{
  "id": 8550463,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LAMONT TYRONE BYNUM",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bynum",
  "decision_date": "1973-12-12",
  "docket_number": "No. 737SC783",
  "first_page": "177",
  "last_page": "179",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "20 N.C. App. 177"
    }
  ],
  "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": "187 S.E. 2d 404",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 N.C. App. 711",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555398
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/13/0711-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 S.E. 2d 429",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 N.C. 130",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622810
      ],
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/253/0130-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 572",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 18",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565554
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0018-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 S.E. 2d 771",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 N.C. App. 50",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551057
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/4/0050-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 386",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 N.C. 616",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566256
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/271/0616-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 340,
    "char_count": 5510,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.615,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37937829580025706
    },
    "sha256": "2070eadca562cb34996cd605c069580b4c8ec0b3c9d129d04c1b8536ed285e37",
    "simhash": "1:0688ed1078be0c7a",
    "word_count": 929
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:00.958655+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LAMONT TYRONE BYNUM"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nDefendant by his first assignment of error contends that the trial court erred in allowing the motion to consolidate defendant\u2019s trial with the trial of Matthew Parker. A motion for consolidation is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge; and since there is nothing in the record to suggest abuse of discretion in the ruling of the court upon this motion, this assignment of error is overruled. G.S. 15-152; State v. Yoes, 271 N.C. 616, 157 S.E. 2d 386 (1967); State v. Conrad, 4 N.C. App. 50, 165 S.E. 2d 771 (1969).\nBy assignments of error 2 and 4, defendant argues that the court erred in admitting the testimony of Officer Harper for the purpose of corroboration. Although the testimony of Officer Harper might have differed in a slight degree from the testimony of the two witnesses he was seeking to corroborate, \u201c [w] here the testimony offered to corroborate a witness does so substantially, it is not rendered incompetent by the fact that there is some variation.\u201d State v. Westbrook, 279 N.C. 18, 181 S.E. 2d 572 (1971); State v. Case, 253 N.C. 130, 116 S.E. 2d 429 (1960). Thus, this assignment of error is overruled.\nNext, defendant asserts that the court committed error when it failed to grant his motion for a new trial for newly discovered evidence. Subsequent to the judgment of the court, the defendant Parker made a statement in open court proclaiming that he alone was guilty of the crime charged, and declared that defendant Bynum was completely innocent of any wrongdoing. Thereafter, defendant Parker was brought to the judge\u2019s chambers and in the presence of his attorney and the trial judge, the defendant answered several questions asked by the trial judge, including the following;\n\u201cCourt: * * * Are you telling me now that what you said in that courtroom when you spoke up was not true and that you are now taking the position that you had throughout the trial that you had nothing to do with it?\nDefendant Parker: Yes, sir.\nCourt: Although you stated out there in the courtroom [after the judgment] that you did rob Mr. Willey?\nDefendant Parker: Yes, sir.\nCourt: And take his money. But that Bynum had no part of it?\nDefendant Parker: It is just like it was when we were out there at first. Really, neither one of us had nothing to do with that robbery.\nCourt: And the statement you made out there after sentence was imposed was made out of a desire to help Bynum?\nDefendant Parker: Yes, it was.\u201d\nA motion for a new trial for newly discovered evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Blalock, 13 N.C. App. 711, 187 S.E. 2d 404 (1972). Since no abuse of discretion has been shown, we find this assignment of error to be without merit.\nWe find the defendant was afforded a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorney General James Edward Magner, Jr., for the State.",
      "Fountain and Goodwyn by George A. Goodwyn for defendant Lamont Tyrone Bynum."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LAMONT TYRONE BYNUM\nNo. 737SC783\n(Filed 12 December 1973)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 92\u2014 consolidation of co-defendants\u2019 trials proper\nTrial court did not abuse its discretion in consolidating defendant\u2019s trial with the trial of a co-defendant. G.S. 15-152.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 89\u2014 corroboration testimony \u2014 slight discrepancies \u2014 testimony competent\nThough the testimony of a police officer might have differed in a slight degree from the testimony of the two witnesses he was seeking to corroborate, the officer\u2019s testimony was not rendered incompetent since it substantially corroborated that of other witnesses.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 131\u2014 newly discovered evidence \u2014 new trial denied \u2014 no abuse of discretion\nThe trial court in an armed robbery case did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant\u2019s motion for a new trial for newly discovered evidence where that evidence consisted of a statement made subsequent to the judgment of the court by codefendant in open court proclaiming that he alone was guilty of the crime charged and that defendant was completely innocent of any wrongdoing.\nAppeal by defendant from James, Judge, 16 April 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Edgecombe County.\nThe defendant, Lamont Tyrone Bynum, was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with the armed robbery of $16.00 from John Willey. The defendant Bynum\u2019s case was consolidated for trial, over Bynum\u2019s objection, with the trial of a co-defendant, Matthew Parker. Both defendants pleaded not guilty.\nThe material evidence offered by the State tended to show that on 29 March 1973 at about 11:30 p.m., the defendant and Parker attacked John Willey while the latter was in the bathroom at the bus station in Rocky Mount, North Carolina. Parker held a knife at Willey\u2019s throat until defendant Bynum removed Willey\u2019s wallet from the victim\u2019s left hip pocket. Upon completing the robbery, Parker and defendant fled; however, both were apprehended shortly after the incident.\nThe defendant Bynum offered evidence that on 29 March 1973, he and Parker went to the bus station and were in the bathroom for a brief period of time along with Willey and three other men. As defendant departed from the bathroom he heard screams, became frightened, and fled from the bus station. Defendant denied any role in the robbery of Willey.\nFrom a verdict of guilty as charged and the imposition of a prison sentence of not less than 18 nor more than 20 years, the defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorney General James Edward Magner, Jr., for the State.\nFountain and Goodwyn by George A. Goodwyn for defendant Lamont Tyrone Bynum."
  },
  "file_name": "0177-01",
  "first_page_order": 205,
  "last_page_order": 207
}