{ "id": 8321543, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LEON GEORGE BAUBLITZ, JR.", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Baublitz", "decision_date": "2005-08-16", "docket_number": "No. COA04-1208", "first_page": "801", "last_page": "811", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "172 N.C. App. 801" } ], "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": "171 N.C. App. 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8438167 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/171/0518-01" ] }, { "cite": "540 U.S. 843", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 8924864, 8925185, 8925156, 8925221, 8925030, 8925127, 8924903, 8925256, 8925290, 8925102, 8925072, 8924945, 8924980, 8925047, 8924826 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "alteration in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/540/0843-02", "/us/540/0843-12", "/us/540/0843-11", "/us/540/0843-13", "/us/540/0843-06", "/us/540/0843-10", "/us/540/0843-03", "/us/540/0843-14", "/us/540/0843-15", "/us/540/0843-09", "/us/540/0843-08", "/us/540/0843-04", "/us/540/0843-05", "/us/540/0843-07", "/us/540/0843-01" ] }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 693", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511440, 1511321, 1511593, 1511206 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "alteration in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0693-04", "/nc/356/0693-01", "/nc/356/0693-03", "/nc/356/0693-02" ] }, { "cite": "538 U.S. 1040", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9088356, 9088262, 9088327, 9088423, 9088298, 9088395, 9088274, 9088471, 9088313, 9088285, 9088380, 9088253, 9088343, 9088447 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/538/1040-09", "/us/538/1040-02", "/us/538/1040-07", "/us/538/1040-12", "/us/538/1040-05", "/us/538/1040-11", "/us/538/1040-03", "/us/538/1040-14", "/us/538/1040-06", "/us/538/1040-04", "/us/538/1040-10", "/us/538/1040-01", "/us/538/1040-08", "/us/538/1040-13" ] }, { "cite": "614 S.E.2d 424", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633147 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "426" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/614/0424-01" ] }, { "cite": "612 S.E.2d 336", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12632813 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "339" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/612/0336-01" ] }, { "cite": "615 S.E.2d 688", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633348 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "692-93" }, { "page": "692-93" }, { "page": "694", "parenthetical": "Tyson, J., dissenting" }, { "page": "697-98" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/615/0688-01" ] }, { "cite": "534 U.S. 838", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9117696, 9117539, 9117635, 9117510, 9117672, 9117610, 9117559, 9117586, 9117779, 9117492, 9117653, 9117716, 9117750, 9117528 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/534/0838-11", "/us/534/0838-04", "/us/534/0838-08", "/us/534/0838-02", "/us/534/0838-10", "/us/534/0838-07", "/us/534/0838-05", "/us/534/0838-06", "/us/534/0838-14", "/us/534/0838-01", "/us/534/0838-09", "/us/534/0838-12", "/us/534/0838-13", "/us/534/0838-03" ] }, { "cite": "459 S.E.2d 297", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "301", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 N.C. App. 557", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11916450 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "561-62", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/119/0557-01" ] }, { "cite": "245 S.E.2d 412", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "414" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "37 N.C. App. 68", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550591 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "70" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/37/0068-01" ] }, { "cite": "569 S.E.2d 680", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "682-83" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "153 N.C. App. 294", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9249601 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "297-98" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/153/0294-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E.2d 706", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "714" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573594 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "12-13" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 S.E.2d 919", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "921" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "32 N.C. App. 274", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549989 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "277" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/32/0274-01" ] }, { "cite": "318 S.E.2d 883", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "886" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "70 N.C. App. 82", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520404 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "85" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/70/0082-01" ] }, { "cite": "357 S.E.2d 636", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "638", "parenthetical": "internal quotations and citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "320 N.C. 143", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4725415 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "146", "parenthetical": "internal quotations and citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/320/0143-01" ] }, { "cite": "344 S.E.2d 77", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "79" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "81 N.C. App. 91", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521490 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "93" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/81/0091-01" ] }, { "cite": "564 S.E.2d 301", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "304" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 N.C. App. 107", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9079463 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "110" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/151/0107-01" ] }, { "cite": "352 S.E.2d 428", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "432" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "319 N.C. 73", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4748383 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "79" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/319/0073-01" ] }, { "cite": "368 S.E.2d 377", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "383" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "322 N.C. 349", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2515495 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "358" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/322/0349-01" ] }, { "cite": "417 S.E.2d 756", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "761" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "331 N.C. 537", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2498402 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "544" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/331/0537-01" ] }, { "cite": "516 S.E.2d 883", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "886" }, { "page": "886", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "134 N.C. App. 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11143287 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "133" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/134/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "356 S.E.2d 573", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "575" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "319 N.C. 634", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4742205 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "637" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/319/0634-01" ] }, { "cite": "317 S.E.2d 909", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "internal citations and quotations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 308", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4682792, 4685033, 4684974, 4684785, 4682684 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "internal citations and quotations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0308-05", "/nc/311/0308-03", "/nc/311/0308-02", "/nc/311/0308-01", "/nc/311/0308-04" ] }, { "cite": "313 S.E.2d 236", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "237", "parenthetical": "internal citations and quotations omitted" }, { "page": "237" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "67 N.C. App. 519", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526778 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "521", "parenthetical": "internal citations and quotations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/67/0519-01" ] }, { "cite": "393 S.E.2d 545", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "550" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "99 N.C. App. 421", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523319 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "430" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/99/0421-01" ] }, { "cite": "402 S.E.2d 433", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 N.C. 334", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2537668, 2543786, 2542358, 2539640, 2542331 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/328/0334-04", "/nc/328/0334-02", "/nc/328/0334-01", "/nc/328/0334-03", "/nc/328/0334-05" ] }, { "cite": "397 S.E.2d 653", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "656" }, { "page": "656" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "100 N.C. App. 628", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527353 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "633" }, { "page": "634" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/100/0628-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 S.E.2d 481", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "483" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "268 N.C. 320", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561746 ], "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "322" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/268/0320-01" ] }, { "cite": "412 U.S. 218", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6172008 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "219" }, { "page": "858" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/412/0218-01" ] }, { "cite": "386 S.E.2d 217", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "222", "parenthetical": "citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 36 L. Ed. 2d 854, 858 (1973); and State v. Belk, 268 N.C. 320, 322, 150 S.E.2d 481, 483 (1966)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 N.C. App. 389", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522580 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "397", "parenthetical": "citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 36 L. Ed. 2d 854, 858 (1973); and State v. Belk, 268 N.C. 320, 322, 150 S.E.2d 481, 483 (1966)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/96/0389-01" ] }, { "cite": "517 S.E.2d 128", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "131" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 630", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 132043 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "635" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0630-01" ] }, { "cite": "539 S.E.2d 5", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 847", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 131976, 132299, 132174, 132007 ], "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0847-02", "/nc/350/0847-03", "/nc/350/0847-04", "/nc/350/0847-01" ] }, { "cite": "510 S.E.2d 165", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "167" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 N.C. App. 22", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11236837 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "26" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/132/0022-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-146", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "157 L. Ed. 2d 78", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "alteration in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "579 S.E.2d 98", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "alteration in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "574 S.E.2d 93", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "98" }, { "page": "98" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 N.C. App. 89", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9249037 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "94" }, { "page": "95" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/155/0089-01" ] }, { "cite": "607 S.E.2d 646", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3794209, 3799976, 3793513, 3800274, 3796792, 3798971, 3799454 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0191-07", "/nc/359/0191-01", "/nc/359/0191-04", "/nc/359/0191-05", "/nc/359/0191-03", "/nc/359/0191-02", "/nc/359/0191-06" ] }, { "cite": "601 S.E.2d 215", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "217", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" }, { "page": "218" }, { "page": "219" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "166 N.C. App. 228", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8411088 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "231", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" }, { "page": "233" }, { "page": "233-34" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/166/0228-01" ] }, { "cite": "564 S.E.2d 233", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 N.C. 500", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 220032, 219940, 219910, 220175, 219996 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/355/0500-05", "/nc/355/0500-01", "/nc/355/0500-02", "/nc/355/0500-04", "/nc/355/0500-03" ] }, { "cite": "559 S.E.2d 814", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "818" }, { "page": "820", "parenthetical": "Greene, J., concurring" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "148 N.C. App. 462", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9366580 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "466" }, { "page": "471" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/148/0462-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 L. Ed. 2d 1074", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "572 S.E.2d 108", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "120-21" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 316", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511176 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "332" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0316-01" ] }, { "cite": "379 S.E.2d 30", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "37", "parenthetical": "\"Where a panel of the Court of Appeals has decided the same issue, albeit in a different case, a subsequent panel of the same court is bound by that precedent, unless it has been overturned by a higher court.\"" }, { "page": "37" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 373", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2483734 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "384", "parenthetical": "\"Where a panel of the Court of Appeals has decided the same issue, albeit in a different case, a subsequent panel of the same court is bound by that precedent, unless it has been overturned by a higher court.\"" }, { "page": "384" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0373-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 N.C. App. 335", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8436815 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "337" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/171/0335-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 641", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3798753, 3800802, 3804769, 3802729, 3801482, 3795307, 3800722 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "No. 296P05" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0641-03", "/nc/359/0641-06", "/nc/359/0641-02", "/nc/359/0641-01", "/nc/359/0641-07", "/nc/359/0641-04", "/nc/359/0641-05" ] }, { "cite": "170 N.C. App. 284", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9005095 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "288" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/170/0284-01" ] }, { "cite": "151 L. Ed. 2d 54", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "540 S.E.2d 713", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "723" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 50", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135728 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "65-66" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0050-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 N.C. App. 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8438167 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "524" }, { "page": "524" }, { "page": "527" }, { "page": "532-33" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/171/0518-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 993, "char_count": 25849, "ocr_confidence": 0.756, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.1266733772697456e-07, "percentile": 0.7653357396512306 }, "sha256": "14642efda1fbd40dff60af9bbd5b11550b4385975ee5529ba9a4518a4e8a0e6c", "simhash": "1:01694829767ff47e", "word_count": 4194 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:22:54.702952+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges HUNTER and LEVINSON concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LEON GEORGE BAUBLITZ, JR." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McGEE, Judge.\nLeon George Baublitz, Jr. (defendant) was convicted on 7 October 2003 of possession of a controlled substance. He was placed on supervised probation for twenty-four months. Defendant appeals.\nThe State\u2019s evidence at trial tended to show that Investigator Scott Houston (Investigator Houston) of the Pamlico County Sheriffs Department was conducting surveillance at the residence of Gloria Midgette (Midgette), a suspected crack cocaine dealer, on 22 November 2002. Around 8:00 or 8:30 p.m., Investigator Houston saw defendant pull his vehicle into Midgette\u2019s driveway. Investigator Houston saw Milton Cornell Davis (Davis), whom Houston knew as a drug runner for Midgette, approach defendant\u2019s vehicle from Midgette\u2019s home. Davis talked briefly with defendant and then walked back to Midgette\u2019s home. Davis soon returned to defendant\u2019s vehicle, and Davis and defendant drove off together.\nInvestigator Houston followed defendant\u2019s vehicle and observed the vehicle cross the center line of the highway twice. Investigator Houston stopped defendant\u2019s vehicle. When he looked inside the vehicle, Investigator Houston saw a piece of plastic on the floor between defendant\u2019s feet. The piece of plastic was the comer of a plastic bag that had been cut and knotted at the top. Investigator Houston noticed that the bag contained an off-white residue and, based on his six-year history of over 300 arrests, believed it to be cocaine. Investigator Houston asked defendant to step out of the vehicle, and defendant complied. Investigator Houston asked defendant if defendant had any contraband in the vehicle. Defendant replied that he did not. Investigator Houston explicitly asked for defendant\u2019s permission to search the vehicle. Defendant agreed to the search.\nInvestigator Houston performed a pat-down search of defendant and Davis, and a quick search of defendant\u2019s vehicle to retrieve the plastic bag. Defendant stood at the trunk of his vehicle during this time. Probation Officer Larry Collins (Officer Collins) was passing by and witnessed the traffic stop. Officer Collins stopped to offer his assistance and informed Investigator Houston that Davis was on probation and subject to warrantless searches. Officer Collins searched Davis and found a crack-smoking device in Davis\u2019s shoe. Investigator Houston asked defendant to sit in Investigator Houston\u2019s vehicle.\nOfficer Collins informed Investigator Houston that Davis wished to cooperate with law enforcement by showing them where contraband was located in the vehicle. Davis informed Investigator Houston and Officer Collins that cocaine was located between the driver\u2019s seat and the console. Investigator Houston then retrieved what appeared to be crack cocaine from the location in defendant\u2019s vehicle as specified by Davis. Investigator Houston arrested defendant and charged him with possession of cocaine.\nThe State Bureau of Investigation examined the substance found in defendant\u2019s vehicle and determined that the substance was 1.1 grams of cocaine.\nDefendant filed a motion to suppress evidence gathered as a result of the traffic stop on 1 October 2003. The motion was heard and denied prior to trial. A jury convicted defendant on 7 October 2003 for possession of a controlled substance, cocaine. Defendant moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant appeals.\nI.\nDefendant argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from his vehicle during the search. The State counters that because defendant did not object to the admission of the evidence at trial, he has failed to preserve for appellate review all issues related to the evidence found in the search of his vehicle. Our Court has held that a pretrial motion to suppress is a type of motion in limine, and that \u201ca motion in limine is not sufficient to preserve for appeal the question of admissibility of evidence if [a] defendant does not object to that evidence at the time it is offered at trial.\u201d State v. Grooms, 353 N.C. 50, 65-66, 540 S.E.2d 713, 723 (2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 838, 151 L. Ed. 2d 54 (2001).\nThe General Assembly recently amended Rule 103 of the Rules of Evidence to provide: \u201cOnce the [trial] court makes a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.\u201d N.C.R. Evid. 103(a)(2). The amendment became effective on 1 October 2003 and was meant to be applicable to rulings made on or after that date. Since the trial court heard and ruled on the motion to suppress in defendant\u2019s case on 7 October 2003, the amendment is applicable to this case.\nThe interpretation of the recent amendment to Rule 103 is an unsettled issue, and disagreement exists over whether the amendment to Rule 103 is constitutional. In State v. Tutt, 171 N.C. App. 518, 524, 615 S.E.2d 688, 692-93 (2005), the majority opinion held that the amendment to Rule 103 was unconstitutional. The majority opinion stated that \u201c[t]he Constitution of North Carolina vests the Supreme Court of North Carolina with exclusive authority to make rules of practice and procedure for the appellate division of the courts[,]\u201d and found that the amendment was unconstitutional because it is inconsistent with N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(1). Tatt, 171 N.C. App. at 524, 615 S.E.2d at 692-93.\nThe dissent in Tatt argued that the amendment to Rule 103 was a rule of evidence and not of procedure, and thus our Court must defer to the General Assembly. Tutt, 171 N.C. App. at 527, 615 S.E.2d at 694 (Tyson, J., dissenting). The dissent pointed out that our Court has previously made rulings consistent with the amendment to Rule 103. Tutt, 171 N.C. App. at 532-33, 615 S.E.2d at 697-98. In State v. Rose, 170 N.C. App. 284, 612 S.E.2d 336 (2005), disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 641, - S.E.2d - (June 30, 2005) (No. 296P05), our Court held that, under the amendment to Rule 103, once the trial court denied the defendant\u2019s motion to suppress, the defendant was not also required to object at trial to preserve the argument for appeal. Rose, 170 N.C. App. at 288, 612 S.E.2d at 339. Similarly, in In re S.W., 171 N.C. App. 335, 337, 614 S.E.2d 424, 426 (2005), our Court held that the defendant \u201cproperly preserved his assignment of error by objecting when the trial court denied his motion to suppress in conformity with the amended North Carolina Rule[] of Evidence 103.\u201d\nThe dissent in Tatt argued that this Court is bound by the precedent of Rose and In re S.W., citing In the Matter of Appeal from Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d 30, 37 (1989) (\u201cWhere a panel of the Court of Appeals has decided the same issue, albeit in a different case, a subsequent panel of the same court is bound by that precedent, unless it has been overturned by a higher court.\u201d). However, we do not find Rose and In re S. W. controlling because these decisions did not consider nor address the constitutionality of the amendment to Rule 103. We are therefore bound by the holding in Tutt that, because the amendment to Rule 103 is inconsistent with N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(1), the amendment is unconstitutional. See Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. at 384, 379 S.E.2d at 37. Despite the holding in Tutt, in our discretion we review defendant\u2019s assignments of error on the merits, as the amendment to Rule 103 went into effect before the present case went to trial. The amendment was thus under a presumption of constitutionality at the time of trial.\nA trial court\u2019s findings of fact when ruling on a motion to suppress evidence are binding on appeal when the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence. State v. Barden, 356 N.C. 316, 332, 572 S.E.2d 108, 120-21 (2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1040, 155 L. Ed. 2d 1074 (2003). However, a trial court\u2019s conclusions of law as to whether law enforcement had reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain a defendant are reviewable de novo. State v. Young, 148 N.C. App. 462, 466, 559 S.E.2d 814, 818, disc. review denied, 355 N.C. 500, 564 S.E.2d 233 (2002).\nA.\nDefendant first contends that his motion to suppress should have been granted because Investigator Houston lacked sufficient reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop defendant\u2019s vehicle. We first note that defendant cites an incorrect justification for the traffic stop. This Court has held that \u201c[w]here an officer makes a traffic stop based on a readily observed traffic violation, such as speeding or running a red light, such a stop will be valid if it was supported by probable cause.\u201d State v. Barnhill, 166 N.C. App. 228, 231, 601 S.E.2d 215, 217, disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 191, 607 S.E.2d 646 (2004) (emphasis added). In contrast, reasonable and articulable suspicion is required for \u201c \u2018a traffic stop based on an officer\u2019s [reasonable] suspicion that a traffic violation is being committed, but which can only be verified by stopping the vehicle, such as drunk driving or driving with a revoked license^]\u2019 \u201d State v. Wilson, 155 N.C. App. 89, 94, 574 S.E.2d 93, 98 (2002), disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 693, 579 S.E.2d 98, cert. denied, 540 U.S. 843, 157 L. Ed. 2d 78 (2003) (alteration in original) (quoting Young, 148 N.C. App. at 471, 559 S.E.2d at 820 (Greene, J., concurring)). In the present case, Investigator Houston stopped defendant\u2019s vehicle when Investigator Houston observed defendant\u2019s vehicle twice cross the center line of the highway, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-146(a). Defendant\u2019s traffic violation was readily observable, and therefore the probable cause standard applies.\nProbable cause is \u201csuspicion produced by such facts as indicate a fair probability that the person seized has engaged in or is engaged in criminal activity.\u201d State v. Schiffer, 132 N.C. App. 22, 26, 510 S.E.2d 165, 167, disc. review denied, 350 N.C. 847, 539 S.E.2d 5 (1999). Investigator Houston\u2019s observation of defendant\u2019s vehicle twice crossing the center line furnished sufficient circumstances to provide Investigator Houston with probable cause to stop defendant\u2019s vehicle for a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-146(a). See Barnhill, 166 N.C. App. at 233, 601 S.E.2d at 218; Wilson, 155 N.C. App. at 95, 574 S.E.2d at 98.\nDefendant argues that since Investigator Houston never gave defendant a traffic ticket, Investigator Houston was not acting on probable cause when he stopped defendant\u2019s vehicle. Rather, defendant argues, Investigator Houston was acting upon \u201cgeneralized, unparticularized suspicions that defendant was involved in a drug transaction[.]\u201d We reject this argument. Our Supreme Court has stated that, \u201c[p]rovided objective circumstances justify the action taken, any \u2018ulterior motive\u2019 of the officer is immaterial.\u201d State v. McClendon, 350 N.C. 630, 635, 517 S.E.2d 128, 131 (1999). Therefore, \u201can officer\u2019s subjective motivation for stopping a vehicle is irrelevant as to whether there are other objective criteria justifying the stop.\u201d Barnhill, 166 N.C. App. at 233-34, 601 S.E.2d at 219. Investigator Houston\u2019s objective observation of defendant\u2019s vehicle twice crossing the center line provided Investigator Houston with probable cause for the stop, regardless of his subjective motivation. The fact that Investigator Houston did not issue defendant a ticket is irrelevant.\nB.\nDefendant next argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the search of defendant\u2019s vehicle that yielded the cocaine exceeded the scope of defendant\u2019s consent to a search. We have held that \u201c[generally, the Fourth Amendment and article I, \u00a7 20 of the North Carolina Constitution require issuance of a warrant based on probable cause for searches. However, our courts recognize an exception to this rule when the search is based on the consent of the detainee.\u201d State v. Jones, 96 N.C. App. 389, 397, 386 S.E.2d 217, 222 (1989) (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 36 L. Ed. 2d 854, 858 (1973); and State v. Belk, 268 N.C. 320, 322, 150 S.E.2d 481, 483 (1966)). When a defendant\u2019s consent is given \u201cfreely, intelligently, and voluntarily,\u201d State v. Aubin, 100 N.C. App. 628, 633, 397 S.E.2d 653, 656 (1990), disc. review denied, 328 N.C. 334, 402 S.E.2d 433 (1991), and a defendant is not subject to coercion, a defendant\u2019s consent to search a vehicle for contraband entitles the officer to \u201c \u2018conduct a reasonable search anywhere inside the [vehicle] which reasonably might contain contraband^]\u2019 \u201d Aubin, 100 N.C. App. at 634, 397 S.E.2d at 656 (quoting State v. Morocco, 99 N.C. App. 421, 430, 393 S.E.2d 545, 550 (1990)).\nA warrantless search supported by consent is lawful only to the extent that it is conducted within the spatial and temporal scope of the consent. Absent an express limit to the duration of the consent,\n[t]he temporal scope of a consent to search is a question of fact to be determined in light of all the circumstances. A brief lapse of time between the consent and the search does not require a reaffirmation of the consent as a condition precedent to a lawful search. The length of time a consent lasts depends upon the reasonableness of the lapse of time between the consent and the search in relation to the scope and breadth of the consent given.\nState v. Williams, 67 N.C. App. 519, 521, 313 S.E.2d 236, 237, cert. denied, 311 N.C. 308, 317 S.E.2d 909 (1984) (internal citations and quotations omitted).\nDefendant argues that he only consented to the initial search, and that Investigator Houston\u2019s more thorough search after receiving information from Davis exceeded the scope of defendant\u2019s consent. We find that the undisputed evidence before the trial court supports a finding that Investigator Houston\u2019s second search of the vehicle did not exceed the scope of defendant\u2019s consent. Defendant placed no explicit time limit on his consent to the search, nor did he attempt to revoke his consent at any time. Id. at 521, 313 S.E.2d at 237. Only a few minutes lapsed between the time Investigator Houston conducted the initial search and when he recovered the cocaine. Investigator Houston was not prohibited from momentarily interrupting his search of defendant\u2019s vehicle. Accordingly, we find that the cocaine was admissible evidence found as a result of a consensual search of defendant\u2019s vehicle.\nFurthermore, even if defendant had not consented to the search, Investigator Houston would have been authorized to search defendant\u2019s vehicle because of the \u201c \u2018automobile exception\u2019 to the warrant requirement[.]\u201d See State v. Isleib, 319 N.C. 634, 637, 356 S.E.2d 573, 575 (1987). A warrant is not required to perform a lawful search of a vehicle on a public road when there is probable cause for the search. State v. Earhart, 134 N.C. App. 130, 133, 516 S.E.2d 883, 886 (1999). \u201c \u2018Probable cause exists where \u201cthe facts and circumstances within . . . [the officers\u2019] knowledge and of which [the officers] had reasonable trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that\u201d an offense has been or is being committed.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 133, 516 S.E.2d at 886 (citations omitted). In this case, Investigator Houston observed defendant drive up to Midgette\u2019s home, a location that was known for its drug activity. Investigator Houston also observed Davis, a known drug runner, approach defendant\u2019s vehicle from Midgette\u2019s home, speak with defendant, go back inside Midgette\u2019s home, return to defendant\u2019s vehicle, and leave with defendant. Investigator Houston testified that this behavior was consistent with drug sales that he had previously observed take place at Midgette\u2019s home. After pulling defendant\u2019s vehicle over, Investigator Houston saw a piece of plastic that resembled drug paraphernalia in. defendant\u2019s vehicle. Davis also told Investigator Houston that Davis knew where cocaine was located in defendant\u2019s vehicle. These circumstances provided Investigator Houston with probable cause that justified a warrantless search of defendant\u2019s vehicle under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The trial court did not err by denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress or by admitting evidence obtained as a result of the search of defendant\u2019s vehicle.\nII.\nDefendant argues that the trial court erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the evidence presented was insufficient to submit the charge to the jury. Defendant contends that he did not have actual or constructive possession of the cocaine, and thus the evidence related to the essential element of possession was insufficient to submit to the jury. We disagree.\nWhen considering a motion to dismiss, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, and the State is entitled to every reasonable inference that can be drawn. State v. Benson, 331 N.C. 537, 544, 417 S.E.2d 756, 761 (1992). \u201cIf there is substantial evidence \u2014 whether direct, circumstantial, or both \u2014 to support a finding that the offense charged has been committed and that the defendant committed it, the case is for the jury and the motion to dismiss should be denied.\u201d State v. Locklear, 322 N.C. 349, 358, 368 S.E.2d 377, 383 (citing State v. Williams, 319 N.C. 73, 79, 352 S.E.2d 428, 432 (1987)).\nThe possession element of the offense charged in the present case \u201ccan be proven by showing either actual possession or constructive possession.\u201d State v. Siriguanico, 151 N.C. App. 107, 110, 564 S.E.2d 301, 304 (2002). \u201c[C]onstractive possession depends on the totality of the circumstances in each case. No single factor controls, but ordinarily the question will be for the jury.\u201d State v. James, 81 N.C. App. 91, 93, 344 S.E.2d 77, 79 (1986). In determining whether a defendant had constructive possession of contraband, this Court has held that:\n[wjhere such materials are found on the premises under the control of an accused, this fact, in and of itself, gives rise to an inference of knowledge and possession which may be sufficient to carry the case to the jury on a charge of unlawful possession. It is not necessary to show that an accused has exclusive control of the premises where [drug] paraphernalia are found, but where possession ... is nonexclusive, constructive possession . . . may not be inferred without other incriminating circumstances.\nState v. McLaurin, 320 N.C. 143, 146, 357 S.E.2d 636, 638 (1987) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Our Court has also held that constructive possession can be inferred when there is evidence that a defendant had the power to control the vehicle where a controlled substance was found. State v. Dow, 70 N.C. App. 82, 85, 318 S.E.2d 883, 886 (1984). A situation where a passenger in a vehicle could have moved or hidden the contraband within the vehicle does not contradict a defendant\u2019s control of the vehicle. State v. Rogers, 32 N.C. App. 274, 277, 231 S.E.2d 919, 921 (1977). In Rogers, where a passenger could have had time to hide the contraband in the vehicle, our Court held that when \u201cthe driver is in control of the car . . . and the controlled substance is found in the car . . . such evidence is sufficient to withstand motion for dismissal.\u201d Id.\nMoreover, although defendant was not alone in the vehicle, the location of the crack cocaine between his seat and the center console and the presence of additional suspicious packaging material between his feet on the vehicle\u2019s floorboard were sufficient additional circumstances to support a reasonable inference of his constructive possession of the drug. See State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1, 12-13, 187 S.E.2d 706, 714 (1972), State v. Tisdale, 153 N.C. App. 294, 297-98, 569 S.E.2d 680, 682-83 (2002); State v. Searcy, 37 N.C. App. 68, 70, 245 S.E.2d 412, 414 (1978).\nWhen viewed in the light most favorable to the State, there is substantial evidence that defendant had constructive possession of the cocaine. It is clear from the record that defendant was the driver of the vehicle where the cocaine was found. Prior to stopping defendant for a traffic violation, Investigator Houston witnessed defendant arrive at the residence of a known drug dealer and then drive off with a known drug runner. When all reasonable inferences are made in favor of the State, the totality of the circumstances in the present case supports a submission of the charge to the jury. The trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nIII.\nDefendant next' argues that the trial court erred in denying defendant\u2019s post-trial motion to set aside the verdict on the grounds that \u201cthe evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict of guilty returned by the jury.\u201d However, our Court has held that:\n[t]he decision to grant or deny a motion to set aside the verdict is within the sound discretion of the trial court and is not reviewable absent a showing of an abuse of that discretion. When the evidence at trial is sufficient to support the jury\u2019s verdict, there is no abuse of discretion in the trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motion to set aside the verdict.\nState v. Serzan, 119 N.C. App. 557, 561-62, 459 S.E.2d 297, 301 (1995) (citations omitted).\nThere is no evidence to indicate that the trial court committed an abuse of discretion. For the reasons stated above, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury\u2019s verdict; therefore, there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court. Defendant\u2019s argument is without merit. The trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.\nNo error.\nJudges HUNTER and LEVINSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "McGEE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Martin T. McCracken, for the State.", "Daniel F. Read for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LEON GEORGE BAUBLITZ, JR.\nNo. COA04-1208\n(Filed 16 August 2005)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 necessity of objection at trial \u2014 unconstitutional statute\nAlthough the Court of Appeals is bound by the holding in State v. Tutt, 171 N.C. App. 518 (2005), stating that the amendment to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 103 is inconsistent with N.C. R. App. P. 10(b)(1), and thus, the amendment is unconstitutional, the Court of Appeals exercised its discretion to review defendant\u2019s assignments of error to the admission of seized evidence on the merits because the amendment to Rule 103 went into effect before the present case went to trial. The amendment was thus under a presumption of constitutionality at the time of trial.\n2. Search and Seizure\u2014 traffic stop \u2014 motion to suppress\u2014 probable cause\nThe trial court did not err in a possession of a controlled substance case by denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from his vehicle during the search even though defendant contends the officer lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion, because: (1) the probable cause standard applies when the officer observed defendant\u2019s vehicle twice cross the center line of the highway in violation of N.C.G.S.- \u00a7 20-146(a); (2) an officer\u2019s subjective motivation for stopping a vehicle is irrelevant as to whether there are other objective criteria justifying the stop; and (3) the fact that the officer did not issue defendant a ticket was irrelevant since the officer\u2019s objective observation of defendant\u2019s vehicle twice crossing the center line provided the officer with probable cause for the stop regardless of his subjective motivation.\n3. Search and Seizure\u2014 traffic stop \u2014 motion to suppress\u2014 scope of consent\nThe trial court did not err in a possession of a controlled substance case by denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from his vehicle during the search even though defendant contends the search of his vehicle that yielded the cocaine exceeded the scope of his consent to a search, because: (1) defendant placed no explicit time limit on his consent to the search, nor did he attempt to revoke his consent at any time; (2) only a few minutes lapsed between the time the officer conducted the initial search and when he recovered the cocaine; (3) the officer was not prohibited from momentarily interrupting his search of defendant\u2019s vehicle; and (4) even if defendant had not consented to the search, the officer would have been authorized to search defendant\u2019s vehicle based on the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.\n4. Drugs\u2014 possession of a controlled substance \u2014 constructive possession \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe trial court did not err by denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the charge of possession of a controlled substance even though defendant contends there was insufficient evidence of his possession, because: (1) constructive possession can be inferred when there is evidence that a defendant had the power to control the vehicle where a controlled substance was found, and a situation where a passenger in a vehicle could have moved or hidden the contraband within the vehicle does not contradict a defendant\u2019s control of the vehicle; and (2) although defendant was not alone in the vehicle, the location of the crack cocaine between his seat and the center console and the presence of additional suspicious packaging material between his feet on the vehicle\u2019s floorboard were sufficient additional circumstances to support a reasonable inference of his constructive possession of the drug.\n5. Drugs\u2014 possession of a controlled substance \u2014 motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in a possession of a controlled substance case by denying defendant\u2019s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, because the evidence was sufficient to support the jury\u2019s verdict.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 7 October 2003 by Judge Paul L. Jones in Superior Court, Pamlico County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 June 2005.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Martin T. McCracken, for the State.\nDaniel F. Read for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0801-01", "first_page_order": 831, "last_page_order": 841 }