{
  "id": 8553487,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CECIL MATHIS, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Mathis",
  "decision_date": "1971-12-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 7119SC730",
  "first_page": "363",
  "last_page": "364",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "13 N.C. App. 363"
    }
  ],
  "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": "163 S.E. 2d 492",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 N.C. 277",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559994
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/274/0277-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 S.E. 2d 230",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 N.C. 69",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8557792
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/275/0069-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 S.E. 2d 481",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 N.C. 77",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8557806
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/275/0077-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "391 U.S. 123",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1767670
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/391/0123-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 S.E. 2d 205",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "249 N.C. 49",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8607528
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/249/0049-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 S.E. 2d 865",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 N.C. App. 589",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554057
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/8/0589-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 S.E. 2d 9",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 33",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547129
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/12/0033-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 S.E. 2d 639",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 N.C. 512",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571373
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/263/0512-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 307,
    "char_count": 4188,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.529,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2059649037453535
    },
    "sha256": "50f006b875d78bd863a3fc637e7c2b07830d45f90f403e8729717005dec9e952",
    "simhash": "1:505006f9f08a1cce",
    "word_count": 684
  },
  "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 Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CECIL MATHIS, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GRAHAM, Judge.\nDefendant contends the State failed to show who owned the property allegedly stolen and that his motion for nonsuit should have been allowed for this reason. Where the State offers no evidence identifying the owner of the property defendant is accused of stealing, nonsuit must be allowed. State v. Mullinax, 263 N.C. 512, 139 S.E. 2d 639.\nThe bill of indictment alleges the owner of the property in \u2022question as Towel City Towel Co., Inc. No official, agent or employee of the alleged corporate owner of the property testified. However, a police officer did testify that \u201cI ascertained that this merchandise that I found underneath the trailer was owned by Towel City Towel Company.\u201d No objection having been made to this testimony, it was before the jury and could be considered. In re Dunston, 12 N.C. App. 33, 182 S.E. 2d 9; State v. Davis, 8 N.C. App. 589, 174 S.E. 2d 865. Where testimony sufficient, if true, to establish a fact at issue is received in evidence without objection, a nonsuit cannot be sustained even if the only evidence tending to establish the disputed fact is incompetent. See Skipper v. Yow, 249 N.C. 49, 105 S.E. 2d 205.\nWe hold that the testimony of the officer, which was received without objection, constituted evidence sufficient to withstand defendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit made on the grounds ownership of the property was not shown.\nDefendant next assigns as error the admission in evidence of statements made by him and his co-defendant. Neither defendant testified and defendant contends that the admission of his co-defendant\u2019s statement was error. Had the statement of the co-defendant implicated defendant this assignment of error would be well taken. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 20 L.Ed. 2d 476, 88 S.Ct. 1620; State v. Williams, 275 N.C. 77, 165 S.E. 2d 481; State v. Parrish, 275 N.C. 69, 165 S.E. 2d 230. \u201c[I]n joint trials of defendants it is necessary to exclude extrajudicial confessions unless all portions which implicate defendants other than the declarant can be deleted without prejudice either to the State or the declarant. If such deletion is not possible, the State must choose between relinquishing the confession or trying the defendants separately.\u201d State v. Fox, 274 N.C. 277, 163 S.E. 2d 492.\nA close review of that portion of the co-defendant\u2019s statement which was related to the jury indicates that all references tending to implicate this defendant were deleted. There is nothing in the co-defendant\u2019s statement, as it was related to the jury, which reflects prejudicially on this defendant. We therefore overrule this assignment of error.\nWe have examined defendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error, and in our opinion no error has been shown which is sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Mallard and Judge Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GRAHAM, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Denson for the State.",
      "Arthur Goodman, Jr., for defendant appellant Cecil Mathis."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CECIL MATHIS, Defendant\nNo. 7119SC730\n(Filed 29 December 1971)\n1. Larceny \u00a7 7 \u2014 prosecution \u2014 stolen goods \u2014 issue of ownership \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nSole evidence on the issue of the ownership of stolen goods, which consisted of a police officer\u2019s testimony, received without objection, that he ascertained the goods to be owned by a named towel company, is held sufficient to support a jury finding as to ownership.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 95 \u2014 joint trial of two defendants \u2014 admissibility of codefendant\u2019s statement\nThe admission of a defendant\u2019s statement which did not implicate his codefendant was not prejudicial error in this joint trial of the two defendants.\nAppeal by defendant from Gambill, Judge, 19 April 1971 Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Cabarrus County.\nDefendant appeals from judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of felonious larceny. He was charged with this offense jointly with his wife, Jacqueline M. Mathis, and the cases were tried together. The case of State v. Jacqueline M. Mathis is the subject of a separate appeal. For a more complete statement of the facts see opinion of Brock, Judge, in that case, filed this date.\nAttorney General Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Denson for the State.\nArthur Goodman, Jr., for defendant appellant Cecil Mathis."
  },
  "file_name": "0363-01",
  "first_page_order": 387,
  "last_page_order": 388
}