{ "id": 8551039, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GILBERT HOOD", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hood", "decision_date": "1971-12-15", "docket_number": "No. 718SC510", "first_page": "170", "last_page": "173", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "13 N.C. App. 170" } ], "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": "175 S.E. 2d 716", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "9 N.C. App. 94", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548361 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/9/0094-01" ] }, { "cite": "145 S.E. 2d 892", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "266 N.C. 328", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560513 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/266/0328-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 S.E. 2d 180", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "243 N.C. 779", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627320 ], "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/243/0779-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 S.E. 2d 781", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 658", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627686 ], "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/254/0658-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 S.E. 2d 293", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "7 N.C. App. 345", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549825 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/7/0345-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 755", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 561", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561152 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0561-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 S.E. 2d 814", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "12 N.C. App. 178", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548486 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/12/0178-01" ] }, { "cite": "183 S.E. 2d 820", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "12 N.C. App. 487", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550571 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/12/0487-01" ] }, { "cite": "393 U.S. 410", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11317375 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/393/0410-01" ] }, { "cite": "378 U.S. 108", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6165107 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/378/0108-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 424, "char_count": 7029, "ocr_confidence": 0.551, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.2269389344706595e-07, "percentile": 0.7785017582106138 }, "sha256": "43a9e1bf17d6e5c53b3cce21cbcfff82c445ee5bb552fb34d496e1172e9df92e", "simhash": "1:6326346a6536d027", "word_count": 1187 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:15.024983+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Graham concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GILBERT HOOD" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nDefendant first assigns as error the court\u2019s denial of his motion to quash the search warrant and suppress the evidence obtained from the search of the defendant\u2019s premises for that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued failed to meet the test for probable cause required by the decisions' of the Supreme Court of the United States in the ease of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 12 L. ed. 2d 723, 84 S.Ct. 1509 (1964) ; Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 21 L. ed. 2d 637, 89 S.Ct. 584 (1969). The requirements of Aguilar and Spinelli have been thoroughly discussed by the appellate courts in this State. Suffice it to say, in the instant case we have carefully examined the search warrant and the attached affidavit in the light of Article 4, Chapter 15, of the General Statutes of North Carolina, which was rewritten in 1969 to be effective upon its ratification on 19 June 1969, and in the light of the decisions in Aguilar v. Texas, supra; Spinelli v. United States, supra; State v. Flowers, 12 N.C. App. 487, 183 S.E. 2d 820 (1971) ; State v. Moye, 12 N.C. App. 178, 182 S.E. 2d 814 (1971); State v. Vestal, 278 N.C. 561, 180 S.E. 2d 755 (1971) ; and State v. Staley, 7 N.C. App. 345, 172 S.E. 2d 293 (1970), and we hold the search warrant and the attached affidavit are in substantial compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements.\nDefendant contends the judge expressed an opinion, in violation of G.S. 1-180, by interrupting direct and cross-examination to ask questions of witnesses. An examination of all the exceptions noted in the record upon which this assignment of error is based reveals that all of the questions complained of were asked by the judge of S.B.I. Agents Campbell and Dismukes and related to their packaging, mailing, receipt, and opening of the small matchbox and its contents. It is a well settled rule in this State that a trial judge may ask questions of a witness in order to obtain a proper understanding and clarification of the witness\u2019 testimony. State v. Strickland, 254 N.C. 658, 119 S.E. 2d 781 (1961); Andrews v. Andrews, 243 N.C. 779, 92 S.E. 2d 180 (1956); Wilkins v. Turlington, 266 N.C. 328, 145 S.E. 2d 892 (1966); State v. Blalock, 9 N.C. App. 94, 175 S.E. 2d 716 (1970). We hold the questions asked by the judge in the instant case were clearly for the purpose of obtaining a proper understanding and clarification of the witnesses\u2019 testimony and did not in any way amount to an expression of opinion, in violation of the statute. This assignment of error is not sustained.\nBased on one exception in the record, the defendant contends the court erred in admitting into evidence over defendant\u2019s objection State\u2019s Exhibits 1, 2 and 3. This assignment of error has no merit. The matchbox and its contents (State\u2019s Exhibit 1), the small envelope in which the matchbox and its contents were sealed (State\u2019s Exhibit 2), and the large envelope in which the small envelope and matchbox were mailed to the S.B.I. Laboratory (State\u2019s Exhibit 3), were all properly identified by the witnesses Campbell and Dismukes at the trial, and the court did not commit prejudicial error in allowing the State to introduce these exhibits into evidence.\nNext, the defendant contends the court erred in denying his motion for judgment as of nonsuit made at the close of all the evidence. There is sufficient evidence in the record requiring the submission of this case to the jury.\nWe have carefully examined all of the defendant\u2019s assignments of error and find no prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Mallard and Judge Graham concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HEDRICK, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Deputy Attorney General Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., for the State.", "Herbert B. Hulse; and Beech and Pollock by D. D. Pollock for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GILBERT HOOD\nNo. 718SC510\n(Filed 15 December 1971)\n1. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 3\u2014 validity of narcotics search warrant\nNarcotics search warrant and its attached affidavit were in substantial compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements. G.S. Ch. 15, Art. 4.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 99\u2014 trial court\u2019s questioning of witnesses\nTrial court\u2019s questioning of S.B.I. agents concerning their handling of an exhibit in a narcotics case did not constitute an expression of opinion, but such questioning was merely for purposes of clarification of the agents\u2019 testimony. G.S. 1-180.\n3. Narcotics \u00a7 3\u2014 heroin prosecution \u2014 admission of exhibits\nIn a prosecution charging defendant with the possession of heroin, it was proper to admit in evidence a matchbox and its contents of heroin which defendant threw on the floor when he was confronted by an S.B.I. agent.\nAppeal by defendant from Cohoon, Judge, 11 January 1971 Session of Superior Court held in Lenoir County.\nThe defendant was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with the possession of the narcotic drug heroin, in violation of G.S. 90-88. Upon the defendant\u2019s plea of not guilty, the State introduced evidence tending to show the following: On 27 March 1970, at about 3:20 a.m., armed with a search warrant, W. W. Campbell, an agent for the State Bureau of Investigation, in company with deputy sheriffs of Wayne County and a police officer of the Town of LaGrange, went to Gilbert Hood\u2019s dance hall and cafe and knocked on the door. The defendant came to the door, and when he was asked by Agent Campbell if he was Gilbert Hood, he stated that he was. The defendant opened the screen door and the officer stepped inside and identified himself. The defendant pulled his hands out of his pocket and threw something on the floor. The officer picked it up and found that it was a small matchbox containing capsules of white powder. Agent Campbell put the matchbox and its contents in a small envelope. Agent Campbell gave the envelope containing the matchbox to W. H. Thompson, Special Agent of the State Bureau of Investigation. After Agent Thompson had initialed the matchbox and sealed it in the small envelope, he and Agent Campbell put the package inside a larger envelope which they mailed to the State Bureau of Investigation Laboratory in Raleigh.\nJ. M. Dismukes, an analytical chemist employed in the State Bureau of Investigation Laboratory in Raleigh, received the package from Agent Thompson which he opened and found the small envelope containing the matchbox and the capsules. The white powder in the capsules was analyzed and found to contain a mixture of heroin and quinine. Mr. Dismukes initialed the matchbox, put it back in the small envelope, which he in turn put in the original envelope received from Agent Thompson, and mailed the entire package to Agent Thompson. Agent Campbell and Mr. Dismukes both identified the separate packages at the trial, and Mr. Dismukes testified that the small capsules contained heroin.\nThe defendant offered no evidence.\nThe jury found the defendant guilty as charged, and from a judgment imposing a prison sentence of not less than four nor more than five years, the defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Deputy Attorney General Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., for the State.\nHerbert B. Hulse; and Beech and Pollock by D. D. Pollock for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0170-01", "first_page_order": 194, "last_page_order": 197 }