{
  "id": 11236892,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LARRY GARY, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Gary",
  "decision_date": "1999-01-05",
  "docket_number": "No. COA98-471",
  "first_page": "40",
  "last_page": "42",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "132 N.C. App. 40"
    }
  ],
  "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": "130 N.C. App. 154",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11466006
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/130/0154-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 S.E.2d 875",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "878",
          "parenthetical": "noting that the appellate courts are \"bound by the record as certified and can judicially know only what appears of record\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 132",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570109
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "137",
          "parenthetical": "noting that the appellate courts are \"bound by the record as certified and can judicially know only what appears of record\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0132-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 N.C. App. 751",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11470348
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "755",
          "parenthetical": "holding that the oral rendition of an order in open court does not constitute entry of that order"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/130/0751-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "349 N.C. 235",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        571616,
        571516,
        571717,
        571565
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/349/0235-02",
        "/nc/349/0235-04",
        "/nc/349/0235-01",
        "/nc/349/0235-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "502 S.E.2d 853",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "865"
        },
        {
          "page": "866"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 L. Ed. 2d 1099",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "493 S.E.2d 264",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "274",
          "parenthetical": "noting that rulings on motions in limine are \"merely preliminary and subject to change during the course of trial\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "347 N.C. 275",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        551151
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "293",
          "parenthetical": "noting that rulings on motions in limine are \"merely preliminary and subject to change during the course of trial\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/347/0275-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "500 S.E.2d 664",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "665",
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "348 N.C. 684",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1659827
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "685",
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/348/0684-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 N.C. App. 154",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11466006
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "171"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/130/0154-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 300,
    "char_count": 4915,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.709,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.774596783712115e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8962796672701767
    },
    "sha256": "8a3e49d78122787cc1391e2ed27bc3bac41c575161648031032de3c1deb613c3",
    "simhash": "1:c329d322736f60b6",
    "word_count": 809
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:08:15.604309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges TIMMONS-GOODSON and HUNTER concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LARRY GARY, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nLarry Gary, Jr. (Defendant) appeals from the judgment on his conviction for possession of cocaine and for being a habitual felon.\nDefendant made a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence against him. Based on the trial court\u2019s findings, which appear in the transcript of the pretrial hearing, the court concluded that the police officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle in which Defendant was a passenger. Accordingly, the trial court orally denied Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress the evidence (i. e., a small amount of cocaine) found on Defendant\u2019s person. No written order denying Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress appears in the record.\nAt trial, evidence of the cocaine found on Defendant\u2019s person was admitted, without objection, through several witnesses. A jury subsequently found Defendant guilty of possession of cocaine and of being a habitual felon.\nThe dispositive issue on appeal is whether Defendant has preserved the alleged error for appellate review.\nA motion in limine is generally \u201cinsufficient to preserve for appeal the question of the admissibility of evidence if the [movant] fails to further object to that evidence at the time it is offered at trial.\u201d Martin v. Benson, 348 N.C. 684, 685, 500 S.E.2d 664, 665 (1998) (per curiam)] State v. Hill, 347 N.C. 275, 293, 493 S.E.2d 264, 274 (1997) (noting that rulings on motions in limine are \u201cmerely preliminary and subject to change during the course of trial\u201d), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 140 L. Ed. 2d 1099 (1998). We recently enunciated a narrow exception to this rule in State v. Hayes, 130 N.C. App. 154, 171, 502 S.E.2d 853, 865, disc. review allowed, 349 N.C. 235, - S.E.2d -(1998). Pursuant to Hayes, \u201can objection to the denial of the motion in limine\u201d without further objection at trial, is sufficient to preserve the evidentiary issues that were the subject of the motion in limine for appellate review if.\n(1) there has been a full evidentiary hearing where the substance of the objection(s) raised by the motion in limine has been thoroughly explored; (2) the order denying the motion is explicit and definitive; (3) the evidence actually offered at trial is substantially consistent with the evidence explored at the hearing on the motion; and (4) there is no suggestion that the trial court would reconsider the matter at trial....\nId. Where the trial court has not \u201centered\u201d a \u201cdefinitive and explicit pre-trial order excluding the evidence,\u201d however, the Hayes exception is inapplicable and the defendant\u2019s failure to object to the admission of the evidence at trial precludes appellate review. Id. at 172, 502 S.E.2d at 866. \u201cEntry\u201d of an order occurs when it is reduced to writing, signed by the trial court, and filed with the clerk of court. West v. Marko, 130 N.C. App. 751, 755, - S.E.2d -, -(1998) (holding that the oral rendition of an order in open court does not constitute entry of that order); cf. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 58 (Supp. 1997) (providing that entry of judgment occurs \u201cwhen it is reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk of court\u201d).\nThe record in this case does not contain a written order denying Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress the evidence against him; therefore such an order was not entered by the trial court. See State v. Williams, 280 N.C. 132, 137, 184 S.E.2d 875, 878 (1971) (noting that the appellate courts are \u201cbound by the record as certified and can judicially know only what appears of record\u201d). It follows that the narrow Hayes exception is inapplicable. Accordingly, as Defendant failed to object at trial to the admission of this evidence, he has failed to preserve this issue for our review.\nDismissed.\nJudges TIMMONS-GOODSON and HUNTER concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Associate Attorney General Joyce S. Rutledge, for the State.",
      "Public Defender Wallace G. Harrelson, by Assistant Public Defender Ames C. Chamberlin, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LARRY GARY, JR.\nNo. COA98-471\n(Filed 5 January 1999)\nAppeal and Error\u2014 motion in limine denied \u2014 no objection at trial \u2014 Hayes exception inapplicable\nDefendant did not preserve for appellate review in a cocaine prosecution alleged error in admitting cocaine found on his person where his pretrial motion to suppress was denied orally, no written denial appears in the record, and the evidence was admitted at trial without objection. The narrow exception in State v. Hayes, 130 N.C. App. 154, to the rule that a motion in limine is insufficient to preserve for appeal the question of admissibility if there is no objection at trial was not applicable because the record does not contain a written order denying defendant\u2019s motion and therefore such an order was not entered by the trial court.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment filed 30 October 1997 by Judge L. Todd Burke in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 December 1998.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Associate Attorney General Joyce S. Rutledge, for the State.\nPublic Defender Wallace G. Harrelson, by Assistant Public Defender Ames C. Chamberlin, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0040-01",
  "first_page_order": 74,
  "last_page_order": 76
}