{
  "id": 8548280,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENNETH ERNEST RICHARDS; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM CECIL GAMBLE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Richards",
  "decision_date": "1972-06-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 7223SC317",
  "first_page": "163",
  "last_page": "165",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "15 N.C. App. 163"
    }
  ],
  "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": "277 N.C. 459",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566209,
        8566342,
        8566381,
        8566415,
        8566289
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/277/0459-01",
        "/nc/277/0459-03",
        "/nc/277/0459-04",
        "/nc/277/0459-05",
        "/nc/277/0459-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 S.E. 2d 838",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 477",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551919
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/9/0477-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 S.E. 2d 593",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 N.C. 625",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559741
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/275/0625-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 S.E. 2d 60",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 N.C. App. 536",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551899
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/5/0536-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 S.E. 2d 548",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "267 N.C. 90",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558414
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/267/0090-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 S.E. 2d 476",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 N.C. 680",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567347
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/277/0680-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 S.E. 2d 274",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 527",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571013
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0527-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 377,
    "char_count": 6153,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.529,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.283159945918396e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4791565068079259
    },
    "sha256": "f2f462fcc630004d6a0b499dc39e415457738448537735e101c3f57b9de83d2a",
    "simhash": "1:1ef8442b640a823c",
    "word_count": 1023
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:51.335715+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Parker and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENNETH ERNEST RICHARDS STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM CECIL GAMBLE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nAll of defendants\u2019 assignments of error relate to the court\u2019s charge to the jury. It is a well established principle of law in this State that the charge of the court will be construed contextually, and segregated portions will not be held prejudicial error when the charge as a whole is free from any prejudice to the defendant. State v. Alexander, 279 N.C. 527, 184 S.E. 2d 274 (1971); State v. McWilliams, 277 N.C. 680, 178 S.E. 2d 476 (1971); State v. Hall, 267 N.C. 90, 147 S.E. 2d 548 (1966); State v. Gatling, 5 N.C. App. 536, 169 S.E. 2d 60 (1969), affirmed 275 N.C. 625, 170 S.E. 2d 593 (1969).\nBy their first assignment of error defendants contend that the court failed to correctly charge the jury as to which defendant claimed an alibi. At one point in the charge the court mistakenly referred to Winebarger, the State\u2019s witness, when charging about Richards and his alibi, but this mistake was called to the court\u2019s attention and corrected. In other parts of the charge the court correctly stated the evidence concerning Richards and the alibi and in summarizing Gamble\u2019s testimony made no mention of any alibi contention on Gamble\u2019s behalf. The assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant Gamble contends the court erred in including his prior criminal record in its instructions to the jury without instructing the jury to consider it only for the specific purpose of impeachment. Nothing in the record shows an objection to testimony regarding Gamble\u2019s prior criminal record or a request to restrict the purpose for which the evidence was received. In State v. Teasley, 9 N.C. App. 477, 176 S.E. 2d 838 (1970), cert. den., appeal dismissed, 277 N.C. 459 (1970), the court stated that Rule 21 of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court provides that \u201cwhere evidence admissible for some purposes, but not for all, is admitted generally, its admission will not be held for error unless the appellant requested at the time of its admission that its purpose be restricted.\u201d (Citations.) Since the evidence was admitted generally this assignment of error is without merit.\nBy his assignment of error #4, based on exception #6, defendant Gamble contends that with respect to him the court failed to properly instruct the jury as to the elements of the crime of robbery with a firearm. The portion of the charge covered by this exception consists of two paragraphs separated by another paragraph. We agree that the second paragraph excepted to, standing alone, is error as it did not charge obtaining the property by endangering or threatening the life of the victim with a firearm as an element of robbery with a firearm. In the first paragraph covered by the exception,' however, the court fully set forth all elements of the offense; when the charge is considered contextually as a whole we do not think defendant Gamble was prejudiced. The assignment of error is overruled.\nWe hold that defendants had a fair trial, free from prejudicial error, and the sentences imposed are within the limits allowed by statute.\nNo error.\nJudges Parker and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General William F. Briley for the State.",
      "T. R. Bryan, Sr., and Erie Davis for defendants appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENNETH ERNEST RICHARDS STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM CECIL GAMBLE\nNo. 7223SC317\n(Filed 28 June 1972)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 168\u2014 construction of charge\nThe charge of the court will be construed contextually, and segregated portions will not be held prejudicial error when the charge as a whole is free from any prejudice to defendant.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 168\u2014 charge on alibi \u2014 erroneous reference to State\u2019s witness\nTrial court\u2019s mistaken reference to the State\u2019s witness when charging about one defendant and his alibi was not prejudicial error where the mistake was called to the court\u2019s attention and corrected.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 89, 95\u2014 prior criminal record \u2014 admission generally \u2014 instructions\nThe trial court did not err in including defendant\u2019s prior criminal record in its instructions without instructing the jury to consider it only for the specific purpose of impeachment, where testimony regarding defendant\u2019s criminal record was admitted generally without objection or request that the purpose of its admission be restricted.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 168; Robbery \u00a7 5\u2014 instructions \u2014 omission of element of crime \u2014 harmless error\nTrial court\u2019s omission of one element of the crime of armed robbery in one paragraph of the charge was not prejudicial error where all of the elements of the crime were fully set forth in a. preceding paragraph of the charge.\nAppeal by defendants from Crissman, Judge, 13 December 1971 Session of Wilkes Superior Court.\nDefendants, Kenneth Ernest Richards and William Cecil Gamble, were indicted for armed robbery. The cases were consolidated for trial and both defendants pleaded not guilty.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show: On the night of 16 September 1971 at about 10:15 p.m. defendants, riding together in a yellow and black Dodge, stopped at the store of Allen Winebarger and went in. Defendant Richards pulled a gun and told Winebarger to put his hands over his head and back away from the counter; defendant Gamble also drew a gun. Winebarger was taken to the back of the store where defendants searched him and took his \u201cpersonal belongings\u201d including pocketbook and knife. Richards took money and checks from the cash drawer totaling approximately $2500. Gamble ordered Winebarger to go .to the stockroom where Gamble made him lie down on his stomach and tied Winebarger\u2019s hands.\nDefendant Richards offered testimony of Annie Sue Swaim that he was with her from 8:00 or 9:00 o\u2019clock on the night of 16 September 1971 until the following morning. Defendant Gamble testified in his own behalf and denied his participation in the alleged robbery.\nThe jury returned verdicts of guilty of armed robbery as to each defendant and the court entered judgments sentencing Richards to prison for not less than 15 nor more than 20 years and Gamble to prison for not less than 12 nor more than 15 years. From these judgments, defendants appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General William F. Briley for the State.\nT. R. Bryan, Sr., and Erie Davis for defendants appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0163-01",
  "first_page_order": 187,
  "last_page_order": 189
}