{
  "id": 11240619,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MYRNA SILVER WOODY, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Woody",
  "decision_date": "1999-04-06",
  "docket_number": "No. COA98-626",
  "first_page": "788",
  "last_page": "792",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "132 N.C. App. 788"
    }
  ],
  "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": "18 N.C.App. 652",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553262
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/18/0652-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14.168.1",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-72.1",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "655"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 S.E.2d 728",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 758",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560841,
        8560910,
        8560887,
        8560827,
        8560861
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0758-02",
        "/nc/283/0758-05",
        "/nc/283/0758-04",
        "/nc/283/0758-01",
        "/nc/283/0758-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 S.E.2d 614",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "615"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 55-4-01",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 S.E.2d 241",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "indictment for larceny from \"Belk's Department Store\" insufficient"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 N.C. App. 64",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8546889
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "indictment for larceny from \"Belk's Department Store\" insufficient"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/6/0064-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 S.E.2d 610",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "indictment for larceny from \"Ken's Quickie Mart\" insufficient"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 N.C. App. 648",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552378
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "indictment for larceny from \"Ken's Quickie Mart\" insufficient"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/14/0648-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "236 S.E.2d 708",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 N.C. 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563013,
        8562988,
        8562959,
        8562936,
        8562910
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/293/0255-05",
        "/nc/293/0255-04",
        "/nc/293/0255-03",
        "/nc/293/0255-02",
        "/nc/293/0255-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "236 S.E.2d 299",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 N.C. App. 667",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551947
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/33/0667-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 S.E.2d 865",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "indictment for larceny from \"Metropolitan YMCA t/d/b/a Hayes-Taylor YMCA Branch\" insufficient"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 N.C. App. 516",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525061
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "indictment for larceny from \"Metropolitan YMCA t/d/b/a Hayes-Taylor YMCA Branch\" insufficient"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/57/0516-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 S.E.2d 403",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "holding an indictment for larceny from \"Granville County Law Enforcement Association\" insufficient"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 N.C. 128",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560965,
        8560997,
        8561036,
        8560981,
        8561019
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "holding an indictment for larceny from \"Granville County Law Enforcement Association\" insufficient"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/307/0128-01",
        "/nc/307/0128-03",
        "/nc/307/0128-05",
        "/nc/307/0128-02",
        "/nc/307/0128-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 S.E.2d 403",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "holding an indictment for larceny from \"Granville County Law Enforcement Association\" insufficient"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 N.C. App. 756",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526217
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "holding an indictment for larceny from \"Granville County Law Enforcement Association\" insufficient"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/58/0756-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 S.E.2d 578",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1952,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 Ga. App. 290",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ga. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        1557694
      ],
      "year": 1952,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ga-app/86/0290-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 S.E.2d 901",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1960,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "904"
        },
        {
          "page": "903"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 N.C. 658",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626903
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1960,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "662"
        },
        {
          "page": "662"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/251/0658-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 N.C. 129",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8681797
      ],
      "year": 1870,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "131"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/64/0129-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 S.E.2d 920",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "257 N.C. 464",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568554
      ],
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/257/0464-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 S.E.2d 741",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 N.C. 25",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565060
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/270/0025-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "451 S.E.2d 131",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "144",
          "parenthetical": "citing State v. Bell, 270 N.C. 25, 153 S.E.2d 741 (1967)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "338 N.C. 315",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2518881
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "340",
          "parenthetical": "citing State v. Bell, 270 N.C. 25, 153 S.E.2d 741 (1967)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/338/0315-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-168.1",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 N.C.App. 652",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553262
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/18/0652-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 557,
    "char_count": 9395,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.766,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0055399730911792e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7435925801079523
    },
    "sha256": "7c6550a5814fb83dee4e239331662e98d95bb781e9a0e17ecb93bd4900f31e78",
    "simhash": "1:93236ef7646a6d26",
    "word_count": 1518
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:08:15.604309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge EAGLES and Judge WYNN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MYRNA SILVER WOODY, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EDMUNDS, Judge.\nDuring 1990, defendant worked for Tandy Computers and was responsible for leasing a Tandy 3000 computer and movie-rental inventory software to P&R Unlimited, Incorporated (P&R, Inc.). P&R, Inc. was formed with two shareholders, Patrick Phillips and Mark Robinson for the purpose of operating \u201cP&R Unlimited,\u201d a convenience store. Defendant subsequently began working elsewhere, but she continued to service the computer that P&R, Inc. had leased from Tandy. Phillips later purchased Robinson\u2019s shares in P&R, Inc., and at trial he referred to the resulting business as a partnership.\nPrior to 15 May 1994, defendant picked up the computer from Phillips\u2019 store for service. Phillips has not since seen the computer. Phillips made several unavailing attempts to contact defendant and inquire about the computer. On one occasion when he spoke with defendant, she told him she had taken his computer to Radio Shack in Asheville; however, the records at that store did not show delivery of a computer by defendant.\nOn 21 April 1997, the grand jury returned a true bill of indictment against defendant for conversion by a bailee, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-168.1 (1993). The indictment alleged the converted property belonged to \u201cP& R unlimited.\u201d When the matter was called for trial on 10 February 1998, the State noted a problem with the indictment and proposed that defendant sign a bill of information. After consulting with her attorney, defendant declined to sign, and the State proceeded to trial on the original indictment. The trial court instructed the jury on both felony and misdemeanor conversion, and the jury found defendant guilty of the felony. Upon defendant\u2019s motion to set aside the verdict, the trial court arrested judgment as to the felony charge and entered judgment for misdemeanor conversion by a bailee. Defendant received a two-year suspended sentence and was placed on supervised probation for three years. As a condition of probation, defendant was ordered to serve six months in county jail and pay the victim $3,500 restitution. From this judgment, defendant appeals. We vacate the judgment.\nDefendant was charged and tried pursuant to section 14-168.1, which states in relevant part:\nEvery person entrusted with any property as bailee, lessee, tenant or lodger, or with any power of attorney for the sale or transfer thereof, who fraudulently converts the same, or the proceeds thereof, to his own use, or secretes it with a fraudulent intent to convert it to his own use, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-168.1 (1993). This crime, like larceny and embezzlement, occurs when a defendant offends the ownership rights of another. The statute applies to certain specified relationships involving an owner of property and a non-owner, e.g., bailee, lessee, and tenant. Moreover, an essential component of the crime is the intent to convert or the act of conversion, which by definition requires proof that someone other than a defendant owned the relevant property. Because the State is required to prove ownership, a proper indictment must identify as victim a legal entity capable of owning property. An indictment that insufficiently alleges the identity of the victim is fatally defective and cannot support conviction of either a misdemeanor or a felony.\nDefendant argues that the indictment in this case was fatally defective because it improperly alleged ownership of property converted. We agree. Our Supreme Court has stated, \u201cWhere an indictment charges the defendant with a crime against someone other than the actual victim, such a variance is fatal.\u201d State v. Abraham, 338 N.C. 315, 340, 451 S.E.2d 131, 144 (1994) (citing State v. Bell, 270 N.C. 25, 153 S.E.2d 741 (1967)). The Abraham Court also stated that misidentifying the victim in the indictment \u201crequired the State to prove injury to someone other than the true victim.\u201d Id. (citing State v. Overman, 257 N.C. 464, 125 S.E.2d 920 (1962)). The Abraham Court relied in part on State v. Harper, 64 N.C. 129, 131 (1870), which stated, \u201c[a] variance or omission in the name of the person injured, is more serious than a variance in the name of the defendant. . . .\u201d\nWhere the victim is not an individual, our Supreme Court has additionally held that if there was no allegation that the victim was a legal entity capable of owning property, the bill of indictment is fatally defective. See State v. Thornton, 251 N.C. 658, 662, 111 S.E.2d 901, 904 (1960). In Thornton, the defendant was charged with embezzlement from \u201cThe Chuck Wagon.\u201d In arresting judgment, our Supreme Court held that the victim\u2019s name must be given, along with \u201cthe fact that it is a corporation . . . unless the name itself imports a corporation.\u201d Id. at 662, 111 S.E.2d at 903 (citing Nickles v. State, 86 Ga. App. 290, 71 S.E.2d 578 (1952)); see also State v. Strange, 58 N.C. App. 756, 294 S.E.2d 403, disc. review denied, 307 N.C. 128, 297 S.E.2d 403 (1982) (holding an indictment for larceny from \u201cGranville County Law Enforcement Association\u201d insufficient); State v. Perkins, 57 N.C. App. 516, 291 S.E.2d 865 (1982) (indictment for larceny from \u201cMetropolitan YMCA t/d/b/a Hayes-Taylor YMCA Branch\u201d insufficient); State v. Ellis, 33 N.C. App. 667, 236 S.E.2d 299 (holding an indictment for embezzlement adequate by naming \u201cProvidence Finance Company,\u201d which clearly imported a corporation), disc. review denied, 293 N.C. 255, 236 S.E.2d 708 (1977); State v. Roberts, 14 N.C. App. 648, 188 S.E.2d 610 (1972) (indictment for larceny from \u201cKen\u2019s Quickie Mart\u201d insufficient); State v. Thompson, 6 N.C. App. 64, 169 S.E.2d 241 (1969) (indictment for larceny from \u201cBelk\u2019s Department Store\u201d insufficient). A variant of the same rule applies for partnerships. \u201cIf the property alleged to have been stolen ... is the property of a partnership, or other quasi artificial person, the names of the persons composing the partnership, or quasi artificial person, should be given.\u201d Thornton, 251 N.C. at 662, 111 S.E.2d at 903.\nThe State argues that in the indictment, the word \u201cunlimited\u201d sufficiently connotes the proper legal status of the victim. We disagree. While the abbreviation \u201cltd.\u201d or the word \u201climited\u201d is a proper corporate identifier, see N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 55-4-01 (Cum. Supp. 1997), \u201cunlimited\u201d enjoys no such status. It is not a term capable of notifying a criminal defendant either directly or by clear import that the victim is a legal entity capable of holding property. \u201cUnlimited\u201d is of no more significance than was the term \u201cassociation,\u201d found in Strange. The indictment also fails to name persons composing a partnership. In short, the indictment lacks any indication of the legal ownership status of the victim.\nAn exception to the general rule may be found in State v. Wooten, 18 N.C. App. 652, 197 S.E.2d 614, cert. denied, 283 N.C. 758, 198 S.E.2d 728 (1973), a shoplifting case brought under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-72.1 (1971). We held in Wooten that the trial court did not err where the warrant alleged merchandise had been concealed on the premises of \u201cKings Dept. Store.\u201d The Court reasoned that, under the shoplifting statute, the only victim could be a store, and that the statute did not \u201ccover property in a residence, bank, school or church . . . .\u201d Id. at 655, 197 S.E.2d at 615. Because the victim could only be a \u201cstore,\u201d this Court concluded that the shoplifting statute did not require the State to include the victim\u2019s corporate status in the warrant. We find that Wooten does not apply to the offenses covered by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14.168.1 (1993). In comparison with the narrow scope of the concealment statute, the General Assembly drafted section 14-168.1 with broad and sweeping language covering many classes of victims. Therefore, as with larceny and embezzlement, applying the policy of strictly construing indictments is appropriate here. By insufficiently alleging the identity of the victim, the indictment was fatally defective, and could not support either a felony or misdemeanor conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is vacated.\nIn light of this result, we need not address the other issues raised by the parties.\nJudgment vacated.\nChief Judge EAGLES and Judge WYNN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EDMUNDS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael F Easley, Attorney General, by Daniel D. Addison, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "The Law Offices of Wesley E. Starnes, by Wesley E. Starnes, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MYRNA SILVER WOODY, Defendant\nNo. COA98-626\n(Filed 6 April 1999)\nIndictment and Information\u2014 conversion \u2014 corporate victim\u2014 identity not sufficiently alleged\nAn indictment for conversion by a bailee was fatally defective and could not support either a felony or misdemeanor conviction where the indictment alleged that the property belonged to \u201cP&R Unlimited.\u201d While \u201cltd.\u201d or \u201climited\u201d are proper corporate identifiers, \u201cunlimited\u201d is not a term capable of notifying a criminal defendant either directly or by clear import that the victim is a legal entity capable of holding property. The indictment also fails to name the persons composing a partnership. The exception in State v. Wooten, 18 N.C.App. 652, for the shoplifting statute does not apply to this statute.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 10 February 1998 by Judge Forrest Bridges in Mitchell County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 February 1999.\nMichael F Easley, Attorney General, by Daniel D. Addison, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nThe Law Offices of Wesley E. Starnes, by Wesley E. Starnes, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0788-01",
  "first_page_order": 822,
  "last_page_order": 826
}
