{
  "id": 8555506,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDDIE KING TENNYSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Tennyson",
  "decision_date": "1973-02-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 7319SC122",
  "first_page": "349",
  "last_page": "352",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "17 N.C. App. 349"
    }
  ],
  "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": "170 S.E. 2d 125",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 N.C. App. 327",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547908
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/6/0327-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 S.E. 2d 121",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 N.C. 506",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569084
      ],
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/262/0506-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 S.E. 2d 598",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1943,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 N.C. 173",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8602236
      ],
      "year": 1943,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/223/0173-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 59",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 622",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573092
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0622-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 397,
    "char_count": 7871,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.557,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2060125899231963
    },
    "sha256": "afcc4afd0395fe68a5d79836718d5794c7b04978ee9244f0721c0f3b06f94c06",
    "simhash": "1:30ae7c898cb74415",
    "word_count": 1283
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:57.402584+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDDIE KING TENNYSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nBased on assignments of error 1 and 3 (exceptions 1 and 3) defendant contends the court erred in admitting into evidence, over defendant\u2019s objection, the marijuana (State\u2019s exhibits 3, 4 and 5) found as a result of the search of defendant and his automobile.\nThese assignments of error have no merit. The record discloses that the police officers searched defendant and his automobile and seized exhibits 3, 4 and 5 by authority of a duly issued and executed search warrant.\nDefendant assigns as error: \u201c[t]he action of the Court in asking the weight of the three envelopes and then allowing the Solicitor to ask the witness to answer that the total exceeded five grams.\u201d\nA trial judge may ask questions of a witness to clarify his testimony. State v. Freeman, 280 N.C. 622, 187 S.E. 2d 59 (1972). The record reveals that the witness first testified as to the weight of two of the three packages of marijuana. The trial judge merely asked the witness to give the weight of each of the three packages. \u25a0 Thereafter, the witness was permitted to testify as to the total weight of the three packages. Obviously, the purpose of the court\u2019s questions was to clarify testimony of the officer as to the weight of each package of marijuana. No prejudicial error is shown.\nBy assignments of error 4 and 5, based on exceptions 4 and 5, defendant contends the court erred in allowing into evidence \u201cmarijuana residue\u201d taken from a trash can in defendant\u2019s motel room and in refusing to strike testimony that \u201cmarijuana residue was found in a trash can\u201d in defendant\u2019s motel room.\nAssignment of error number 4 has no merit since there is nothing in the record to indicate that the \u201cmarijuana residue\u201d was offered or admitted into evidence. While the record indicates that defendant duly excepted to the court\u2019s refusal to strike the testimony complained of in assignment of error number 5, it is not clear that defendant objected to the question eliciting the testimony. An objection does appear in the record immediately prior to the testimony complained of, but the exception noted therein (exception 4) purportedly is the basis of another assignment of error. A motion to strike testimony to which no objection was timely raised, is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and his ruling thereon will not be reviewed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Hunt, 223 N.C. 173, 25 S.E. 2d 598 (1943). We do not perceive that the testimony complained of was prejudicial to defendant or that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion since possession of the marijuana residue was not the basis of the charge against defendant. Furthermore, the admission of the testimony could not have been prejudicial since defendant elicited evidence of the same import by his extensive cross-examination of the witness. State v. Colson, 262 N.C. 506, 138 S.E. 2d 121 (1964); 1 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Appeal and Error, \u00a7 48. Assignments of error 4 and 5 are overruled.\nBy his sixth assignment of error, defendant contends the court expressed an opinion on the evidence in violation of the provisions of G.S. 1-180 when it asked the witness, \u201cDon\u2019t you know marijuana?\u201d and \u201cWhat is it, then?\u201d\nThese questions were asked by the judge during defendant\u2019s extensive cross-examination of the officer regarding the material described as \u201cmarijuana residue\u201d which he found in defendant\u2019s motel room. The questions clearly were for the purpose of clarifying the witness\u2019s testimony and did not amount to an expression of opinion on the evidence by the judge. Assignment of error number 6 is not sustained.\nNext defendant contends the court erred in admitting into evidence, over his objection, the search warrant and affidavit used by the officers to search the defendant and his automobile. Defendant and the State stipulated that it was not necessary that the search warrant and affidavit be included as part of the record on appeal. Prejudicial error, therefore, is not made to appear. State v. Culbertson, 6 N.C. App. 327, 170 S.E. 2d 125 (1969).\nDefendant contends the court erred in denying his motions for judgment as of nonsuit. There was sufficient competent evidence to require submission of the case to the jury and to support the verdict.\nFinally, defendant contends the court erred in its instructions to the jury. After carefully examining each exception upon which these assignments of error are based, we find no prejudicial error in the charge.\nDefendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Associate Attorney Walter E. Ricks III for the State.",
      "Robert M. Davis for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDDIE KING TENNYSON\nNo. 7319SC122\n(Filed 14 February 1973)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 84\u2014 marijuana seized under valid warrant \u2014 admissibility\nEnvelopes of marijuana found as a result of a search of defendant and his automobile were admissible in evidence where the search and seizure were by authority of a duly issued and executed search warrant.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 99 \u2014 questions by trial court \u2014 clarification of testimony\nIn defendant\u2019s trial for felonious possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of marijuana, questions put to a witness by the trial judge with respect to the weight of packages of marijuana seized from defendant and his automobile did not constitute prejudicial error.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 169 \u2014 evidence of marijuana residue \u2014 subsequent introduction of similar testimony\nAdmission into evidence of testimony concerning marijuana residue taken from a trash can in defendant\u2019s motel room did not constitute prejudicial error where possession of the residue was not the basis of the charge against defendant and where defendant elicited evidence of the same import upon cross-examination of the witness.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 99 \u2014 questions by trial court \u2014 clarification of testimony\nQuestions by the trial judge put to a witness during cross-examination regarding marijuana residue found by the witness in defendant\u2019s room were for the purpose of clarifying the witness\u2019s testimony and did not constitute an expression of opinion on the evidence.\nAppeal by defendant from McConnell, Judge, 11 September 1972 Session of Superior Court held in Rowan County.\nDefendant, Eddie King Tennyson, was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with felonious possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of marijuana in violation of the North Carolina Controlled Substances Act. Upon defendant\u2019s plea of not guilty, the State offered evidence tending to show that on 9 June 1972 Officer J. P. Davis of the Salisbury Police Department stopped an automobile owned and operated by defendant at the intersection of Horah Street and Concord Road in the City of Salisbury. Within \u201cjust moments\u201d or \u201ctwo minutes\u201d Officer C. W. Whitman and S.B.I. agent Richardson, armed with a search warrant for the defendant and his automobile, arrived at the scene. After Agent Richardson\u2022read the search warrant to defendant, Officer Whitman went to the automobile and found a small manila envelope containing marijuana on the seat. Whitman found another envelope containing marijuana on top of defendant\u2019s shoe; and when Officer Whitman reached down to recover this envelope, another envelope containing marijuana \u201cfell out of the pants leg.\u201d The three envelopes, admitted into evidence as exhibits 3, 4 and 5, contained more than five grams of marijuana.\nDefendant testified and denied possession of the marijuana. Defendant offered the testimony of a passenger in the automobile that the marijuana belonged to him.\nDefendant was found guilty as charged and from a judgment imposing a prison sentence of 2-5 years, which sentence was suspended and defendant placed on probation, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Associate Attorney Walter E. Ricks III for the State.\nRobert M. Davis for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0349-01",
  "first_page_order": 373,
  "last_page_order": 376
}