State v. Hunt

*69Judge WHICHARD

dissenting.

The majority opinion phrases the question before the court as “whether, when defendant saw that his wife had been shot by her own son, it would have been natural for him to have said so. . . .” The majority so phrases the question because they read “[t]he only question in Lane,” 301 N.C. 382, 271 S.E. 2d 273 (1980), to be “whether it would have been natural for defendant to have explained his alibi prior to trial.” Having so framed the question, the majority is able to hold that “silence about that which, if true, any rational person would have spoken” may be used to…