rectum indicated that she had been sexually assaulted after losing consciousness during the attack.

Sperm was detected in vaginal and rectal smears and on the fitted sheet on Ms. No perpetrator was identified at the time, so the evidence containing the sperm was placed in frozen storage at the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) for possible future use.

Defendant was told that he was not under arrest and could return to work after the interview was completed. Here, the reports concern routine, nonadversarial matters.

When defendant agreed, the officers gave him a ride to the police department. Once at the police station, the officers informed defendant that his DNA had been matched to the evidence in some unsolved cases and asked him to explain his involvement in the crimes. Although the record is silent, common experience tells us that such reports are prepared for a number of purposes, including statistical analysis and construction of databases. Thus, potential use in court was only one purpose among several served by the creation and compilation of Agent Spittle's reports.

On 30 April 2001, defendant was working at a poultry processing plant. Ed.2d at 203 (“Where nontestimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the Framers' design to afford the States flexibility in their development of hearsay law․”).