{ "id": 8549305, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAEOLINA v. BILLY C. DIX", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Dix", "decision_date": "1972-05-24", "docket_number": "No. 7217SC333", "first_page": "328", "last_page": "333", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "14 N.C. App. 328" } ], "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": "121 S.E. 2d 589", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "255 N.C. 412", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569896 ], "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/255/0412-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 S.E. 2d 740", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 323", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563824 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0323-01" ] }, { "cite": "168 S.E. 2d 511", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "5 N.C. App. 424", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550496 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/5/0424-01" ] }, { "cite": "184 S.E. 2d 845", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569578 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 S.E. 2d 490", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "277 N.C. 704", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567498 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/277/0704-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 115", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 449", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560629 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0449-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 S.E. 2d 577", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 42", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559611 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0042-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 S.E. 867", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1907, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "145 N.C. 408", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11253535 ], "year": 1907, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/145/0408-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 S.E. 2d 870", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "263 N.C. 536", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571870 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/263/0536-01" ] }, { "cite": "168 S.E. 2d 511", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "5 N.C. App. 424", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550496 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/5/0424-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 S.E. 2d 577", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 42", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559611 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0042-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 S.E. 2d 870", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "263 N.C. 536", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571870 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/263/0536-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 640, "char_count": 13165, "ocr_confidence": 0.561, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.657524242833002e-08, "percentile": 0.35270782196182093 }, "sha256": "d74968d560770c5429011fb621703deaaa325ecb69413c64b4a2fc79b126e95b", "simhash": "1:0863cd6a8485641e", "word_count": 2268 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:48.650385+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judge Hedrick concurs.", "Judge Parker dissents." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAEOLINA v. BILLY C. DIX" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nDefendant assigns as error the failure of the trial court to allow his timely made motions for nonsuit of the charge of kidnapping.\nThe evidence presented at trial tended to show: On 19 April 1970 at about 1:30 a.m. defendant knocked on the front door of the Rockingham County jail. The assistant jailer, Henry C. Crowder, came out of the jailer\u2019s office, unlocked an iron door, entered the vestibule or waiting room of the jail, and opened the front door. Defendant stuck a gun in Crowder\u2019s face and told him he would kill him if Crowder didn\u2019t let defendant\u2019s buddies out of jail. Defendant then forced Crowder along a route to the cell where his friends were held. The route encompassed some 62 feet and led through the jail vestibule, through an iron door into the jailer\u2019s office, and from the office through another iron door into a hall. The hall led into the kitchen area of the jail and then to two steps going down into the lower level of the back part of the jail. After reaching the lower level defendant forced Crowder to unlock and go through a solid iron door and then a bar door into the cellblock area. At this point the prisoners were released and Crowder was locked in the jail cell. Crowder yelled for assistance and was released after being in the cell some 9 or 10 minutes.\nDefendant contends that the movement and detention of Crowder does not constitute the offense of kidnapping. We do not agree with this contention.\nG.S. 14-39, the statute forbidding kidnapping, does not define the offense. Therefore, as set forth in State v. Lowry, 263 N.C. 536, 139 S.E. 2d 870 (1965) the common law definition may be resorted to for the particular acts constituting the offense. In State v. Harrison, 145 N.C. 408, 59 S.E. 867 (1907) a brief historical treatment is given as follows: \u201cBlackstone and some other English authorities define kidnapping to be the 'forcible abduction or stealing away of a man, woman, or child from their own country and sending them into another.\u2019 In 1 East Pleas of the Crown, 429, it is described as \u2018the most aggravated species of false imprisonment,\u2019 and defined to be \u2018the stealing and carrying away or secreting of any person.\u2019 \u2018The Supreme Court of New Hampshire,\u2019 says Bishop, \u2018more reasonably, and apparently not in conflict with actual decisions, held that transportation to a foreign country is not a necessary part of this offense.\u2019 . . . Bishop states the better definition of kidnapping to be \u2018false imprisonment aggravated by conveying the imprisoned person to some other place.\u2019 \u201d\nState v. Lowry, supra, provides that \u201ckidnap\u201d as used in G.S. 14-39 means the unlawful taking and carrying away of a person by force and against his will. It also states that it is the fact, not the distance of forcible removal of the victim that constitutes kidnapping. The court has later stated in State v. Ingland, 278 N.C. 42, 178 S.E. 2d 577 (1971) that the asportation requirement has now been relaxed so that any carrying away is sufficient. The distance the victim is carried is immaterial. In State v. Barbour, 278 N.C. 449, 180 S.E. 2d 115 (1971) the court stated that, \u201c(w)here the gravamen of the crime is the carrying away of the person, the place from or to which the person is transported is not material, and an actual asportation of the victim is sufficient to. constitute the offense without regard to the extent or degree of such movement.\u201d (Emphasis ours.) Then in State v. Penley, 277 N.C. 704, 178 S.E. 2d 490 (1971) the court reiterated the principle that the distance traveled is not material\u201d .... The defendant by force and threat of violence took Carter and carried him where he did not consent to go. This constitutes kidnapping under our statute.\u201d In State v. Murphy, 280 N.C. 1, 184 S.E. 2d 845 (1971) the court repeated the rule that any carrying away is sufficient.\nThe case closest in point to the one at bar is State v. Reid, 5 N.C. App. 424, 168 S.E. 2d 511 (1969) written by Parker, Judge, where the victim upon leaving his office located at his residence was encountered by two men as he rounded the corner of the garage. The victim ran but fell down, whereupon the two men seized him and dragged him through a hedge at the rear of his property approximately 75 feet into a vacant lot. They then bound and gagged the victim and were waiting for the victim\u2019s wife to return and then gain admission to the house when they were frightened away by police. These facts were held sufficient to submit the offense of kidnapping to the jury, although the defendant was given a new trial on the kidnapping charge because of prejudicial error in the charge.\nWe find no distinguishing factors in the principles involved in the instant case and in Reid. In view of the opinions of our Supreme Court the only possible distinction would be whether in both cases there was a \u201ccarrying away.\u201d Obviously this, \u201ccarrying away\u201d is not based on distance since it has been stated numerous times that distance is immaterial. If this were the factor involved then surely 62 feet in the. instant case would ...be sufficient to support the offense as was the 75 feet involved .in' Reid. If distance is not material to the \u201ccarrying away\u201d the essential element must be the term \u201cremoval\u201d as used by the court in several opinions such as State v. Lowry, supra, State v. Barbour, supra, and in Reid. ''\nBlack\u2019s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. (1951) defines removal as \u201cin a broad sense, the transfer of a person or thing from one place to another.\u201d Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary (1968) defines removal as a \u201cshift of location.\u201d It is this concept that makes the present case a \u201ccarrying away\u201d and would prevent certain other cases from constituting kidnapping even though they fit the common law definition. For example, the taking and carrying away of a person by force and against his will from the cash register of his store to. the other side of the counter or in the corner of the same room might not constitute kidnapping because there has not been a sufficient \u201cshift of location\u201d or \u201ctransfer from one place to another\u201d to meet the requirements of a \u201ccarrying away.\u201d This is not to say that in a larger building with several distinct areas that the \u201ccarrying away\u201d would not be sufficient to constitute the offense. In Reid there was a shift from the victim\u2019s lot into an adjoining lot through a hedgerow. In the instant case there was a shift even more evident and more dangerous to the. victim. Here Crowder was transported from the front door of the jail through an iron door into his office, through the office, out another iron door, into the hall through the kitchen area, down two steps into the lower back part of the jail, through a solid iron locked door and a double locked cellblock door, and into a cell where he was detained by the defendant. We hold this to be a sufficient \u201cshift of location\u201d or \u201ctransfer from one place to another\u201d to constitute a \u201ccarrying away,\u201d completing the offense of kidnapping. We do not feel that under these facts there would have to be a removal from the physical building. In Reid the victim was encountered outside and left outside in the adjoining lot. In the instant case the victim was encountered at the jailhouse door and taken through numerous distinct portions of the building.\nWe see no distinction in the underlying principle in Reid where the shift of location or removal was accomplished outside of any physical structures and in the instant case where the shift of location or removal was done within a physical structure. We hold that such a removal constituted a carrying away and sufficiently established the offense of kidnapping.\nDefendant assigns as error the failure of the court to remand the case for a preliminary hearing although a bill of indictment had been returned. We find this contention to be without merit. The preliminary hearing in North Carolina is not an essential criminal proceeding nor is it an essential prerequisite to the finding of an indictment in this jurisdiction. Gasque v. State, 271 N.C. 323, 156 S.E. 2d 740 (1967); State v. Hargett, 255 N.C. 412, 121 S.E. 2d 589 (1961). The court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion for a preliminary hearing. Furthermore, a preliminary hearing would have been fruitless in this case. Defendant had been tried once, had access to a transcript of the first trial and also had access to a transcript of the post-conviction hearing.\nDefendant presents several other assignments of error, all of which we have carefully considered but find them to be without merit.\nFor the reasons stated, we find\nNo error.\nJudge Hedrick concurs.\nJudge Parker dissents.", "type": "majority", "author": "BRITT, Judge." }, { "text": "Judge Parker\ndissenting:\nThe unlawful detention of a human being against his will is false imprisonment, not kidnapping; \u201cin order to constitute kidnapping there must be not only an unlawful detention by force or fraud but also a carrying away of the victim.\u201d State v. Ingland, 278 N.C. 42, 178 S.E. 2d 577. True, \u201c[i]t is the fact, not the distance of forcible removal of the victim that constitutes kidnapping,\u201d State v. Lowry, 263 N.C. 536, 139 S.E. 2d 870, but some carrying away must occur nevertheless, and I have found no decision of our Supreme Court which dispenses with this requirement.\nIn my view, the evidence in the present record fails to show such a carrying away of the victim as to make the offense kidnapping. Quite to the contrary, the evidence establishes that the victim was not carried away at all but was securely locked up on his own premises. State v. Reid, 5 N.C. App. 424, 168 S.E. 2d 511, relied on by the majority opinion, is distinguishable. In Reid, the victim was forcibly removed from his home premises and was dragged away against his will onto an adjoining lot. That case, in my opinion, represents the outer limits to which the courts should go in finding sufficient evidence of a carrying away to constitute the crime of kidnapping.\nShould the opinion of the majority in the present case prevail, it seems to me that the crime of kidnapping would necessarily be involved in every case of robbery or rape in which the evidence shows that the defendant, incidental to accomplishing his major purpose, may have forced his victim to move a few steps and forcibly detained him a few moments, even though all events occurred on the victim\u2019s own premises. Some courts, interpreting statutes of their jurisdictions, may have gone so far. Annot.: Seizure or Detention for Purpose of Committing Rape, Robbery, or Similar Offense as Constituting Separte Crime of Kidnapping, 43 A.L.R. 3rd 699. Such a holding does not conform with the common law concept of kidnapping which prevails in North Carolina.\nEvidence in the present case would support defendant\u2019s conviction of a number of crimes. (Assault under G.S. 14-32 (c); assault under G.S. 14-34.2; aiding and abetting prisoners to escape from lawful custody; false imprisonment.) Because it fails to show a carrying away of the victim, I find it insufficient to support defendant\u2019s conviction of kidnapping and vote to reverse.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Judge Parker" } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Howard P. Satisky for the State.", "Gwyn, Gwyn & Morgan by Melzer A. Morgan, Jr., for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAEOLINA v. BILLY C. DIX\nNo. 7217SC333\n(Filed 24 May 1972)\n1. Kidnapping \u00a7 1\u2014 definition of offense\nSince G.S. 14-39 does not define the offense of kidnapping, the common law definition may he resorted to for the particular acts constituting the offense.\n2. Kidnapping \u00a7 1\u2014 definition of offense\nKidnapping is the unlawful taking and carrying away of a person by force and against his will; it is the fact, not the distance, of forcible removal of the victim that constitutes kidnapping.\n3. Kidnapping \u00a7 1\u2014 carrying away \u2014 removal from one part of jail to another\nThere was a sufficient \u201ccarrying away\u201d to constitute the offense of kidnapping where a jailer was forced by defendant at gunpoint to go from the front door of the jail through numerous distinct portions of the building to the jail cells, a distance of some 62 feet, where friends of defendant were released from their cells and the jailer was locked in a cell.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 21\u2014 motion for preliminary hearing \u2014 denial\nThe trial court did not err in the denial of defendant\u2019s motion for a preliminary hearing, since the preliminary hearing is not an essential prerequisite to the finding of a bill of indictment.\nJudge PARKER dissenting.\nAppeal by defendant from Exum, Judge, 7 December 1971 Criminal Session, Rockingham Superior Court.\nDefendant was charged with kidnapping. He was first tried at the 28 March 1971 Session of Rockingham Superior Court, was found guilty and was sentenced to prison for a term of not less than 20 nor more than 25 years. As a result of a post-conviction hearing held at the October 1971 Session of Rock-ingham Superior Court, defendant was awarded a new trial because of a denial of effective assistance of counsel at his first trial.\nFollowing a retrial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. From judgment imposing prison sentence of not less than 12 nor more than 25 years, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Howard P. Satisky for the State.\nGwyn, Gwyn & Morgan by Melzer A. Morgan, Jr., for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0328-01", "first_page_order": 354, "last_page_order": 359 }