{
  "id": 8553967,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MELVIN DOUGLAS WILLIAMS, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1972-01-12",
  "docket_number": "No. 7126SC729",
  "first_page": "423",
  "last_page": "426",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "13 N.C. App. 423"
    }
  ],
  "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 705",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 71",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548314,
        8548275
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/9/0071-02",
        "/nc-app/9/0071-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 S.E. 2d 469",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575701
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0509-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 21",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 152",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560616
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0152-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "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": 371,
    "char_count": 6567,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.679677357637078e-08,
      "percentile": 0.40645477786542766
    },
    "sha256": "b79b85bb45e009a3949152d32dba6683633a08ca08715805327f3f45fa06fc42",
    "simhash": "1:85ef244917c7d1f7",
    "word_count": 1095
  },
  "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. MELVIN DOUGLAS WILLIAMS, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nThe record reveals that the judgment in this case was entered on 17 June 1971. The record on appeal was docketed in the Court of Appeals on 27 September 1971, which was more than ninety days from the date of the judgment appealed from. Although the record discloses that the court extended the time for the defendant to prepare and serve the case on appeal, and for the State to serve exceptions or countercase, there is nothing in the record indicating an extension of time to docket the record on appeal in the Court of Appeals. Therefore, the appeal is subject to dismissal for the defendant\u2019s failure to comply with Rule 5 of the Rules1 of Practice in the Court of Appeals. However, the appeal is not dismissed, and we consider all the defendant\u2019s assignments of error brought forward and argued in his brief.\nThe defendant\u2019s contention that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the search of the defendant\u2019s1 apartment because the search warrant was invalid is without merit. We hold the search warrant and the attached affidavit are in substantial compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements. G.S. 15-26; 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) ; State v. Flowers, 12 N.C. App. 487, 183 S.E. 2d 820 (1971), cert. denied 7 Dec. 1971; State v. Vestal, 278 N.C. 561, 180 S.E. 2d 755 (1971).\nThe court did not err in allowing Officers Correll and Stroud to testify that they went to the defendant's \u201cresidence.\u201d Although the word \u201cresidence\u201d is in the nature of a conclusion, it is competent as a shorthand statement of fact describing where the officers went to execute the search warrant. State v. Nichols, 268 N.C. 152, 150 S.E. 2d 21 (1966) ; State v. Goines. 273 N.C. 509, 160 S.E. 2d 469 (1968).\nIt was not prejudicial error for the court to allow the State\u2019s witnesses to testify that the defendant stated after the search and after his arrest, \u201cThat\u2019s all. There\u2019s not anymore,\u201d or there \u201cAin\u2019t anymore.\u201d The record reveals the statement was made by the defendant voluntarily and not as a result of any interrogation by the officers; moreover, there is evidence in the record supporting the court\u2019s finding and conclusion that the statement was made freely, understanding^ and voluntarily.\nThe court properly allowed the chemist to testify that in his opinion two of the glassine bags found in the defendant\u2019s apartment contained heroin, since the record clearly discloses that the bags containing the white powder found in the defendant\u2019s apartment were in the possession of the Charlotte Police Department at all times prior to the time that the white powder contained in the bags was analyzed by the chemist. State v. Preston, 9 N.C. App. 71, 175 S.E. 2d 705 (1970).\nThere was ample evidence to require the submission of this case to the jury, and the court\u2019s instructions to the jury were fair and adequate and free from prejudicial error.\nThe defendant had a fair trial in the superior court free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Mallard and Judge Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Associate Attorney Edwin M. Speas, Jr., for the State.",
      "Scarborough, Haywood & Selvey by J. Marshall Haywood for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MELVIN DOUGLAS WILLIAMS, JR.\nNo. 7126SC729\n(Filed 12 January 1972)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 155.5\u2014 failure to docket record on appeal in apt time\nAlthough the trial court extended the time for defendant to serve the case on appeal, the appeal is subject to dismissal where the record on appeal was not docketed within 90 days from the date of the judgment appealed from and the trial court did not extend the time for docketing the record on appeal.\n2. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 3 \u2014 warrant to search for narcotics \u2014 validity\nWarrant to search for narcotics and the attached affidavit were in substantial compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements. G.S. 15-26.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 71\u2014 shorthand statement of fact\nTestimony by police officers that they went to defendant\u2019s \u201cresidence\u201d to execute a search warrant was competent as a shorthand statement of fact.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 75 \u2014 discovery of heroin \u2014 defendant\u2019s statement \u201cThat\u2019s all.\u201d\nThe trial court did not err in the admission of testimony that after heroin had been discovered in a search of his apartment, defendant stated, \u201cThat\u2019s all. There\u2019s not anymore,\u201d where the statement did not result from interrogation by officers and the evidence supports the trial court\u2019s determination that the statement was made freely, understandingly and voluntarily.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 50; Narcotics \u00a7 3 \u2014 expert testimony \u2014 identification of heroin \u2014 chain of possession of the evidence\nThe trial court properly allowed a chemist to give his opinion that two glassine bags found in defendant\u2019s apartment contained heroin where the record discloses that the bags were in the possession of the police department at all times prior to the time the white powder contained in the bags was analyzed by the chemist.\nAppeal by defendant from Beal, Judge, 14 June 1971 Session of Superior Court held in Mecklenburg County.\nThe defendant Melvin Douglas1 Williams, Jr., was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with the possession of a narcotic drug; to wit, heroin, a felony, in violation of G.S. 90-88. Upon the defendant\u2019s plea of not guilty, the State offered evidence tending to show the following: On 16 October 1970, at about 7:00 a.m., several officers from the Charlotte, North Carolina, Police Department, armed with a search warrant, went to the residence of the defendant Melvin Douglas Williams, Jr., at 2612 Pitts Drive, Apartment C, in the City of Charlotte, where they knocked on the door and were admitted by a small child. Officer Correll proceeded upstairs in the apartment where he found the defendant standing nude in the bathroom preparing to shave. After the search warrant had been read to the defendant, the officers searched the apartment. In the bedroom to the right of the bathroom one of the officers found a brown paper bag containing ten packages. Each package contained fifteen small cellophane bags, each of which contained white powder. The \u201cwhite powdery substance\u201d from two of the bags was analyzed and found to contain the narcotic drug heroin. The defendant offered no evidence. The jury found the defendant guilty as charged, and from a judgment of imprisonment of five years, the defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Associate Attorney Edwin M. Speas, Jr., for the State.\nScarborough, Haywood & Selvey by J. Marshall Haywood for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0423-01",
  "first_page_order": 447,
  "last_page_order": 450
}