{
  "id": 8556514,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE JAMES WILDER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wilder",
  "decision_date": "1971-07-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 7114SC395",
  "first_page": "690",
  "last_page": "692",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "11 N.C. App. 690"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 327,
    "char_count": 6437,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.596,
    "sha256": "9b9c7a60f2135171ac85b0c631e618c540c94aba68edfe083fc81448f133e49e",
    "simhash": "1:522d83b93350b051",
    "word_count": 1123
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:46.806740+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Brock and Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE JAMES WILDER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nBy an exception to the denial of his motion for judgment as of nonsuit, the defendant contends that the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to the State, is not sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the charge of larceny of property having a value in excess of $200.\nThe bill of indictment charged the defendant with the theft of an auto tape player, twenty-four tapes, and a dress, having an aggregate value of $230.21. The evidence tended to show that the dress had a value of $25, but there is no evidence whatsoever connecting the defendant with the theft of the dress. The auto tape player was described in the bill of indictment as having serial number CE 1084. The tape player identified and introduced into evidence at the trial as State\u2019s Exhibit 2 was valued by its owner at $90; however, according to the testimony of the owner it bore serial number 0147.\nThe officer testified that he found several tape players in the wooded area \u201csimilar\u201d to State\u2019s Exhibit 2.\nIn his brief defendant states:\n\u201cThus, while there was evidence sufficient to allow a finding of guilty of the lesser offense, there was no evidence to sustain that the value was in excess of $200.00; and as to that charge, a motion as of nonsuit should have been allowed.\u201d\nThe evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to the State, would allow the jury to find that the defendant took a variety of tapes from the automobile of the prosecuting witness. These tapes, together with the case in which they were kept, were identified and introduced into evidence as State\u2019s Exhibit 1. State\u2019s1 Exhibit 1, together with several tape players and some loose tapes, was recovered by the police from the wooded area where the defendant and his companions were found and taken into custody. There is no evidence that the variety of tapes, State\u2019s Exhibit 1, had a value in excess of $200.\nThe court correctly denied the defendant\u2019s motion for judgment as of nonsuit, but the court should have submitted the case to the jury only as to the larceny of the variety of tapes, for there is no evidence in the record tending to show that the defendant stole the dress or the tape player.\nThe evidence will not support a verdict of guilty of felonious larceny. For error in submitting the case to the jury on the charge of larceny of property having a value in excess of $200, the defendant is entitled to a new trial on the charge of the larceny of the tapes described in the bill of indictment, and having a value of less than $200.\nNew trial.\nJudges Brock and Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Staff Attorney William Lewis Sauls for the State.",
      "A. H. Borland for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE JAMES WILDER\nNo. 7114SC395\n(Filed 14 July 1971)\nLarceny \u00a7 7\u2014 felonious larceny \u2014 insufficiency of evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence was insufficient to support a verdict of guilty of the felony of larceny of property having a value in excess of $200.\nOn certiorari as a substitute for an appeal by defendant from Bickett, Judge, 28 September 1970 Session of Superior Court held in Durham County.\nThe defendant, Willie James Wilder, was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with felonious larceny of one auto tape player, twenty-four tapes and a dress, of the value of $230.21, the property of Jewel Dianne Davis. Upon the defendant\u2019s plea of not guilty, the State offered evidence tending to show that on 12 May 1970 Jewel Dianne Davis parked her 1962 blue Galaxie Ford automobile in the White Optical Laboratories parking lot at about 12:30 p.m. She locked her automobile and returned to her place of employment. Miss Davis testified: \u201cThere was a dress, a tape player, and a tape case which I think holds 24 tapes.\u201d Miss Davis returned after work, at about 5:00 o\u2019clock. She discovered the lock on the door to her automobile broken and the dress, the tape player, the case and the tapes were missing. Miss Davis reported the matter to the Durham police and went to the police station where she saw several tape players and identified her tape player, case and tapes. The witness, in court, identified her tape case with a variety of tapes inside which was introduced as State\u2019s Exhibit 1. She also identified her tape player, by serial number 0147, which was introduced into evidence as State\u2019s Exhibit 2. The dress was never recovered. With respect to the value of the property, the witness testified: \u201cThe tape player is worth $90.00 and each tape is worth $5.88 except for two worth $16.00; the case is worth $10.00.\u201d\nJoseph Kafina testified that from an office on the fifth floor of the rear of the Snow Building he observed the defendant and three other persons in a parking lot. The defendant tried unsuccessfully to get into a white Chevrolet. The witness saw the defendant get into a green and white Chevrolet. When the four persons observed by the witness left the parking lot and went into some woods, the defendant was carrying \u201can armful (a couple) of tape players.\u201d The witness testified that he saw a juvenile hand a tape player to the defendant. Mr. Kafina called the police and directed them to the woods and observed them come out of the woods with the four persons he had seen in the parking lot, including the defendant. He later went to the police station where he identified them. Mr. Kafina testified that he was able to identify the defendant and the other three persons from their clothes but that he could not identify them from their facial features.\nDurham Police Officer Earl Francis testified that on 12 May 1970 he saw the defendant in a wooded area approximately 500 feet from the White Optical Company\u2019s parking lot. The defendant and three other persons were standing with their backs to the witness watching another policeman. The defendant, along with the others was ordered out of the woods by the witness and turned over to another officer. Officer Francis testified: \u201cI went into the wooded area where I found the case (State\u2019s Exhibit 1), Several Tape Players SIMILAR to State\u2019s Exhibit 2, an umbrella and some loose tapes.\u201d\nAt the close of the State\u2019s evidence the defendant\u2019s motion for judgment as of nonsuit was denied. The defendant offered no evidence. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged in the bill of indictment, and from a judgment of imprisonment of not less than five nor more than seven years, the defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Staff Attorney William Lewis Sauls for the State.\nA. H. Borland for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0690-01",
  "first_page_order": 714,
  "last_page_order": 716
}