{
  "id": 11916035,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. COYE HAVEN KIRKPATRICK",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Kirkpatrick",
  "decision_date": "1995-10-03",
  "docket_number": "No. COA94-1322",
  "first_page": "405",
  "last_page": "406",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "120 N.C. App. 405"
    }
  ],
  "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": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-87",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 S.E.2d 550",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1955,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "551-52",
          "parenthetical": "addressing question in context of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-87"
        },
        {
          "page": "552"
        },
        {
          "page": "552"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 N.C. 262",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8623677
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1955,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "264",
          "parenthetical": "addressing question in context of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-87"
        },
        {
          "page": "264"
        },
        {
          "page": "265"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/243/0262-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-7.1",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-120",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 190,
    "char_count": 2777,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.754,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.095881014791859e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9094611307454604
    },
    "sha256": "c7682957bbeddd66b3c2ab83346eecaa7a86854273c5a4bfe37c76e221571512",
    "simhash": "1:abad884211ba64ca",
    "word_count": 462
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:17:04.771230+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WYNN and SMITH concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. COYE HAVEN KIRKPATRICK"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nCoye Haven Kirkpatrick (defendant) appeals from a judgment and commitment, entered after a jury verdict, sentencing him to forty-six years in prison for uttering an instrument bearing a forged endorsement, a Class I felony in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-120, enhanced by the finding that defendant is an habitual felon, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-7.1.\nDefendant was indicted for attempting to utter an instrument bearing a forged signature. The jury returned a verdict of uttering an instrument bearing a forged signature.\nThe dispositive issue is whether defendant\u2019s conviction is supported by the indictment with which he was charged.\nAlthough it is permissible to convict a defendant of a crime which is of a less degree than the crime with which he is charged or being tried, when there is evidence to support the conviction, our courts are not permitted \u201cto try a defendant for one offense and to convict him of another and greater offense, even though the conviction be of a higher degree of the same offense for which he is being tried.\u201d State v. Hare, 243 N.C. 262, 264, 90 S.E.2d 550, 551-52 (1955) (addressing question in context of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-87); compare N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-120 (1993) with N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-87 (1993) (both providing that an attempt is of the same degree as the substantive offense). Because defendant was convicted of the substantive crime of uttering an instrument bearing a forged signature and was only charged with the attempt to commit that crime, the conviction is insufficient to support the judgment and the judgment is void. Hare, 243 N.C. at 264, 90 S.E.2d at 552. This is so, even though the substantive crime and attempt to commit the crime of uttering an instrument bearing a forged signature are both included in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-120. Hare, 243 N.C. at 265, 90 S.E.2d at 552.\nVacated.\nJudges WYNN and SMITH concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General J. Mark Payne, for the State.",
      "Robert H. Hood III for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. COYE HAVEN KIRKPATRICK\nNo. COA94-1322\n(Filed 3 October 1995)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 1043 (NCI4th); Indictment, Information, and Criminal Pleadings \u00a7 57 (NCI4th)\u2014 defendant convicted of greater offense than that charged \u2014 judgment void\nBecause defendant was convicted of the substantive crime of uttering an instrument bearing a forged signature and was only charged with the attempt to commit that crime, the conviction is insufficient, to support the judgment and the judgment is void.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7 525; Indictments and Informations \u00a7\u00a7 257 et seq.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 21 April 1994 in Alamance County Superior Court by Judge J. B. Allen, Jr. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 September 1995.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General J. Mark Payne, for the State.\nRobert H. Hood III for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0405-01",
  "first_page_order": 439,
  "last_page_order": 440
}