{
  "id": 8522313,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDY L. EVANS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Evans",
  "decision_date": "1992-01-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 9114SC230",
  "first_page": "236",
  "last_page": "239",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "105 N.C. App. 236"
    }
  ],
  "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": "284 U.S. 299",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        5719289
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1932,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/284/0299-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 L.Ed.2d 548",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        634223
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/495/0508-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 323,
    "char_count": 5385,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.781,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7505489702295385
    },
    "sha256": "204b7b95005a17f55034f0de8fd8278bcfd6dd8e01ea5e2b4cf2337638cad7b9",
    "simhash": "1:25e81b7d0d0ed6d8",
    "word_count": 870
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:24:40.355340+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Wells and Johnson concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDY L. EVANS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge.\nThe two assignments of error brought forward and argued on appeal present the question of whether the State was barred on double jeopardy grounds from prosecuting defendant for assault with a deadly weapon in violation of G.S. 14-34.2.\nThe Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides \u201c. . . nor shall any person be subject to the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . .\u201d The Supreme Court has consistently held that the \u201cDouble Jeopardy\u201d clause in the Fifth Amendment prohibits successive prosecutions for the same criminal act or transaction after conviction. Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. \u2014, 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990); Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932).\nIn Blockburger v. United States, supra, the Court held there is no violation of the Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy if each of the offenses for which the defendant is prosecuted as statutorily defined requires proof of a fact that the other does not.\nThe Court announced an additional standard for determining whether a double jeopardy violation had occurred in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. \u2014, 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990). In that case, the Court held that a second prosecution would be barred if the State sought to establish an essential element of the second offense by proving conduct for which the defendant was convicted in the first prosecution.\nDefendant concedes in his brief the charge of \u201cassault on a law enforcement officer ... as statutorily defined requires proof of a fact the traffic offenses previously tried do not . . .\u201d, and therefore, \u201cBlockburger ... does not bar the successive prosecution for assault.\u201d Defendant contends, however, his successive prosecution for assault was barred on double jeopardy grounds pursuant to Grady because the assault on a law enforcement officer arose out of the same course of conduct for which he had been previously charged and convicted in Orange County. We disagree.\nIn the present case, defendant was charged with assaulting a law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon in violation of G.S. 14-34.2 which provides in pertinent part:\nAny person who commits an assault with a firearm or any other deadly weapon upon any:\n(1) Law enforcement officer;\n... in the performance of his duties shall be guilty of a Class I felony.\nDefendant\u2019s conduct giving rise to this charge is that after being pursued and stopped by police officers, defendant ignored their order to get out of the car; and instead, accelerated the vehicle rapidly both forwards and backwards in an effort to strike Trooper Edwards. This evidence alone was sufficient to show that defendant had committed the offense charged in the second prosecution. Furthermore, none of defendant\u2019s conduct in the first prosecution was necessary to prove the elements of assault with a deadly weapon on a law enforcement officer in the second prosecution.\nTherefore, we hold the trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss on the grounds of double jeopardy.\nDefendant received a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Wells and Johnson concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Linda Anne Morris, for the State.",
      "Berman and Shangler, by Dean A. Shangler, for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDY L. EVANS\nNo. 9114SC230\n(Filed 21 January 1992)\nConstitutional Law \u00a7 186 (NCI4th)\u2014 assault on law officer with car \u2014 no double jeopardy\nIn a prosecution of defendant for assault on a law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon, an automobile, the trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss on the ground of double jeopardy where defendant was involved in a high speed chase giving rise to several misdemeanor traffic convictions; and the assault charge was based on defendant\u2019s conduct, occurring after he was pursued and stopped by officers, in accelerating his vehicle rapidly both forward and backward in an effort to strike the officer.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 266-268, 277, 279.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Hudson (Orlando FJ, Judge. Judgment entered 5 October 1990 in Superior Court, DURHAM County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 January 1992.\nDefendant was charged in a proper bill of indictment with the Class I felony of assaulting a law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon to wit an automobile in violation of G.S. 14-34.2. The evidence at trial tends to show the following:\nOn 2 August 1988, defendant was involved in a high speed chase with law enforcement officers which began in Orange County and continued into Durham County. Officers Edwards and Gordon executed a \u201crunning road block\u201d which brought defendant\u2019s car to a halt on the Falls Lake Bridge in Durham County. After defendant had stopped his car and while the officers were attempting to apprehend him, defendant attempted to run over Trooper Edwards.\nBefore trial, defendant made a motion to dismiss the assault charge on the grounds that this charge placed him in double jeopardy for the misdemeanor traffic offenses for which he was convicted in Orange County as a result of the high speed chase. The trial judge denied defendant\u2019s motion, and the jury subsequently found defendant guilty of assaulting a law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon. From a judgment imposing a prison sentence \u2022 of three years, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Linda Anne Morris, for the State.\nBerman and Shangler, by Dean A. Shangler, for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0236-01",
  "first_page_order": 264,
  "last_page_order": 267
}