The Supreme Court of North Carolina

Surname: 1
Name
Course
Tutor
Date
The Supreme Court of North Carolina
State of North Carolina v. Bruce Franklin Jerrett No. 228A82, 27th September 1983.
The defendant, Bruce Franklin Jerrett was convicted in the Supreme Court, Alleghany County, by Julius A. Rousseau, J. He was convicted of felonious breaking and entering, armed robbery and murder.
On 24th July 1981, Dallas Parsons and Edith Parsons lived in the Piney Creek Community, North Carolina. Mr. Parsons’ brother, Tom Parsons and Tony Parsons also lived in the house. Mrs. Parsons arrived home and found that her husband, Tom and Tony had all gone to bed. At around 3:00 a.m. she was woken up by gun shots. The defendant had shot Dallas Parsons and he dragged Mrs. Parsons from the bedroom to Tom’s room, from Tom’s room back to the bedroom to get her husband’s wallet and then to the automobile. The defendant said that he wanted to take her to Tennessee but on their way he decided to fuel the car at “The Pantry”. As they walked to the counter to pay for the gas, Mrs. Parsons whispered to Officer Caudle, who was standing in the counter that the defendant had a gun. The officer later arrested the defendant.
In his testimony, the defendant said that he had worked as a soldier in Vietnam and after that he had various experiences of post-traumatic stress. He used to pass out for some time and could not recall what happened when that occurred. He said that this was one of the cases and he did not know what happened during the day in question. Bruce Franklin Jerrett was charged with first-degree murder of Dallas Parsons. He was also charged for kidnapping Edith Parsons, armed robbery of Edith Parsons and Tom Parsons and felonious breaking and entering.
The trial court sentenced the defendant to death for the murder of Mr. Parsons, 40 years imprisonment for first-degree kidnapping and 10 years for felonious breaking and entering. Prior to the trial, the defendant moved to have the venue for the trial to be changed or have a special venire in a different county. These motions were denied by Judge Davis and later by Judge Rousseau. The denial of the motion to change the venue for the trial was erroneous and thus a new trial had to be done. In their testimonies, Deputy Sheriff Joe Vickerman, Mr. Harrill and Mr. Edmund Adams who an attorney who had no connections in the case all said that a jury who knew nothing about the case could not be appointed from the county. State v. McDougald; when such likelihood exists, a defendant’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury outweighs the interest local residents have when trying a defendant in their county.
He appealed the ruling. The Supreme Court held that: 1. Motion for change of venue by the defendant was denied in an improper way 2. Indictment to allege first degree kidnapping was sufficient 3. The trial court should have given instructions to the jury concerning defense of unconsciousness 4. Upon submitting aggravating circumstances to the jury, the trial court did not err.
The issue was; is it possible to appoint an impartial jury from the county bearing in mind that the case was highly publicized?
There was sufficient evidence to show that the case had been discussed throughout Alleghany County and it would be impossible to select a jury from the county who had not heard the case and this compromised justice for the defendant.
Justice Meyer joined in the majority opinion and the majority opinion was that a new trial should be done. This was because there was sufficient evidence to show that the jury was compromised. The crime occurred in a small county which was closely-knit. The case was thus different from United States v. Haldeman. The judges also relied on the fact that some jurors knew or where related in some way to the Pearsons.
Justice Mitchell was dissenting in part and concurring in part. She disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the defendant showed sufficient evidence of the impossibility of having a fair judgment. She also disagreed with the majority on the conclusion that a new trial should be undertaken. Otherwise she concurred with the opinion of the majority. She said that the trial court should have taken measures to ensure that the jury is insulated from publicity during trial.

/docProps/thumbnail.wmf

S
u
r
n
a
m
e
:

1

Name

Course

T
utor

Date

The Supreme Court of North Carolina

State of North Carolina v. Bruce Franklin Jerrett

No. 228A82,

27
th

September 1983
.

The defendant, Bruce Franklin Jerrett

was convicted in the Supreme Court, Alleghany
County, by Julius A. Rousseau, J. He was convicted of felonio
us breaking and entering, armed
robbery and murder.

On 24
th

July 1981, Dallas Parsons and Edith Parsons lived in the Piney Creek
Community, North Ca
rolina. Mr. Parsons’ brother, Tom Parsons and Tony Parsons also lived in
the house. Mrs. Parsons arrived home and found that her husband, Tom and Tony had all gone to
bed. At around 3:00 a.m. she was woken up by gun shots. The defendant had shot Dallas Par
sons
and he dragged
Mrs. Parsons from the bedroom to Tom’s room, from Tom’s room back to the
bedroom to get her
husband’s

wallet and then to the automobile. The defendant said that he
wanted to take her to Tennessee but on their way he decided to fuel

the
car at “The Pantry”. As
they walked to the counter to pay for the gas, Mrs. Parsons whispered to Officer Caudle, who
was standing in the counter that the defendant had a gun. The officer later arrested the defendant.

In his testimony, the defendant said t
hat he had worked as a soldier in Vietnam and after
that he had various experiences of post
–
traumatic stress. He used to pass out for
some time

and
could not recall what happened when that occurred. He said that this was one of the cases and he