{ "id": 8527707, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN STACEY HAIR", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hair", "decision_date": "1994-04-19", "docket_number": "No. 9312SC786", "first_page": "464", "last_page": "469", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "114 N.C. App. 464" } ], "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": "49 N.C. 524", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683149 ], "year": 1857, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "526" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/49/0524-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 N.C. 39", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8681036 ], "year": 1870, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "41-42" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/64/0039-01" ] }, { "cite": "417 S.E.2d 790", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "331 N.C. 384", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2501537, 2498724, 2497765, 2501256, 2502765 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/331/0384-04", "/nc/331/0384-02", "/nc/331/0384-05", "/nc/331/0384-03", "/nc/331/0384-01" ] }, { "cite": "411 S.E.2d 399", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "400" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 N.C. App. 717", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523841 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "718" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/104/0717-01" ] }, { "cite": "298 S.E.2d 380", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 438", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562658 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0438-01" ] }, { "cite": "392 S.E.2d 625", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "626", "parenthetical": "quoting Shew v. Southern Fire & Casualty Co., 307 N.C. 438, 298 S.E.2d 380 (1983)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "99 N.C. App. 184", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521639 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "187", "parenthetical": "quoting Shew v. Southern Fire & Casualty Co., 307 N.C. 438, 298 S.E.2d 380 (1983)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/99/0184-01" ] }, { "cite": "277 S.E.2d 515", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "532", "parenthetical": "substantial evidence required to withstand motion to dismiss" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "303 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571310 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "24", "parenthetical": "substantial evidence required to withstand motion to dismiss" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/303/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "163 S.E. 657", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1932, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "669" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 N.C. 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627454 ], "year": 1932, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "540" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/202/0518-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 A.2d 161", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "167" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 S.E.2d 692", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Begyn, 167 A.2d 161, 167 (N.J. 1961)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 N.C. 622", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564484, 8564389, 8564462, 8564441, 8564414 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Begyn, 167 A.2d 161, 167 (N.J. 1961)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/284/0622-05", "/nc/284/0622-01", "/nc/284/0622-04", "/nc/284/0622-03", "/nc/284/0622-02" ] }, { "cite": "200 S.E.2d 223", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "225" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "19 N.C. App. 684", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8555558 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "688" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/19/0684-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 S.E.2d 917", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1953, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "919" }, { "page": "920", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "238 N.C. 325", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607564 ], "year": 1953, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "328" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/238/0325-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-218", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 633, "char_count": 11082, "ocr_confidence": 0.766, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.5400785281729334e-08, "percentile": 0.3491612831481681 }, "sha256": "0736ee3269af89778fa5f224909cfacb71fac1ffca952325fc8acb7ae6d4586f", "simhash": "1:97638d62462a4756", "word_count": 1881 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:01:59.295429+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges JOHNSON and JOHN concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN STACEY HAIR" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nJohn Stacey Hair (defendant) appeals from judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of offering a bribe to an official in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-218.\nAt trial, the State presented evidence that on 18 June 1992, while in the office of Michael Tolbert (Tolbert), the chief law enforcement officer for the Cumberland County Alcohol Beverage Control Board (the ABC Board), defendant told Tolbert that he had a friend [Lacy Leroy Cashwell (Cashwell)] who owed him a $140 gambling debt and that if Tolbert \u201cwould arrange to arrest this individual and put some pressure on this individual to pay [the debt], that he [defendant] would pay [Tolbert] or either one of [his] officers $20.\u201d Tolbert, after reporting this conversation to his supervisor, on 14 August 1992 again met defendant and on this occasion, recorded the conversation on a concealed tape recorder.\nA transcript of the recorded conversation was admitted into evidence and included the following exchange:\nTolbert: . . : You said it was a $20 reward or a $30 reward.\nHair: to o\nTolbert: $20.\nHair: Yeah.\nHair: Here [handing Tolbert a $20 bill].\nHair: This is, this is for Cashwell.\nTolbert: Oh, this is for Cashwell.\nHair: Yeah.\nTolbert: ... I will tell him [Officer Corbett, who worked for Tolbert] when I see him that I, uh, I will tell him that I\u2019ve got his $20 bill, but when he earns it, I will give it to him.\nHair: Alright [sic].\nTolbert: Well, do you want him to arrest him, or just harass him[?]\nHair: Just, just, no he is being, no I don\u2019t want him arrested right now, as long as he is paying, if he pays the thing off, that\u2019s all I\u2019m concerned with. Paying me was not the big thing. Not letting him get by with it was the big thing.\nOn 17 and 18 August 1992, defendant visited the office of Richard Sams (Sams), a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent. Sams testified that defendant told him that he had asked Tolbert if Tolbert could get Cashwell stopped or arrested for driving while impaired and that if he could, defendant would give Tolbert $20.\nTolbert testified that his duties are to \u201csee that the laws and regulations relating to alcohol and controlled substances are enforced.\u201d He stated that he did not have a \u201cspecific duty relating to [driving while impaired] offenses\u201d but that he had \u201cauthority\u201d to arrest for any criminal offense that occurred within his jurisdiction.\nOn 10 December 1992, Cashwell paid the gambling debt in full.\nAt the close of the State\u2019s evidence, defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss was denied. Defendant renewed this motion at the close of all the evidence and it was again denied.\nDefendant received a suspended two year sentence, a $1,000 fine, and was ordered to pay restitution of $140 to Cashwell.\nThe issues presented are whether (I) the offer of money to an ABC enforcement officer with the request that the officer arrest or stop a person for driving while impaired is a bribe within the meaning of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-218 (1993); and (II) restitution as a condition of a criminal judgment can include the requirement that defendant return, to the loser, money paid on a gambling debt.\nI\nThe North Carolina statute making it a felony to offer a bribe, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-218, \u201cneither defines bribery, nor sets forth its essential elements.\u201d State v. Greer, 238 N.C. 325, 328, 77 S.E.2d 917, 919 (1953). Our Supreme Court has defined bribery in general terms as\nthe voluntary offering [or] giving ... of any sum of money, present or thing of value with the corrupt intent to influence the recipient\u2019s action as a public officer or official, or a person whose ordinary profession or business relates to the administration of public affairs, ... in the performance of any official duty required of him. The bribe must be intended, however, to influence the recipient in the discharge of a legal duty, and not a mere moral duty.\nId. at 328, 77 S.E.2d at 920 (emphasis added).\nDefendant contends the evidence in this case is insufficient in two respects. First, that the official duties of Tolbert and the other ABC enforcement officers do not include arresting or stopping persons for driving while impaired. Second, that defendant had no corrupt intent.\nOfficial Duty\nThe evidence in this record is that the Cumberland County ABC enforcement officers had the \u201cauthority\u201d to arrest for driving while impaired. There is no evidence that they had a specific duty to do so. This evidence is consistent with the statute which provides that a local ABC officer \u201cmay arrest ... for any criminal offense; however, the primary responsibility ... is enforcement of the ABC [and controlled substance] laws.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 18B-501(b) (1989).\nDefendant contends that the offer of money to a public official with intent to influence that official in the performance of some act which the official is authorized to perform, but not obligated to perform, cannot be bribery. We disagree. We do not construe the term \u201cofficial duty,\u201d as used in Greer as having reference only to those duties the official is obligated to perform. Official duties include any actions authorized. \u201cSufficient it is if he has official power, ability or apparent ability to bring about or contribute to the desired end.\u201d State v. Stanley, 19 N.C. App. 684, 688, 200 S.E.2d 223, 225 (1973), cert. denied, 284 N.C. 622, 201 S.E.2d 692 (1982) (quoting State v. Begyn, 167 A.2d 161, 167 (N.J. 1961)); see 4 Charles E. Torcia, Wharton\u2019s Criminal Law \u00a7 687 (14th ed. 1981) (only necessary that act fall within the general duties of the official); 11 C.J.S. Bribery \u00a7 2, at 846-47 (1938).\nCorrupt Intent\nDefendant argues that corrupt intent \u201cimplies an effort to obstruct lawful performance of an act\u201d and because he did not seek \u201can illegal arrest or any improper detention\u201d there was no corrupt intent. We disagree. A corrupt intent means \u201ca wrongful design to acquire some pecuniary profit or other advantage.\u201d 1 William L. Burdick, Law of Crime \u00a7 292, at 434-35 (1946). The offeror of a bribe to a public official therefore possesses a corrupt intent if his purpose in offering the bribe is to gain some advantage for himself, without regard to whether he seeks the performance or the nonperformance of an official duty. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-217 (bribery for official to receive anything of value \u201cfor performing or omitting to perform any official act\u201d).\nIn this case, there is substantial evidence that defendant\u2019s intent in offering the bribe to Tolbert was to use Tolbert\u2019s authority, which was apparent to defendant, as an ABC officer for his own personal gain, i.e., the harassment of Cashwell into paying off a gambling debt. See State v. Shipman, 202 N.C. 518, 540, 163 S.E. 657, 669 (1932).\nIn summary, the State offered substantial evidence of each element of the crime of bribery, and therefore, the trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss. See State v. McCoy, 303 N.C. 1, 24, 277 S.E.2d 515, 532 (1981) (substantial evidence required to withstand motion to dismiss).\nII\nAs a condition of probation, a court may order a defendant to \u201cmake restitution or reparation to an aggrieved party or parties . . . for the damages or loss caused by the defendant arising out of the offense or offenses committed by the defendant.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1343(d) (Supp. 1993). \u201cRestitution\u201d is defined as \u201ccompensation for damage or loss as could ordinarily be recovered by an aggrieved party in a civil suit,\u201d id., although \u201ccivil liability need not be established as a prerequisite to the requirement of restitution as a probation condition.\u201d State v. Smith, 99 N.C. App. 184, 187, 392 S.E.2d 625, 626 (1990) (quoting Shew v. Southern Fire & Casualty Co., 307 N.C. 438, 298 S.E.2d 380 (1983)).\nGambling debts incurred in North Carolina are not enforceable in the courts of this state. MGM Desert Inn, Inc. v. Holz, 104 N.C. App. 717, 718, 411 S.E.2d 399, 400 (1991), disc. rev. denied, 331 N.C. 384, 417 S.E.2d 790 (1992). Furthermore, one who pays a gambling debt owed to another, may not subsequently attempt to recover that which he has paid. See Teague v. Perry, 64 N.C. 39, 41-42 (1870); Warden v. Plummer, 49 N.C. 524, 526 (1857).\nIndependent of statute, the rule is that there is no remedy for the loser where money or property is delivered in payment of or on account of a gambling contract or transaction, since the law will not lend its aid to a party in either the execution or the rescission of such a contract, the maxim, \u201cex turpi causa non oritur actio,\u201d applying, and the loser being regarded as in pari delicto with the winner in such cases.\n38 Am. Jur. 2d Gambling \u00a7 212, at 259 (1968). There is no statute in North Carolina which allows one who pays a gambling debt to recover what he has paid. Accordingly, Cashwell could not recover the $140 he paid defendant from defendant in a civil suit. As such, that portion of the trial court\u2019s judgment requiring defendant to pay $140 restitution to Cashwell must be vacated.\nWe have reviewed and overrule the other assignments of error made by defendant.\nTrial: No error.\nJudgment: Vacated in part.\nJudges JOHNSON and JOHN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "GREENE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by David F. Hoke, Ms-sistant Attorney General, for the State.", "Harris, Mitchell & Hancox, by Ronnie M. Mitchell and G. Robert Hicks III, and Doran J. Berry, by Doran J. Berry, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN STACEY HAIR\nNo. 9312SC786\n(Filed 19 April 1994)\n1. Bribery \u00a7 3 (NCI4th)\u2014 bribery of ABC officer \u2014authority to arrest for driving while impaired \u2014corrupt intent \u2014 evidence sufficient\nThere was sufficient evidence of bribery of a public officer where the State presented evidence that defendant offered an ABC enforcement officer $20 to arrest an individual for driving while impaired because the individual owed him a gambling debt. Although defendant contends that the official duties of ABC enforcement officers do not include arresting or stopping persons for driving while impaired, official duties include any actions authorized and there was evidence in the record that officers had the authority to arrest for driving while impaired. There was substantial evidence of corrupt intent in that defendant\u2019s intent in offering the bribe was to use the officer\u2019s authority for defendant\u2019s personal gain. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-218.\nAm Jur 2d, Bribery \u00a7\u00a7 12 et seq.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 1430 (NCI4th)\u2014 bribery of public official \u2014 payment of gambling debt \u2014restitution \u2014repayment of gambling debt\nA portion of a judgment requiring a bribery defendant to pay in restitution the amount of a gambling debt which had been paid to him was vacated because the amount could not have been recovered in a civil suit. Gambling debts incurred in North Carolina are not enforceable in the courts of the state and there is no statute which allows one who pays a gambling debt to recover what he has paid. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1343(d).\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 588 et seq.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 19 February 1993 in Cumberland County Superior Court by Judge Wiley F. Bowen. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 March 1994.\nMichael F. Easley, Attorney General, by David F. Hoke, Ms-sistant Attorney General, for the State.\nHarris, Mitchell & Hancox, by Ronnie M. Mitchell and G. Robert Hicks III, and Doran J. Berry, by Doran J. Berry, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0464-01", "first_page_order": 492, "last_page_order": 497 }