{
  "id": 8549393,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HARRY S. BROWN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Brown",
  "decision_date": "1973-11-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 733SC758",
  "first_page": "71",
  "last_page": "73",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "20 N.C. App. 71"
    }
  ],
  "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": "195 S.E. 2d 481",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 191",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558300
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0191-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 S.E. 2d 701",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 513",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559288
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0513-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 271,
    "char_count": 4274,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.604,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.315002078501625e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8726715341319127
    },
    "sha256": "c8320ab5c0247ab9543bc83f3f8eda4e215ae8eb9639cae142de6d8039946a38",
    "simhash": "1:2e2fa762324a0dd4",
    "word_count": 665
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:00.958655+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Campbell concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HARRY S. BROWN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nOn cross-examination of defendant by the solicitor the following occurred:\nQuestion: \u201cOn January 16, 1973, where were you employed ?\u201d\nAnswer: \u201cI was employed at Burroughs Wellcome.\u201d\nQuestion: \u201cA pharmaceutical plant?\u201d\nAnswer: \u201cYes sir.\u201d\nQuestion: \u201cWhat do they manufacture?\u201d\n\u201cObjection Overruled\u201d\nAnswer: \u201cThey manufacture medicine.\u201d\nAppellant assigns error to the overruling of his objection to the solicitor\u2019s question as to what defendant\u2019s employer manufactured. This assignment of error is without merit. The question was well within the range of permissible cross-examination within the rule prevailing in this State. 1 Stansbury, N. C. Evidence, Brandis Revision, \u00a7 35. Defendant\u2019s counsel interposed no objection or motion to strike when, during the further cross-examination of defend\u00e1nt by the solicitor, the defendant testified that he had \u201cheard that they manufacture codeine.\u201d The information elicited was relevant to show defendant\u2019s access to the drug he was charged with unlawfully distributing.\nAppellant assigns error to the trial court\u2019s failure to submit to the jury the question of defendant\u2019s guilt or innocence of the offense of simple possession of codeine, contending that such offense is a lesser included offense of the offense charged in the bill of indictment. Our Supreme Court has held, however, that possession of a controlled substance and distribution of the same controlled substance are separate and distinct crimes, and each may be punished as provided by law, even where the possession and distribution in point of time were the same. State v. Thornton, 283 N.C. 513, 196 S.E. 2d 701; State v. Cameron, 283 N.C. 191, 195 S.E. 2d 481. Under the holding of these cases unlawful possession cannot be considered a lesser included offense of the crime of unlawful distribution.\nUpon oral argument in this Court appellant\u2019s counsel abandoned the only remaining assignment of error which was brought forward in appellant\u2019s brief. No reason or argument has been stated and no authority cited in appellant\u2019s brief in support of other assignments of error appearing in the record, and these will also be taken as abandoned. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals. We have, nevertheless, carefully reviewed the entire record and in the trial and judgment appealed from find\nNo error.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Campbell concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Rafford E. Jones for the State.",
      "Ernest C. Richardson III, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HARRY S. BROWN\nNo. 733SC758\n(Filed 28 November 1973)\n1. Narcotics \u00a7 3\u2014 distribution of codeine \u2014 access of defendant to drug \u2014 relevancy of evidence\nIn a prosecution for distribution of tablets containing the controlled substance codeine, the trial court did not err in allowing the solicitor to cross-examine defendant as to what his employer, a pharmaceutical company, manufactured, since such information was relevant to show defendant\u2019s access to the drug he was charged with unlawfully distributing.\n2. Narcotics \u00a7 1\u2014 distribution of codeine \u2014 possession of codeine not lesser included offense\nSince possession of a controlled substance and distribution of the same controlled substance are separate and distinct crimes, and each may be punished as provided by law, unlawful possession cannot be considered a lesser included offense of the crime of unlawful distribution; therefore, the trial court in a prosecution for distribution of codeine did not err in failing to submit to the jury the question of defendant\u2019s guilt of the offense of simple possession of codeine.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 161\u2014 assignments of error abandoned\nAssignments of error not argued in defendant\u2019s brief are deemed abandoned. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals.\nAppeal by defendant from Tillery, Judge, 18 June 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Pitt County.\nDefendant was tried upon an indictment, proper in form, charging that on 16 January 1973 he feloniously distributed 31 tablets containing a controlled substance, codeine, to SBI Agent Riggsbee. Defendant pled not guilty, was found guilty as charged, and from judgment imposing prison sentence of not less than three nor more than five years, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Rafford E. Jones for the State.\nErnest C. Richardson III, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0071-01",
  "first_page_order": 99,
  "last_page_order": 101
}