{
  "id": 8555537,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RAY THOMAS INGRAM",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ingram",
  "decision_date": "1971-03-31",
  "docket_number": "No. 7114SC170",
  "first_page": "709",
  "last_page": "712",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "10 N.C. App. 709"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "166 S.E. 2d 881",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 N.C. App. 484",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554404
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/4/0484-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 S.E. 627",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 N.C. 424",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650414
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/103/0424-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "101 S.E. 560",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 N.C. 810",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274436
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/178/0810-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 S.E. 2d 426",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 N.C. 272",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622412
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/250/0272-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 S.E. 2d 572",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 N.C. 528",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8576067
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/265/0528-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 S.E. 2d 569",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 N.C. 524",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8576044
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/265/0524-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 366,
    "char_count": 5827,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.561,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6033618176194828
    },
    "sha256": "52ba9df3f3dd6f0c4d6a3a4a74cc43af3a224fef4501c58ba4546be535c3ffd7",
    "simhash": "1:b768742a108ace10",
    "word_count": 969
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:51:53.441044+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RAY THOMAS INGRAM"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Judge.\nDefendant assigns as error that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury that receiving must be with a felonious intent. In his instructions to the jury the trial judge did not use the words \u201cfelonious intent\u201d in his definition of the offense of receiving stolen goods. However, there are other words which define the felonious intent as adequately as the word \u201cfelonious\u201d itself. For approval of phrases or words other than \u201cfelonious\u201d to describe felonious intent, see State v. Spratt, 265 N.C. 524, 144 S.E. 2d 569; State v. Mundy, 265 N.C. 528, 144 S.E. 2d 572; State v. Booker, 250 N.C. 272, 108 S.E. 2d 426; State v. Kirkland, 178 N.C. 810, 101 S.E. 560 and State v. Powell, 103 N.C. 424, 9 S.E. 627.\nWe have carefully reviewed the instructions to the jury and in our opinion the instructions adequately require the jury to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant acted with the requisite (felonious) intent. This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant undertakes to assign as error that the trial judge settled the case on appeal by correcting the official trial transcript to reflect the verdict to be that which the trial judge found as a fact to be the verdict rendered by the jury. In this connection defense counsel added to the Record on Appeal two affidavits which were not served on the Solicitor and which were never considered by the trial judge. These two affidavits will be disregarded by this Court, and the unauthorized adding of items to the Record on Appeal is condemned. State v. Houston, 4 N.C. App. 484, 166 S.E. 2d 881. This purported assignment of error is overruled.\nWe have considered defendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error and find them to be without merit. In our opinion defendant has received a fair and impartial trial, free of prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General Hensey, for the State.",
      "Winders, Williams & Darsie, by Charles Darsie, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RAY THOMAS INGRAM\nNo. 7114SC170\n(Filed 31 March 1971)\n1. Receiving Stolen Goods \u00a7 6\u2014 instructions \u2014 felonious intent\nAlthough the trial judge in his instructions did not use the words \u201cfelonious intent\u201d in defining the offense of receiving stolen goods, the instructions nonetheless adequately required the jury to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the requisite felonious intent.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 154\u2014 record on appeal \u2014 addition of unauthorized items\nDefense counsel\u2019s unauthorized adding of items to the record on appeal is condemned.\nAppeal by defendant from Biekett, Judge of Superior Court, 18 August 1970 Session, Durham Superior Court.\nDefendant and one James Arthur Farrington were charged jointly in a bill of indictment containing three counts: (1) Felonious breaking or entering, (2) felonious larceny, and (3) receiving stolen property of a value of more than $200.00 knowing it to have been stolen.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show the following. At about six o\u2019clock p.m. on 16 April 1970 Mr. R. A. Brunson closed and locked the premises of \u201cBrunson\u2019s,\u201d a retail appliance store, located on West Main Street in the city of Durham. At about four o\u2019clock a.m. the following morning (17 April 1970) an officer of the Durham Police observed a broken plate glass window at \u201cBrunson\u2019s.\u201d It was determined that two television sets, one Zenith and one Magnavox, had been taken from \u201cBrunson\u2019s\u201d display window at the point where the plate glass was broken. At approximately nine-thirty o\u2019clock a.m. of the same day (17 April 1970) another officer of the Durham Police observed the defendants at the rear of Scarborough Funeral Home in Durham. He observed defendants as they removed two television sets from the trunk of a 1970 Chrysler automobile, and carried them through the rear entrance into Scarborough Funeral Home. After defendants entered the Funeral Home they observed the officer inside and defendant Ingram remarked \u201cDamn, Man, you got the police in here.\u201d Defendant Ingram was carrying the Zenith and defendant Farrington was carrying the Magnavox. The officer detained both defendants and notified the detective bureau.\nDetective Moore went to the funeral home where he observed defendants and the two television sets. He escorted defendants, the television sets, and the 1970 Chrysler automobile to the police department. The television sets were identified as those missing from the display window of \u201cBrunson\u2019s.\u201d\nDetective Moore interrogated defendant Ingram at the police station where he was told the following by defendant Ingram:\n\u201cThat Ray Thomas Ingram told him that he had borrowed this Chrysler that belongs to Willie Tomlin and he stated that he and James Arthur Farrington and Willie Tomlin were out riding around and that Willie Tomlin went home to go to bed so he could go to work the next morning, and that he loaned his car to Ray Ingram. That Ray Thomas Ingram stated that he and Arthur Farrington went to two or three places drinking and that he got drunk after drinking heavily. That Ingram stated he had been drinking all night and that he went home sometime around one o\u2019clock. That James Arthur Farrington came and woke him up about 6:30 o\u2019clock and both of them went down around Papa Jack\u2019s on Pettigrew Street to get them a drink and that some man they didn\u2019t know came up and told them he had two television sets and wanted them to take them to Scarborough\u2019s Funeral Home. He stated that this man was driving a green Chevrolet with New Jersey license plates on it.\u201d\nDefendants offered no evidence.\nThe jury returned verdicts of \u201cnot guilty\u201d upon the breaking or entering and the larceny counts (counts 1 and 2), and a verdict of \u201cguilty\u201d upon the receiving count (count 3).\nDefendant Ray Thomas Ingram appealed.\nAttorney General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General Hensey, for the State.\nWinders, Williams & Darsie, by Charles Darsie, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0709-01",
  "first_page_order": 733,
  "last_page_order": 736
}