{ "id": 8554942, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONALD TRUESDALE and GARY A. GARRETT", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Truesdale", "decision_date": "1972-02-23", "docket_number": "No. 7221SC152", "first_page": "622", "last_page": "626", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "13 N.C. App. 622" } ], "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 551", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2 N.C. App. 553", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554447 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/2/0553-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 112", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 500", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565129 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0500-01" ] }, { "cite": "186 S.E. 2d 609", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "13 N.C. App. 634", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8555005 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/13/0634-01" ] }, { "cite": "116 S.E. 2d 381", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "253 N.C. 224", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623816 ], "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/253/0224-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 S.E. 2d 791", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "237 N.C. 675", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8617610 ], "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/237/0675-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 S.E. 2d 449", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "227 N.C. 43", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8620707 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/227/0043-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 S.E. 2d 349", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "263 N.C. 694", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572645 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/263/0694-01" ] }, { "cite": "163 S.E. 2d 410", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2 N.C. App. 508", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554143 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/2/0508-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 S.E. 2d 838", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "256 N.C. 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573643 ], "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/256/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 S.E. 2d 164", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 54", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8598167 ], "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0054-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 432, "char_count": 8150, "ocr_confidence": 0.526, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08, "percentile": 0.3567088274258461 }, "sha256": "e9eea7b1e13eb4b73b9f3f0e4f91245ebf48b70dab576c1da3537aa0c98e4c2a", "simhash": "1:959244307cd7e7b2", "word_count": 1356 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:15.024983+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Campbell and Parker concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONALD TRUESDALE and GARY A. GARRETT" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nAppellants were tried in district court on the warrants, were found guilty and appealed to the superior court. From the record it appears that the State inadvertently sent bills of indictment to the grand jury but announced in open court \u201cthat the State does not propose to proceed under the bill of indictment, but rather under the warrant on which the defendant was tried in the District Court of this county ...\u201d Appellants assign as error the denial of a motion to quash the bills of indictment, alleging that their mere existence puts them in jeopardy twice for the same offense. A plea of former jeopardy is not a plea to the indictment but is a plea in bar to the prosecution which poses an inquiry into what action the court has taken on a former occasion. State v. Davis, 223 N.C. 54, 25 S.E. 2d 164 (1943) ; 2 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7 26, pp. 515-524. Double jeopardy would not attach until such time as defendant was placed on trial for the same offense a second time. State v. Birckhead, 256 N.C. 494, 124 S.E. 2d 838 (1962). Therefore, no prejudice has been shown. This assignment of error is overruled.\nAppellants also assign as error the superior court\u2019s denial of its motion to quash the warrants which charged them with receiving stolen property worth $142.70 \u201cin violation of law G.S. 14-71.\u201d The warrant sufficiently charged all the essential elements of the offense of receiving and adequately apprised the appellants of the offense with which they were charged.\nAppellants\u2019 next assignment of error is directed to the court\u2019s allowing the State\u2019s motion to amend the warrants to read \u201cproperty of James Cathey, Jr. and Robert M. Sauls, Trading as Man-Trap Wigs.\u201d Judge Parker has said in State v. Thompson, 2 N.C. App. 508, 163 S.E. 2d 410 (1968), that:\n\u201cAs a general proposition the superior court, on an appeal from an inferior court upon a conviction of a misdemeanor, has power to allow an amendment to the warrant, provided the charge as amended does not change the offense with which defendant was originally charged. State v. Fenner, 263 N.C. 694, 140 S.E. 2d 349; State v. Wilson, 227 N.C. 43, 40 S.E. 2d 449.\u201d At p. 512.\nThe original warrants, prior to amendment, charged all the essential elements of the offense of receiving stolen goods. State v. Brady, 237 N.C. 675, 75 S.E. 2d 791 (1953). Ownership of the stolen property was stated in the warrants merely to negative any ownership in the accused. State v. Davis, 253 N.C. 224, 116 S.E. 2d 381 (1960). We have previously held that it is not necessary that the warrant or indictment in a prosecution for receiving stolen goods state the names of those from whom the goods were stolen. State v. McClure, 13 N.C. App. 634, 186 S.E. 2d 609 (1972) ; State v. Brady, supra. Amending the warrants later to describe ownership of the property in more detail in no way changed the offense with which the appellants were charged. This assignment of error is overruled.\nAppellants excepted to the introduction of one photograph into evidence and objected to the use of another photograph. The photographs of the appellants were properly identified and entered into evidence for the purpose of illustrating the testimony of witnesses if the jury should find that they did illustrate the witness\u2019 testimony and the jury was so instructed. State v. McKissick, 271 N.C. 500, 157 S.E. 2d 112 (1967); Smith v. Dean, 2 N.C. App. 553, 163 S.E. 2d 551 (1968). This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendants\u2019 remaining assignments of error challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to go to the jury and support a ver-diet. When the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the State, there is ample evidence to submit the case to the jury, nor was error committed when the trial tribunal refused to set the verdict aside and grant a new trial.\nDefendants were well represented by counsel of their choice. In a trial free from prejudicial error, the jury refused to accept defendants\u2019 contentions.\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Parker concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MORRIS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Morgan by Associate Attorney Price for the State.", "Annie Brown Kennedy for defendant appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONALD TRUESDALE and GARY A. GARRETT\nNo. 7221SC152\n(Filed 23 February 1972)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 26; Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 14\u2014 appeal from district court \u2014 trial upon warrants \u2014 indictments returned \u2014 motion to quash\nThe superior court did not err in refusing to quash on the ground of double jeopardy indictments which were inadvertently sent to the grand jury when defendants appealed from their district court convictions of nonfelonious receiving of stolen property, where the State did not proceed in the superior court under the indictments but tried defendants upon the warrants on which they were tried in the district court, defendants not being placed twice in jeopardy by the mere existence of the indictments.\n2. Receiving Stolen Goods \u00a7 2\u2014 sufficiency of warrant\nWarrants were sufficient to charge defendants with the crime of receiving stolen property.\n3. Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 12\u2014 receiving stolen property \u2014 appeal from district court \u2014 amendment of warrant \u2014 ownership of property\nUpon defendants\u2019 appeal from conviction in the district court, the superior court did not err in allowing the State\u2019s motion to amend warrants for receiving stolen goods by placing the words \u201cJames Cathey, Jr. and Robert M. Sauls, Trading as\u201d after the words \u201cthe property of\u201d and prior to the words \u201cMan-Trap Wigs,\u201d since the original warrants charged all the essential elements of the offense of receiving stolen goods, and the amendment describing ownership of the property in more detail did not change the offense with which defendants were charged.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 43\u2014 photographs of defendants \u2014 illustrative purposes\nIn this prosecution for receiving stolen property, photographs of defendants were properly admitted for the limited purpose of illustrating the testimony of witnesses.\n5. Receiving Stolen Goods \u00a7 5\u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient for the jury in this prosecution for receiving stolen property.\nAppeal by defendants from Godwin, Special Judge, 26 July 1971 Criminal Session of Forsyth Superior Court.\nThe defendant Donald Truesdale was arrested under a warrant issued on 26 January 1971 charging in substance that:\n\u201cThe undersigned, J. C. Hassell, being duly sworn, complains and says that at and in the County named above and on or about the 25th day of January, 1971, the defendant named above did unlawfully, wilfully, receive and have in his possession certain property, to wit: one human hair fall and four synthetic wigs of the value of $142.70, the property of Man-Trap Wigs, Parkway Plaza Shopping Center, Winston-Salem, N. C., he the said Donald Truesdale then and there well knowing the said property to have been feloniously stolen or taken under circumstances amounting to larceny.\nThe offense charged here was committed against the peace and dignity of the State and in violation of law GS 14-71.\" (Emphasis1 supplied.)\nThe defendant Gary A. Garrett was also arrested and charged under a warrant using language identical to that above. At trial in district court, defendants\u2019 motion to quash the warrants was denied. Defendants pleaded not guilty and appealed to the superior court from a judgment entered on a verdict of guilty. The State\u2019s motion to amend the warrants was allowed and the words \u201cJames Cathey, Jr. and Robert M. Sauls, Trading as\u201d were inserted after the phrase \u201cthe property of\u201d in the above mentioned warrants. The language of the warrants was in no other way changed. At trial in superior court, the defendants again entered pleas of not guilty and the jury found them guilty. The judgments as entered by the court read in part that the jury found defendants \u201cguilty of the offense of Receiving Stolen Goods op the Value op Not More Than Two Hundred Dollars, Knowing Them to Have Been Stolen, which is a violation of GS 14-71 and punishable as provided in GS 14-72, and of the grade of misdemeanor;\u201d. Defendants appealed from the judgments and prison sentences imposed.\nAttorney General Morgan by Associate Attorney Price for the State.\nAnnie Brown Kennedy for defendant appellants." }, "file_name": "0622-01", "first_page_order": 646, "last_page_order": 650 }