{
  "id": 4158273,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PIERRE TOREZ-OMAR FARRAR",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Farrar",
  "decision_date": "2008-05-06",
  "docket_number": "No. COA05-1319-2",
  "first_page": "202",
  "last_page": "204",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "190 N.C. App. 202"
    }
  ],
  "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": "651 S.E.2d 865",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12639491
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/651/0865-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "634 S.E.2d 253",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12636586
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/634/0253-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 S.E.2d 325",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "332"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 N.C. 485",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561808
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "496"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/290/0485-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "361 N.C. 675",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3738802
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/361/0675-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 N.C. App. 561",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8237777
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/179/0561-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 261,
    "char_count": 3590,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.756,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.4793276177203605e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2807694579877051
    },
    "sha256": "beb252281a86a202533f383ab012b207f8f3fb25bd05f8cd16fb4b8eeb0d1e73",
    "simhash": "1:81acf03d5fa65a6e",
    "word_count": 600
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:40:45.332452+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge HUNTER concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PIERRE TOREZ-OMAR FARRAR"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "McCullough, Judge.\nPreviously, this Court reversed defendant\u2019s conviction for first-degree burglary finding a fatal variance between the indictment and the jury instructions given by the trial judge. State v. Farrar, 179 N.C. App. 561, 634 S.E.2d 253 (2006). On 9 November 2007, bur Supreme Court vacated that portion of this Court\u2019s decision which held that the variance was fatal, holding that where the variance is favorable to defendant no prejudice results. Thus, defendant\u2019s first-degree burglary conviction was reinstated. State v. Farrar, 361 N.C. 675, 651 S.E.2d 865 (2007).\nThis case was remanded to this Court for consideration of the remaining assignment of error. That assignment of error alleged that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the charge of first-degree burglary due to the insufficiency of the evidence.\nThe facts of this home invasion are more fully discussed in the prior opinions set forth above. The elements of burglary in the first degree are:\n(1) the breaking (2) and entering (3) in the nighttime (4) into a dwelling house or a room used as a sleeping apartment (5) which is actually occupied at the time of the offense (6) with the intent to commit a felony therein.\nState v. Wells, 290 N.C. 485, 496, 226 S.E.2d 325, 332 (1976).\nThe evidence at trial showed that defendant and two other men went to the victims\u2019 residence around 9:30 p.m. on Avalon Road in Guilford County. The men went on the porch, put shirts over their faces, and latex gloves on their hands. One of the men had a gun, kicked in the door, and all three entered the house and confronted sisters Darlene and Mollie Slade with their children. A chain necklace, a PlayStation, some games, and a VCR were taken while the men asked, \u201cwhere is the money?\u201d\nTaken in the light most favorable to the State, we believe substantial evidence on each element was presented and the motion properly denied. Accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled.\nAs this Court has now considered all of defendant\u2019s assignments of error and found them to be without merit, defendant\u2019s trial was conducted free of prejudicial error.\nNo prejudicial error.\nChief Judge MARTIN and Judge HUNTER concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McCullough, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General David L. Elliott, for the State.",
      "Parish & Cooke, by James R. Parish, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PIERRE TOREZ-OMAR FARRAR\nNo. COA05-1319-2\n(Filed 6 May 2008)\nBurglary and Unlawful Breaking or Entering\u2014 first-degree burglary \u2014 motion to dismiss \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe trial court did not err by denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the charge of first-degree burglary based on alleged insufficient evidence because the evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, showed that defendant and two other men went to the victims\u2019 residence around 9:30 pm; the men went on the porch, put shirts over their faces, and latex gloves on their hands; one of the men had a gun, kicked in the door, and all three entered the house and confronted the victims; and a chain necklace, a PlayStation, some games, and a VCR were taken while the men asked, \u201cwhere is the money?\u201d\nAppeal by defendant from judgments entered 17 March 2005 by Judge L. Todd Burke in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard originally in the Court of Appeals on 21 August 2006, and opinion filed 19 September 2006, finding no error in part and vacated in part and remanded for entry of judgment of non-felonious breaking and entering. Remanded to this Court by opinion of the Supreme Court of North Carolina filed 9 November 2007.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General David L. Elliott, for the State.\nParish & Cooke, by James R. Parish, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0202-01",
  "first_page_order": 234,
  "last_page_order": 236
}