dissenting.
I respectfully dissent and would vote no error. The majority opinion defines the scope of the defendant’s consent too narrowly and it unreasonably restricts the ability of law enforcement officers to investigate probable crimes when called to the scene. *39Eight shots were fired from the rifle. Seven wounds of entry were counted in the body of the husband.
The defendant testified that after the rifle was fired:
The next thing I remember is that he was lying on the floor hurt. I threw the gun behind me and went to him. I don’t remember the gun going off. He was laying face down on the floor and said “Get help.” I went to the telephone and dialed the operator to get help.
In response to a general call for help, the EMS personnel, Deputy Summers and Detective Philbeck were notified and sent to the Jolley home. By making this phone call, the defendant gave her consent for entry into the home to those who usually respond to such calls for help. The record shows that Deputy Summers arrived at 3:00 p.m. and found the EMS personnel performing CPR on Mr. Jolley. Detective Philbeck arrived at 3:05 p.m. The defendant in her brief does not object to Deputy Summers’ entry into her home, further indicating that her consent was not limited only to emergency medical technicians. Both officers saw the rifle in question in plain view. Detective Philbeck actually seized the rifle, along with eight .22 caliber shell casings from various spots about the den. I believe that the Constitution does not require such a technical tightrope walking of the rules of search and seizure. The constitutionality of a seizure should not depend on which officer arrived and entered the house first. The law enforcement officers’ legal authority to be in the house should not be lost, like losing one’s place in line, because the first officer to arrive had left the house to escort the defendant outside and because the officer who arrived five minutes later [but pursuant to the original call for help] failed to beat the body out of the house to justify exigent circumstances.
The majority opinion states that “[i]n the case at bar the only consent given was consent, in the form of a phone call, to come into the house to aid the victim. We do not believe that this invitation can properly be used to show consent to a search of the premises by an officer [Detective Philbeck] who was not involved in aiding the victim.” The defendant did not limit her consent in such a fashion and the officers called to her home were under no duty to ask how long consent would last. Detective Philbeck, like Deputy Summers, entered the premises to conduct a general in*40vestigation into a possible homicide. This entry was made possible without a warrant by the defendant’s consent. Also, contrary to the majority opinion, Philbeck searched only the kitchen-den area which made up one large open room in the Jolley home. He did not search the entire premises. The defendant’s consent and the limited search are in themselves sufficient to distinguish this case from Mincey v. Arizona, supra.
I would hold that the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by competent evidence and that the defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied.
In the alternative, applying the law of State v. Johnson, 310 N.C. 581, 313 S.E. 2d 580 (1984), I would vote to remand for a new voir dire hearing on both the subject of consent and exigent circumstances. As in Johnson, it could be said here that there is a lack of sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law in this case, as well as the lack of evidence in the transcript, for our review of the legality of the entry of law enforcement officers into the dwelling house pursuant to a general call for help. It could be that on this record that both the majority and myself are engaging in speculation.
I dissent.