Darryl E. Hunt won a new trial yesterday from the N.C. Supreme Court, which ruled that prosecutors improperly used hearsay evidence to convict Hunt in June 1985 in the rape and killing of a Winston-Salem newspaper copy editor.
The Court ruled 5-2 that the state's use of a statement by Hunt's girlfriend so damaged Hunt's case that he deserves a new trial.
It will be up to District Attorney Warren Sparrow to decide whether to try the case again or dismiss the charges. Sparrow said that he has not yet made that decision.
Hunt, 24, of Winston-Salem, was convicted June 14, 1985, of first-degree murder in the stabbing of 26-year-old Deborah B. Sykes, a copy editor at The Sentinel, Winston-Salem's defunct afternoon newspaper.
Her body was found raped and stabbed Aug. 10, 1984, in a field two blocks from the paper. The case took on racial overtones because Mrs. Sykes was white and Hunt is black.
Hunt will remain in prison for now because he is serving a 40-year sentence for his conviction in October 1987 on another murder charge. The N.C. Court of Appeals overturned that conviction Oct. 18. But the state Supreme Court agreed in February to review the ruling.
James E. Ferguson II, who is part of the defense team in both cases, said yesterday that he will ask the Supreme Court to release Hunt either on bail or on his own recognizance until it decides what to do about the 1987 conviction.
The court ruled in the Sykes case that the statements by Marie Crawford, a mentally retarded teen-age prostitute, should not have been accepted in evidence.
During the trial prosecutors asked Ms. Crawford about statements that they said she made to a detective. The statements said that she, Hunt and another friend spent the night of Aug. 9, 1985, in a motel downtown. The statements said that Hunt and the other friend left the motel about 6 a.m., 45 minutes before police say Mrs. Sykes was attacked. The statements also say that Hunt told Ms. Crawford that he had raped Mrs. Sykes and that his friend stabbed her.
Ms. Crawford denied making either statement and testified at the trial that she did not know where Hunt was the night of Aug. 9, 1985. But Judge C. Preston Cornelius allowed prosecutors to enter the statements into the record.
He told the jury that the statements should not be considered as evidence about where Hunt was at the time of the murder. Cornelius said that jurors should use them only to decide whether Ms. Crawford was telling the truth when she testified.
Hunt and several witnesses testified that he was at the home of friends from 6:30 p.m. Aug. 9, 1985, to 8:30 a.m. the next day -- nearly two hours after Mrs. Sykes was attacked.
Prosecutors argued in closing arguments that Ms. Crawford's testimony proved that Hunt's alibi was a lie. But actually it was her statements, which were not sworn testimony, that attacked the alibi.
The Supreme Court said that there is no way that the statements could be considered admissible evidence. It said that Cornelius should not have allowed them to be introduced into evidence because the chance that they would be misused by prosecutors outweighed their value in helping the jury assess Ms. Crawford's truthfulness.
Justices Burley B. Mitchell Jr. and Louis B. Meyer dissented from the court's opinion that Hunt should be given a new trial.
They agreed that Cornelius should not have let prosecutors use the statements. But they said that there was more than enough other evidence to convict Hunt. They said that the mistake of letting the statements into the record was not serious enough to affect the jury's verdict.
But four justices agreed with Justice Harry C. Martin in finding that "there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached."
Hunt's supporters cheered yesterday's Supreme Court ruling.
Former Alderman Larry D. Little, now a local lawyer, said: "It's the best news I've heard in a long, long time. He was unjustly convicted of a crime. This decision today really rejuvenates my spirits."
Cornelius and former District Attorney Donald K. Tisdale, who prosecuted the case, said yesterday that the ruling would be difficult for Mrs. Sykes' family.
Tisdale said: "The only person I really hate this for is Mrs. (Evelyn) Jefferson because her daughter was so brutally murdered. This makes it all seem like it was for nothing."
Mrs. Jefferson did not want to discuss the ruling yesterday. "Until I find out more about what is going on, I don't want to say anything about it," she said.
After Hunt had been charged, Little and other local leaders organized a Darryl Hunt Defense Committee. They said Hunt was railroaded because police and prosecutors needed a scapegoat for a heinous crime that alarmed city residents.
They pushed for a city investigation of the Police Department's handling of the case. The city manager's reporter, submitted Nov. 20, 1985, was very critical of the entire case. The lead detective, J.I. Daulton, was demoted and his law-enforcement license was revoked. Two supervisors were suspended, and Joseph E. Masten, then the police chief, was reprimanded.
In a hastily called press conference yesterday, members of the defense committee called on Sparrow to drop the case against Hunt.
The Rev. John Mendez of Emmanuel Baptist Church, said: "We hope that Mr. Sparrow sees the handwriting on the wall and for once in his life will be fair. If he tries to be fair he will see that he cannot afford to try this again."
"I'm not going to say right now, not until I talk to the investigators and members of the family," he said.
He said that he and his assistants have discussed the possibility that Hunt's conviction would be overturned.
"But it's not the kind of thing you decide until the proper time," he said.
Sparrow said that he expects to make his decision quickly, probably within the next two weeks.
There obviously would be some difficulties in retrying the case. Defense attorneys would probably seek to discredit any testimony by Daulton by pointing out that he was demoted for his handling of the case.
Another key prosecution witness, Johnny Gray, has since been convicted of murder himself. Gray was the only person who testified that he saw Hunt actually attacking Mrs. Sykes, although two others placed Hunt near the scene before and after the attack.
And Sparrow could face political problems.
Sparrow defeated Tisdale in a Democratic primary in 1986, largely because of backlash from black voters over Tisdale's handling of the Hunt case. Members of the defense committee were quick to remind Sparrow of that fact.
Khalid Fattah Griggs said at the press conference, "We hope and encourage that Sparrow will take a firm stand for justice...."
"Sparrow has a golden opportunity to bring some healing to this town," he said. "The defense committee will be here to nudge him in that direction."
Tisdale, who has said repeatedly that he believes Hunt is guilty, said he would assist Sparrow in preparing to prosecute the case again if Sparrow so asks. But he conceded that trying the case a second time would be difficult.
"Some people have given the opinion that it absolutely can't be tried again," he said. "Of course, they thought that it couldn't be tried the first time."