{
  "id": 4160078,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMMIE SINCLAIR",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Sinclair",
  "decision_date": "2008-08-05",
  "docket_number": "No. COA08-103",
  "first_page": "485",
  "last_page": "495",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "191 N.C. App. 485"
    }
  ],
  "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": "616 S.E.2d 615",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12633599
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "621",
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks and citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "621",
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks and citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/616/0615-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "617 S.E.2d 271",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12633691
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "277",
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks and citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/617/0271-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "617 S.E.2d 286",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12633705,
        12633706,
        12633707
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/617/0286-01",
        "/se2d/617/0286-02",
        "/se2d/617/0286-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "359 N.C. 640",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3796929,
        3798818,
        3797669,
        3801669,
        3802277,
        3795594,
        3796906,
        3803790,
        3803571,
        3797078,
        3800984
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/359/0640-02",
        "/nc/359/0640-03",
        "/nc/359/0640-10",
        "/nc/359/0640-09",
        "/nc/359/0640-01",
        "/nc/359/0640-08",
        "/nc/359/0640-07",
        "/nc/359/0640-05",
        "/nc/359/0640-04",
        "/nc/359/0640-11",
        "/nc/359/0640-06"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "612 S.E.2d 172",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12632785
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "175"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/612/0172-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "658 S.E.2d 501",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12640646
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "holding investigatory stop lawful where officer was in a notorious drug, activity area, had a crime stoppers tip that the defendant sold large amounts of cocaine behind a particular building, and observed defendant acting suspiciously at that place while talking to another person"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/658/0501-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "541 U.S. 951",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        5902496,
        5898721,
        5877540,
        5878309,
        5929606,
        5926599,
        3634284,
        5904463,
        5878770,
        5906811,
        5910424,
        5901144,
        5872665,
        5928027,
        5913245
      ],
      "year": 2004,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/541/0951-08",
        "/us/541/0951-13",
        "/us/541/0951-05",
        "/us/541/0951-15",
        "/us/541/0951-02",
        "/us/541/0951-11",
        "/us/541/0951-12",
        "/us/541/0951-01",
        "/us/541/0951-10",
        "/us/541/0951-09",
        "/us/541/0951-14",
        "/us/541/0951-06",
        "/us/541/0951-03",
        "/us/541/0951-07",
        "/us/541/0951-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "341 S.E.2d 586",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 N.C. 197",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4700230,
        4700711,
        4698668,
        4693973,
        4699966
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/316/0197-05",
        "/nc/316/0197-01",
        "/nc/316/0197-04",
        "/nc/316/0197-02",
        "/nc/316/0197-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "337 S.E.2d 70",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "73",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N.C. App. 29",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8519419
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "33",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/78/0029-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "393 S.E.2d 156",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "157",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 N.C. App. 333",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522744
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "335",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/99/0333-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-7.3",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "402 S.E.2d 386",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "392",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 N.C. 477",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2539039
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "490",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/328/0477-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 S.E.2d 833",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "842"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 N.C. 480",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558733
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "494"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/291/0480-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "388 S.E.2d 429",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "433-34",
          "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Irick, 291 N.C. 480, 494, 231 S.E.2d 833, 842 (1977)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 N.C. 155",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        5305404
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "164-65",
          "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Irick, 291 N.C. 480, 494, 231 S.E.2d 833, 842 (1977)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/326/0155-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 L. Ed. 2d 912",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "485 U.S. 1036",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        13312,
        13445,
        13287,
        13545,
        13740,
        13965,
        13233,
        14131,
        13397,
        13238,
        13399,
        13750,
        13849,
        13725
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/485/1036-05",
        "/us/485/1036-12",
        "/us/485/1036-11",
        "/us/485/1036-04",
        "/us/485/1036-06",
        "/us/485/1036-14",
        "/us/485/1036-08",
        "/us/485/1036-10",
        "/us/485/1036-01",
        "/us/485/1036-02",
        "/us/485/1036-13",
        "/us/485/1036-03",
        "/us/485/1036-09",
        "/us/485/1036-07"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "362 S.E.2d 244",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "251",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 N.C. 201",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2569839
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "213",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/321/0201-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "313 S.E.2d 585",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "310 N.C. 563",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2395265
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/310/0563-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N.C. App. 801",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8321543
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "810",
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks and citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "810"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/172/0801-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "359 N.C. 800",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3795437
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "809",
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks and citations omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "809"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/359/0800-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "333 S.E.2d 701",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "702",
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks and citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 N.C. 401",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4693853
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "403",
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks and citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/314/0401-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "607 S.E.2d 19",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 N.C. App. 152",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8468544
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/168/0152-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)(l)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(a)(3)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 N.C. App. 100",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9004353
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "105"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/170/0100-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 N.C. App. 454",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4156639
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/189/0454-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "415 S.E.2d 782",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "holding seizure unlawful where officer had only generalized suspicion of criminal activity based on observing the defendant walking in a high drug area"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 N.C. App. 165",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5314046
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "holding seizure unlawful where officer had only generalized suspicion of criminal activity based on observing the defendant walking in a high drug area"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/106/0165-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "525 F.2d 857",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1094891,
        3696885
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "859"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/525/0857-01",
        "/us-app-dc/174/0013-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 L. Ed. 2d 143",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks and citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "444 U.S. 907",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11384974,
        11385039
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks and citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/444/0907-01",
        "/us/444/0907-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 S.E.2d 776",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "779",
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks and citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 N.C. 703",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570136
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "706",
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks and citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/296/0703-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 L. Ed. 2d 565",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12033563,
        6221076
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "569"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/350/0473-01",
        "/us/486/0567-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "486 U.S. 567",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6221076
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "569"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/486/0567-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "340 F. Supp. 344",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        3599778
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "347"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/340/0344-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 S.E.2d 502",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "506",
          "parenthetical": "quoting United States v. Hill, 340 F. Supp. 344, 347 (E.D. Pa. 1972)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 203",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558310
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "208",
          "parenthetical": "quoting United States v. Hill, 340 F. Supp. 344, 347 (E.D. Pa. 1972)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0203-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "414 S.E.2d 65",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "67-68",
          "parenthetical": "\"A person is entitled to resist an illegal, but not a legal, arrest.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 N.C. App. 550",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524256
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "554",
          "parenthetical": "\"A person is entitled to resist an illegal, but not a legal, arrest.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/105/0550-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 S.E.2d 48",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "51",
          "parenthetical": "\"One resisting an illegal arrest is not resisting an officer within the discharge of his official duties.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 N.C. App. 318",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550274
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "322",
          "parenthetical": "\"One resisting an illegal arrest is not resisting an officer within the discharge of his official duties.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/40/0318-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "499 U.S. 621",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11320254
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "628"
        },
        {
          "page": "698"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/499/0621-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "501 U.S. 429",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1108039
      ],
      "weight": 9,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "434",
          "parenthetical": "quoting California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 628, 113 L. Ed. 2d 690, 698 (1991)"
        },
        {
          "page": "398",
          "parenthetical": "quoting California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 628, 113 L. Ed. 2d 690, 698 (1991)"
        },
        {
          "page": "434"
        },
        {
          "page": "398"
        },
        {
          "page": "434-35"
        },
        {
          "page": "398-99",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "437"
        },
        {
          "page": "400"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/501/0429-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 S.E.2d 897",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.C. 499",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562301
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/276/0499-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 L. Ed. 2d 382",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 2004,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "589 S.E.2d 133",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "357 N.C. 579",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        491873,
        491779,
        491689,
        491626,
        491853,
        491503,
        491442,
        491510,
        491831
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/357/0579-04",
        "/nc/357/0579-03",
        "/nc/357/0579-02",
        "/nc/357/0579-08",
        "/nc/357/0579-09",
        "/nc/357/0579-01",
        "/nc/357/0579-06",
        "/nc/357/0579-05",
        "/nc/357/0579-07"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "583 S.E.2d 606",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "612"
        },
        {
          "page": "612",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "159 N.C. App. 284",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8955618
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "294"
        },
        {
          "page": "294"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/159/0284-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "417 S.E.2d 756",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "331 N.C. 537",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2498402
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/331/0537-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 L. Ed. 2d 403",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "537 U.S. 1005",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        9287360,
        9287586,
        9287495,
        9287468,
        9287538,
        9287379,
        9287444,
        9287671,
        9287702,
        9287735,
        9287641,
        9287610,
        9287420,
        9287514
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/537/1005-01",
        "/us/537/1005-09",
        "/us/537/1005-06",
        "/us/537/1005-05",
        "/us/537/1005-08",
        "/us/537/1005-02",
        "/us/537/1005-04",
        "/us/537/1005-12",
        "/us/537/1005-13",
        "/us/537/1005-14",
        "/us/537/1005-11",
        "/us/537/1005-10",
        "/us/537/1005-03",
        "/us/537/1005-07"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "560 S.E.2d 776",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "781"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "355 N.C. 294",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        220055
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "301"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/355/0294-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 S.E.2d 114",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "117"
        },
        {
          "page": "117"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 N.C. 95",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573434
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "98"
        },
        {
          "page": "98"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/299/0095-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "573 S.E.2d 866",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "868",
          "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 98, 261 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1980)"
        },
        {
          "page": "868"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "356 N.C. 591",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1511364
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "595",
          "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 98, 261 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1980)"
        },
        {
          "page": "595"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/356/0591-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-223",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "proscribing the offense"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 1100,
    "char_count": 26745,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.745,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4508172815071164e-07,
      "percentile": 0.655016373541469
    },
    "sha256": "1d019d0bb946c106380ce2d619e9991fbd9256c0f091c2069b1fcdac9a07b7dc",
    "simhash": "1:0729c86b024da44e",
    "word_count": 4361
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:44:10.260573+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges MCCULLOUGH and BRYANT concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMMIE SINCLAIR"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "STEPHENS, Judge.\nOn 21 August 2006, Defendant was indicted on charges of possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine, resisting a public officer, and of having attained the status of an habitual felon. The case was tried before a jury at the 17 September 2007 session of Beaufort County Superior Court, the Honorable Jack W. Jenkins presiding. The State called two witnesses at trial: officers Jerry Davis (\u201cDavis\u201d or \u201cDetective Davis\u201d) and Jesse Dickinson (\u201cDickinson\u201d), both of the Washington, North Carolina, Police Department.\nDetective Davis testified as follows: on 6 August 2004, Davis was the lead detective in the Police Department\u2019s Drug Enforcement Division. Davis knew Defendant, having had between ten and twelve \u201cconversations\u201d with Defendant before that day. Defendant was known as \u201cPooSack.\u201d About a week or two before 6 August, Davis confronted and searched Defendant at a bowling alley. On another occasion before 6 August, Davis strip-searched Defendant at the police station. Defendant was not charged with any offenses as a result of either of those encounters.\nOn 6 August at 3:41 p.m., Davis, other police officers, and one agent of the North Carolina Alcohol Law Enforcement Agency (\u201cALE\u201d) went to the bowling alley where Davis had previously confronted Defendant because Davis had \u201creceived information about drug activity.\u201d The bowling alley was \u201ca local hangout[,]\u201d and a known drug activity area. Davis had observed or made other arrests in that area for drug-related activity. Davis and the ALE agent rode to the bowling alley in an unmarked car and \u201cthere were a couple of marked vehicles\u201d also. All of the officers arrived at the bowling alley around the same time. Davis saw Defendant sitting outside the bowling alley in a chair among six to ten other people. Davis parked his car sixteen to twenty feet from Defendant, and Davis and the ALE agent exited the car and walked toward Defendant. Davis was wearing khaki pants and a burgundy polo shirt with a police badge embroidered on the shirt\u2019s front, and the ALE agent was in \u201cplain clothes\u201d and was either beside or behind Davis. Davis said, \u201cPooSack, let me talk to you.\u201d Defendant stood up out of his chair, took two steps toward Davis, and said, \u201cOh, you want to search me again, huh?\u201d Defendant did not sound irritated or agitated, \u201c[j]ust normal[.]\u201d Davis replied, \u201cYes, sir[,]\u201d and continued walking toward Defendant. Defendant stopped ten or twelve feet from Davis, \u201cquickly shoved both of his hands in his front pockets and then removed them.\u201d Defendant made his hands into fists and took a defensive stance. As Davis got closer to Defendant, Defendant stated, \u201cNope. Got to go,\u201d and \u201ctook off running\u201d across an adjacent vacant lot.\nAll of the officers chased Defendant across the lot. The lot was \u201c[v]ery unkeptf,]\u201d with grass \u201c18 to 24 inches tall[,]\u201d and the lot contained \u201clots of junk[.]\u201d \u201cThere was no defined path through the lot. . . .\u201d Defendant ran \u201cwith both of his hands in front of him[]\u201d and never put his hands to his side. Davis was ten or twelve steps behind Defendant. After running 150 feet, Defendant laid down \u201cin the pushup position[]\u201d in a street, and the officers took Defendant into custody and searched him. The only items discovered during the search were a pack of cigarettes and $170.00 in cash. A couple of minutes later, Dickinson approached Davis with a clear plastic bag containing a substance which appeared to be crack cocaine. According to the State Bureau of Investigation, the substance in the bag contained one gram of cocaine. Davis never saw Defendant throw or drop anything during the chase.\nDickinson testified as follows: he drove to the bowling alley with Davis and the other officers. By the time Dickinson got out of his vehicle, Defendant was running through the vacant lot. After Defendant was taken into custody, Dickinson \u201cwas able to see through the grass a path from the area where we were told the group was going to be at and the path to exactly where\u201d Defendant laid down in the street. The path \u201cwas like two or three people had come through.\u201d Dickinson followed and searched the path, and found a clear, plastic bag. The bag was \u201con the top of the bent grass.\u201d The trash and other items in the vacant lot were \u201c[o]ld[,]\u201d but the bag was not weathered or soiled. It was \u201cclean and undisturbed[,]\u201d and Dickinson did not have to reach through any grass to retrieve it.\nDefendant did not present any evidence. At the close of all the evidence, Defendant made a motion \u201cto dismiss the State\u2019s case based upon a lack of evidence.\u201d The trial court denied the motion. On the charge of possession with intent to sell or deliver, the jury convicted Defendant of the lesser included offense of possession of cocaine. The jury convicted Defendant on the charge of resisting a public officer. Following the verdicts, the State proceeded on the habitual felon charge. The jury found that Defendant had attained the status of an habitual felon, and the trial court sentenced Defendant to 135 to 171 months in prison on the possession conviction. The trial court imposed a concurrent sixty-day sentence on the charge of resisting a public officer. Defendant appeals.\nDefendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge of resisting a public officer. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-223 (2007) (proscribing the offense). When reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, this Court asks whether there was \u201c \u2018substantial evidence (1) of each essential element of the offense charged, or of a lesser offense included therein, and (2) of defendant\u2019s being the perpetrator of such offense.\u2019 \u201d State v. Scott, 356 N.C. 591, 595, 573 S.E.2d 866, 868 (2002) (quoting State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 98, 261 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1980)). \u201cSubstantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence necessary to persuade a rational juror to accept a conclusion.\u201d Id. at 597, 573 S.E.2d at 869 (citing State v. Mann, 355 N.C. 294, 301, 560 S.E.2d 776, 781, cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1005, 154 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2002)). This Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, giving the State the benefit of all reasonable inferences. State v. Benson, 331 N.C. 537, 417 S.E.2d 756 (1992).\nThe elements of the offense with which Defendant was charged are:\n1) that the victim was a public officer;\n2) that the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the victim was a public officer;\n3) that the victim was discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office;\n4) that the defendant resisted, delayed, or obstructed the victim in discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office; and\n5) that the defendant acted willfully and unlawfully, that is intentionally and without justification or excuse.\nState v. Dammons, 159 N.C. App. 284, 294, 583 S.E.2d 606, 612, (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-223 (2001); 2 N.C.P.I. \u2014 Crim. 230.30 (1999)), disc, review denied, 357 N.C. 579, 589 S.E.2d 133 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 951, 158 L. Ed. 2d 382 (2004). The third element of the offense presupposes lawful conduct of the officer in discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office. State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 173 S.E.2d 897 (1970).\nIn the case at bar, there is no dispute that there was substantial evidence of the first, second, and fourth elements of the offense. The evidence in support of the fourth element consisted of the officers\u2019 testimony concerning Defendant\u2019s flight, as there was no evidence that Defendant struggled with any of the officers after Defendant laid down in the street. Concerning the third element, Defendant argues that there was no evidence that Defendant \u201cresisted] lawful police conduct.\u201d Concerning the fifth element, Defendant argues that he was \u201cunder no duty to submit to a search[]\u201d and, therefore, \u201cdid not resist, delay[,] or obstruct Officer Davis by running away[.]\u201d In response, the State argues that, under the circumstances of the encounter, \u201ca reasonable person would not have felt compelled to cooperate with a search[]\u201d and that, therefore, \u201c[Defendant did not have the right to resist by fleeing.\u201d We find Defendant\u2019s arguments the more convincing.\nAs the starting point in our analysis, we first determine whether the encounter between Defendant and Detective Davis was consensual or whether Detective Davis was attempting to effectuate an investigatory stop. If the encounter was consensual, Defendant was at liberty \u201c \u2018to disregard the police and go about his business,\u2019 \u201d Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434, 115 L. Ed. 2d 389, 398 (1991) (quoting California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 628, 113 L. Ed. 2d 690, 698 (1991)), and there was insufficient evidence of the fifth element of the offense. If, on the other hand, Davis was attempting an investigatory stop, we must then determine whether such a stop was lawful. If it was unlawful, there was insufficient evidence that Davis was discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office. State v. Anderson, 40 N.C. App. 318, 322, 253 S.E.2d 48, 51 (1979) (\u201cOne resisting an illegal arrest is not resisting an officer within the discharge of his official duties.\u201d) (citations omitted). If it was lawful, there was substantial evidence that Defendant resisted, delayed, or obstructed Detective Davis in the discharge of his official duties. State v. Swift, 105 N.C. App. 550, 554, 414 S.E.2d 65, 67-68 (1992) (\u201cA person is entitled to resist an illegal, but not a legal, arrest.\u201d) (citation omitted).\n\u201c \u2018No one is protected by the Constitution against the mere approach of police officers in a public place.\u2019 \u201d State v. Streeter, 283 N.C. 203, 208, 195 S.E.2d 502, 506 (1973) (quoting United States v. Hill, 340 F. Supp. 344, 347 (E.D. Pa. 1972)). An encounter \u201cwill not trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny unless it loses its consensual nature.\u201d Bostick, 501 U.S. at 434, 115 L. Ed. 2d at 398. \u201c[M]ere police questioning does not constitute a seizure.\u201d Id.\n[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual, . . . ask to examine the individual\u2019s identification, . . . and request consent to search his or her luggage, ... as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required.\nId. at 434-35, 115 L. Ed. 2d at 398-99 (citations omitted). \u201c[T]he crucial test is whether, taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the police conduct would \u2018have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 437, 115 L. Ed. 2d at 400 (quoting Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 569, 100 L. Ed. 2d 565, 569 (1988)).\nWe conclude that, considering all the circumstances surrounding the encounter prior to Defendant\u2019s flight, a reasonable person would have felt at liberty to ignore Detective Davis\u2019 presence and go about his business. There is no evidence that Davis made any show of force or otherwise communicated to Defendant that cooperation was required. Davis merely approached Defendant, asked if he could talk to him, and informed Defendant that he wanted to search him. A reasonable person would not have felt compelled to comply with Davis\u2019 request. The State acknowledges as much in its brief, stating that Defendant \u201cwas under no obligation to consent to talk with [Davis] or to agree to a search.\u201d Although Defendant\u2019s subsequent flight may have contributed to a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot thereby justifying an investigatory stop, Defendant\u2019s flight from a consensual encounter cannot be used as evidence that Defendant was resisting, delaying, or obstructing Davis in the performance of his duties. There is no evidence that Defendant acted \u201cunlawfully, that is . . . without justification or excuse.\u201d Dammons, 159 N.C. App. at 294, 583 S.E.2d at 612 (citations omitted). The trial court erred in denying Defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the charge of resisting a public officer.\nWe note, however, that even if Davis was attempting to effectuate an investigatory stop, there are insufficient \u201cspecific and articulable facts, which taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warranted] [the] intrusion.\u201d State v. Thompson, 296 N.C. 703, 706, 252 S.E.2d 776, 779, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 907, 62 L. Ed. 2d 143 (1979) (quotation marks and citation omitted). We view the circumstances \u201cas a whole \u2018through the eyes of a reasonable and cautious police officer on the scene, guided by his experience and training.\u2019 \u201d Id. (quoting United States v. Hall, 525 F.2d 857, 859 (D.C. Cir. 1976)). Compare State v. Fleming, 106 N.C. App. 165, 415 S.E.2d 782 (1992) (holding seizure unlawful where officer had only generalized suspicion of criminal activity based on observing the defendant walking in a high drug area), with State v. Robinson, 189 N.C. App. 454, 658 S.E.2d 501 (2008) (holding investigatory stop lawful where officer was in a notorious drug, activity area, had a crime stoppers tip that the defendant sold large amounts of cocaine behind a particular building, and observed defendant acting suspiciously at that place while talking to another person). The only facts articulated which arguably supported the intrusion in the case at bar were that the officers \u201creceived information about drug activity[,]\u201d the scene of the attempted stop was a known drug activity area, and Davis had made prior drug arrests in the area. These facts did not give Davis a reasonable, articulable suspicion that Defendant was involved in criminal activity. Accordingly, even if Davis was attempting an investigatory stop, such a stop was unlawful. Thus, there was insufficient evidence that Davis was discharging or attempting to discharge a lawful duty of his office. In sum, we agree with Defendant that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge at the close of all the evidence. The trial court\u2019s ruling on that motion is reversed.\nNext, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the possession charge. Although our standard of review is identical to the standard set forth above, we also acknowledge that \u201c \u2018[i]f the evidence is sufficient only to raise a suspicion or conjecture as to either the commission of the offense or the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of it, the motion should be allowed.\u2019 \u201d Scott, 356 N.C. at 595, 573 S.E.2d at 868 (quoting Powell, 299 N.C. at 98, 261 S.E.2d at 117).\nDefendant was charged with possession with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance \u2014 in this case, cocaine. The elements of the offense are \u201c(1) possession of a substance; (2) the substance must be a controlled substance; and (3) there must be intent to sell or distribute the controlled substance.\u201d State v. Nettles, 170 N.C. App. 100, 105, 612 S.E.2d 172, 175 (citations omitted), disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 640, 617 S.E.2d 286 (2005); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95(a)(l) (2007). Possession of a controlled substance is a lesser-included offense of possession with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance, State v. Turner, 168 N.C. App. 152, 607 S.E.2d 19 (2005), and the lesser included offense has two essential elements: \u201c[t]he substance must be possessed, and the substance must be knowingly possessed.\u201d State v. Weldon, 314 N.C. 401, 403, 333 S.E.2d 701, 702 (1985) (quotation marks and citation omitted); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95(a)(3) (2007).\nThe possession element of the offenses \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). \u201cConstructive possession exists when the defendant, while not having actual possession, . . . has the intent and capability to maintain control and dominion over the narcotics.\u201d State v. McNeil, 359 N.C. 800, 809, 617 S.E.2d 271, 277 (2005) (quotation marks and citations omitted). \u201cConstructive 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. Baublitz, 172 N.C. App. 801, 810, 616 S.E.2d 615, 621 (2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Furthermore, if the defendant\u2019s control of the premises where the contraband is found is non-exclusive, constructive possession of the contraband may be inferred from other incriminating circumstances. State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563, 313 S.E.2d 585 (1984).\nDefendant argues that there was insufficient evidence that he possessed the crack cocaine. Because the cocaine was not found in Defendant\u2019s actual possession, we evaluate Defendant\u2019s argument in the context of constructive possession. Incriminating circumstantial evidence of Defendant\u2019s possession of the cocaine included: Defendant fled upon learning that Davis wanted to search him; Defendant kept his hands in .front of him during the chase; the bag was found on the precise route Defendant took while being chased by the officers; the bag was found on top of the grass that was bent during the chase; and the bag was \u201cclean and undisturbed.\u201d We hold that these circumstances create a reasonable inference that the crack cocaine found on the ground shortly after Defendant was apprehended came from Defendant. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the trial court properly denied Defendant\u2019s motion and submitted the issue to the jury. This assignment of error is overruled.\nBy his third assignment of error, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury on the charge of resisting a public officer. Because we have concluded that the trial court should have dismissed this charge at the close of all the evidence, we need not address this assignment of error.\nBy his fourth assignment of error, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that his flight from the officers was evidence of guilt. The trial court instructed the jury, generally, that\n[e]vidence of flight may be considered by you, together with all other facts and circumstances in this case, in determining whether the combined circumstances amount to an admission or show a consciousness of guilt. However, proof of this circumstance is not sufficient in itself to establish [Defendant's guilt.\nBecause we have concluded that the trial court should have dismissed the charge of resisting a public officer, we need only determine if the trial court erred in giving this instruction as it concerned the possession charge.\nDefendant did not object to this instruction at trial; thus, our review is limited to plain error. A court commits plain error when its instructions \u201camount to a miscarriage of justice or . . . result[] in the jury reaching a different verdict than it otherwise would have reached.\u201d State v. Bagley, 321 N.C. 201, 213, 362 S.E.2d 244, 251 (1987) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1036, 99 L. Ed. 2d 912 (1988).\n\u201c[A] trial court may not instruct a jury on defendant\u2019s flight unless \u2018there is some evidence in the record reasonably supporting the theory that defendant fled after commission of the crime charged.\u2019 \u201d State v. Levan, 326 N.C. 155, 164-65, 388 S.E.2d 429, 433-34 (1990) (quoting State v. Irick, 291 N.C. 480, 494, 231 S.E.2d 833, 842 (1977)) (citation omitted). \u201cMere evidence that defendant left the scene of the crime is not enough to support an instruction on flight. There must also be some evidence that defendant took steps to avoid apprehension.\u201d State v. Thompson, 328 N.C. 477, 490, 402 S.E.2d 386, 392 (1991) (citation omitted).\nDavis testified that Defendant fled from the scene after Davis communicated to Defendant that he wanted to search Defendant. This evidence shows that Defendant \u201ctook steps to avoid apprehension.\u201d Id. The trial court did not err in giving the jury this instruction. Defendant\u2019s assignment of error is overruled.\nBy his fifth assignment of error, Defendant contends the trial court erred in instructing the jury on constructive possession. Defendant maintains that \u201cthis is not a constructive possession case, but a circumstantial evidence case of actual possession.\u201d As stated above, \u201c[c]onstructive possession exists when the defendant, while not having actual possession, . . . has the intent and capability to maintain control and dominion over the narcotics.\u201d McNeil, 359 N.C. at 809, 617 S.E.2d at 277 (quotation marks and citations omitted). \u201cConstructive possession depends on the totality of the circumstances in each case.\u201d Baublitz, 172 N.C. App. at 810, 616 S.E.2d at 621 (quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added). Since Defendant was not found in actual possession of the crack cocaine, this is a case of constructive possession. Defendant\u2019s assignment of error is overruled.\nBy his sixth and final assignment of error, Defendant argues that the habitual felon indictment was fatally defective. Section 14-7.3 of our General Statutes provides, in pertinent part:\nAn indictment which charges a person with being an habitual felon must set forth the date that prior felony offenses were committed, the name of the state or other sovereign against whom said felony offenses were committed, the dates that pleas of guilty were entered to or convictions returned in said felony offenses, and the identity of the court wherein said pleas or convictions took place.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-7.3 (2007). Section 15A-626(b) of our General Statutes provides that \u201c[i]n proceedings upon bills of indictment submitted by the prosecutor to the grand jury, the clerk must call as witnesses the persons whose names are listed on the bills by the prosecutor.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-626(b) (2007). Defendant argues that the indictment was fatally defective because it: (1) failed to allege that Defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time of his conviction of at least two of the prior felonies; (2) failed to name a state or other sovereign against whom the prior felonies were committed; and (3) did not indicate that any witness appeared before the Grand Jury. Defendant\u2019s contentions lack merit.\nFirst, an habitual felon indictment need not allege a defendant\u2019s age or date of birth. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-7.3. Defendant presents no authority which holds to the contrary.\nSecond, we disagree that the indictment failed to name the state or sovereign against whom the prior offenses were committed. For each of the prior felonies enumerated in the indictment, the indictment stated that the felonies were committed in violation of a specific one of North Carolina\u2019s General Statutes and that Defendant was convicted of the felony in \u201cthe Superior Court of Beaufort County, North Carolina[.]\u201d These statements sufficiently named the state against whom the felonies were committed; namely, North Carolina. Moreover, \u201c[i]t is well established that an indictment is sufficient under the Habitual Felons Act if it provides notice to a defendant that he is being tried as a recidivist.\u201d State v. Williams, 99 N.C. App. 333, 335, 393 S.E.2d 156, 157 (1990) (citations omitted). The indictment in this case provided such notice.\nFinally, we agree with Defendant that the habitual felon indictment did not clearly indicate that Detective Davis, listed by the State as a witness on the bill of indictment, was called as a witness before the Grand Jury. This Court has held, however, that \u201calthough the foreman [of a Grand Jury] by statute must indicate which witness(es) were sworn and examined . . . the absence of [this] endorsement] will not render an otherwise valid indictment fatally defective.\u201d State v. Gary, 78 N.C. App. 29, 33, 337 S.E.2d 70, 73 (1985) (citations omitted), disc. review denied, 316 N.C. 197, 341 S.E.2d 586 (1986). The bill of indictment was not fatally defective for its failure to indicate that Detective Davis testified before the Grand Jury as a witness. Defendant\u2019s sixth assignment of error is overruled.\nBecause there was insufficient evidence that Defendant committed the offense of resisting a public officer, the trial court erred in denying Defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss that charge. We discern no other error in Defendant\u2019s trial.\nNO ERROR IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.\nJudges MCCULLOUGH and BRYANT concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "STEPHENS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Susan K. Hackney, for the State.",
      "Sue Genrich Berry for Defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMMIE SINCLAIR\nNo. COA08-103\n(Filed 5 August 2008)\n1. Obstruction of Justice\u2014 resisting an officer \u2014 fleeing\nThe trial court properly dismissed a charge of resisting a public officer where defendant was approached by an officer who knew him in a known drug area, defendant asked if the officer wanted to search him again, and then fled after the officer said yes. Flight from a consensual encounter cannot be used as evidence that defendant was resisting, delaying, or obstructing the officer.\n2. Drugs\u2014 constructive possession \u2014 crack cocaine found along route of fleeing defendant\nThe trial court properly denied a motion to dismiss a charge of possessing cocaine with intent to sell or deliver where defendant ran from officers and the crack cocaine was found along the route followed by defendant shortly after he was apprehended. The circumstances create a reasonable inference that the drugs came from defendant.\n3. Criminal Law\u2014 instructions \u2014 flight\nThere was no plain error in instructing the jury on defendant\u2019s flight in considering a cocaine possession charge where defendant fled after an officer indicated that he wanted to search defendant.\n4. Drugs\u2014 instructions \u2014 constructive possession\nThe trial court did not err by instructing the jury on constructive possession of cocaine where the drugs were found along the path defendant had followed as he fled from officers.\n5. Sentencing\u2014 habitual felon \u2014 indictment not defective\nAn habitual felon indictment, was not fatally defective where it did not allege that defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time of at least two prior convictions (the indictment need not allege defendant\u2019s age or date of birth); the statement that the felonies were committed in violation of the General Statutes and that defendant was convicted in Superior Court in North Carolina sufficiently named the state against whom the felonies were committed; there was sufficient notice that defendant was being tried as a recidivist; and, the indictment is not fatally defective for its failure to indicate that a detective testified before the Grand Jury.\nAppeal by Defendant from judgments entered 19 September 2007 by Judge Jack W. Jenkins in Beaufort County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 May 2008.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Susan K. Hackney, for the State.\nSue Genrich Berry for Defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0485-01",
  "first_page_order": 517,
  "last_page_order": 527
}
