{ "id": 8551680, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM WOOD, DANIEL WARREN AND WILLARD RONALD WILDER", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wood", "decision_date": "1973-12-19", "docket_number": "No. 7329SC685", "first_page": "267", "last_page": "270", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "20 N.C. App. 267" } ], "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": "196 S.E. 2d 250", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 289", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558710 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "297" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0289-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 S.E. 2d 325", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "237 N.C. 106", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8605937 ], "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/237/0106-01" ] }, { "cite": "193 S.E. 2d 485", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "17 N.C. App. 229", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554864 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/17/0229-01" ] }, { "cite": "169 S.E. 2d 833", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 554", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559222 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0554-01" ] }, { "cite": "123 S.E. 2d 469", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "472" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "256 N.C. 232", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572077 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "236" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/256/0232-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 S.E. 2d 876", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "879" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "245 N.C. 338", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8610813 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "342" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/245/0338-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 S.E. 2d 473", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "476" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "239 N.C. 245", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626407 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "249" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/239/0245-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 660", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571369 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0130-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 437, "char_count": 6992, "ocr_confidence": 0.603, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.984792252385963e-08, "percentile": 0.46366371166813203 }, "sha256": "d4f5c0a016e0e9f459dd9d4bf5c9dcba39df1b1d2fdffab27d4cfd13a601b0be", "simhash": "1:87ad9d17760e1e3f", "word_count": 1170 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:00.958655+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Vaughn and Baley concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM WOOD, DANIEL WARREN AND WILLARD RONALD WILDER" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nBy their first argument defendants contend that the court should have granted their motions for nonsuit based on the position that the evidence against the defendants came from an accomplice and was unsupported by other evidence. Defendants concede that the law of this State is as stated in State v. McNair, 272 N.C. 130, 157 S.E. 2d 660 (1967):\n\u201c \u2018It is well settled in this jurisdiction that although the jury should receive and act upon such testimony with caution, the unsupported testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to sustain a conviction if it satisfies the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.\u2019 State v. Tilley, 239 N.C. 245, 249, 79 S.E. 2d 473, 476, and cases cited; State v. Saunders, 245 N.C. 338, 342, 95 S.E. 2d 876, 879; State v. Terrell, 256 N.C. 232, 236, 123 S.E. 2d 469, 472.\u201d Id. at 132.\nApplying the legal principle stated above, there was evidence which, when considered in the light most favorable to the State, is sufficient to show defendants were active participants in the crimes for which they were tried.\nThe owner of Cliffside Pharmacy had given a key to a deputy sheriff who entered the store on 10 June 1972 at about 11 o\u2019clock p.m. At approximately 2:30 someone broke and entered the store. The deputy sheriff fired in the direction of that person or those persons. Return shots were fired. Burglary tools were found in the area. William Shaw testified that he knew the three defendants and had participated with them in breaking and entering Cliffside Pharmacy. He gave all the details of the incident and said he was the one who actually forced entry into the store and was the one who was shot in the leg by the deputy sheriff. The jury was properly instructed as suggested in State v. McNair, supra. This argument of defendants is without merit.\nOn voir dire examination of the petit jury by defendants\u2019 counsel, he attempted to ask of the jurors whether if any one should \u201cwind up and have more than one reasonable doubt, will you let that be known to the other members of the jury?\u201d The State objected, and the court sustained the objection. He attempted then to ask \u201cLadies and Gentlemen of the Jury, if you should have one single reasonable doubt would you vote to find the defendants not guilty?\u201d The court again sustained the State\u2019s objection. This, defendants contend, constituted prejudicial error. By statute and case law, any party to an action, whether civil or criminal, is entitled to inquire into the fitness and competency of any prospective juror. G.S. 9-15. State v. Allred, 275 N.C. 554, 169 S.E. 2d 833 (1969). Nevertheless, the trial court has broad discretion in the voir dire selection of jurors, State v. Cameron, 17 N.C. App. 229, 193 S.E. 2d 485 (1972), and the exercise of the party\u2019s right to examine prospective jurors should be carefully supervised by the trial court. Karpf v. Adams and Runyon v. Adams, 237 N.C. 106, 74 S.E. 2d 325 (1953). We perceive no abuse of discretion in the court\u2019s sustaining the objections of the State. The jury was fully and adequately instructed as to reasonable doubt.\nDefendants next urge that corroborating evidence was admitted without the court\u2019s instructing the jury as to its limited use. Defendants did object to the evidence but did not request a limiting instruction. Bobbitt, C.J., said in State v. Sawyer, 283 N.C. 289, 297, 196 S.E. 2d 250 (1973) :\n\u201cThe general admission of evidence competent for a restricted purpose will not be held reversible error in the absence of a request at the time that its admission be restricted.\u201d Quoting 7 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Trial, \u00a7 17.\nAdditionally, the solicitor after defendants\u2019 objection stated: \u201cI offer this for the purpose of corroborating the witness Shaw, if it so does and for no other purpose.\u201d The court also in its charge referred to the corroborative evidence and carefully instructed the jury that it was not to be considered by them as evidence of the truth of statements made at an earlier time. We cannot conceive how defendants could possibly have suffered prejudice.\nFinally, defendants argue that the court erred in instructing the jury upon the law with respect to assault with a firearm upon a law enforcement officer in the performance of his duties. Assuming arguendo that this was error, the charge was specifically limited to defendant Warren and the verdict of guilty of that offense was set aside. Again, no prejudice has been shown.\nDefendants have had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Baley concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MORRIS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General Haskell, for the State.", "George R. Morrow and Carroll W. Walden, Jr., for defendant appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM WOOD, DANIEL WARREN AND WILLARD RONALD WILDER\nNo. 7329SC685\n(Filed 19 December 1973)\n1. Burglary and Unlawful Breakings \u00a7 5 \u2014 uncorroborated accomplice testimony \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nIn a prosecution for felonious breaking or entering and possession of implements of housebreaking, evidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury though it consisted only of the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice that he and the three defendants broke into a pharmacy.\n2. Jury \u00a7 6\u2014 examination of prospective jurors \u2014 inquiry as to reasonable doubt \u2014 limitation proper\nThe trial court did not err in refusing to allow defendants\u2019 counsel to ask prospective jurors if any one should \u201cwind up and have more than one reasonable doubt, will you let that be known to the other members of the jury?\u201d and \u201cif you should have one single reasonable doubt would you vote to find the defendants not guilty?\u201d\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 95, 119 \u2014 corroborating evidence \u2014 failure to request limiting instruction\nDefendants were not prejudiced where they objected to the admission of corroborating evidence but did not request the court to instruct the jury as to its limited use, the solicitor after defendants\u2019 objection stated that he offered the evidence for the purpose of corroboration of the witness and for no other purpose, and the court in its charge referred to the corroborative evidence and instructed the jury that it was not to be considered by them as evidence of the truth of statements made at an earlier time.\nAppeal by defendants from Thornburg, Judge, May 1973 Session Superior Court, Rutherford County.\nThe three defendants were charged with felonious breaking or entering. Defendants Wood and Warren were also charged with possession, without lawful excuse, of implements of housebreaking. In addition, defendant Warren was charged with assault on a law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon while the officer was in the performance of his official duties. The jury found each defendant guilty as charged as to each offense. The court, on motion of defendant Warren, set aside the verdict of guilty of assault on a law enforcement officer. The defendants were represented at trial and are represented on appeal by privately retained counsel.\nAttorney General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General Haskell, for the State.\nGeorge R. Morrow and Carroll W. Walden, Jr., for defendant appellants." }, "file_name": "0267-01", "first_page_order": 295, "last_page_order": 298 }