{
  "id": 8552960,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MELVIN EARL BROWN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Brown",
  "decision_date": "1974-01-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 733SC569",
  "first_page": "413",
  "last_page": "416",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "20 N.C. App. 413"
    }
  ],
  "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": "186 S.E. 2d 369",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 491",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572631
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0491-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 S.E. 2d 384",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 485",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "380 U.S. 102",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1524630
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "108"
        },
        {
          "page": "1965"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/380/0102-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 S.E. 2d 177",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2145543
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sc/262/0062-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 N.C. 198",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560734
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/284/0198-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "378 U.S. 108",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6165107
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/378/0108-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 433,
    "char_count": 7533,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.589,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.4136835735736306e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8782469557105453
    },
    "sha256": "46663af508185c493ce0e3a74c410756b47dd637394bb27c967802488f1b8c40",
    "simhash": "1:64e234009b101a5d",
    "word_count": 1224
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:00.958655+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hedrick and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MELVIN EARL BROWN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nDefendant assigns error to the denial of his motion to dismiss all charges on the ground that he was denied a fair and impartial trial and preliminary hearing because the judge who issued the search warrant also presided at the trial and preliminary hearing. There is no merit to this assignment of error. The three misdemeanor charges were nonsuited upon trial de novo, so defendant has not been prejudiced in that respect. Defendant has likewise failed to show that he has been prejudiced with respect to the heroin charge. There is no statutory or constitutional proscription in North Carolina against a judge\u2019s presiding at a hearing to review the validity of a search warrant issued by that judge. While it is the better practice to allow a different judge to rule upon the validity of such a warrant, it does not appear of record that defendant objected to this procedure. Nor can defendant show that a different judge would have ruled in defendant\u2019s favor on the issue of probable cause.\nDefendant next assigns error to the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant in that it was based on a defective affidavit. Specifically, he contends that the affidavit fails to meet the probable cause test of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed. 2d 723 (1964), inasmuch as it does not provide a sufficient statement of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded the informant was reliable. The affidavit states:\n\u201cThe affiant received information from a reliable informant who in the past has provided reliable information concerning the drug traffic in Greenville ...\u201d\nIn State v. Ellington, 284 N.C. 198, 202 S.E. 2d 177 (1973), the Supreme Court refused to hold that the following language in an affidavit was insufficient under Aguilar v. Texas, supra, to establish the reliability of a confidential informant:\n\u201cDeputy Simmons advises that his informer is 100% reliable, and that information obtained from this same informant recently led to the confiscation of 120,000 Barbiturates recently in New York City.\u201d\nThe obvious distinction between the affidavit in Ellington, supra, and the affidavit before us is that the former refers\u2014 although generally \u2014 to a specific instance of information whereas the latter refers only to a general pattern of information. Nevertheless, we hold that this affidavit is sufficient under Aguilar v. Texas, supra, and State v. Ellington, supra.\n\u201c[T]he Fourth Amendment\u2019s commands, like all consti-tional requirements, are practical and not abstract. If the teaching of the Court\u2019s cases are to be followed and the constitutional policy served, affidavits for search warrants, such as the one involved here, must be tested and interpreted by magistrates and courts in a commonsense and realistic fashion. They are normally drafted by nonlawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation. Technical requirements of elaborate specificity once exacted under common law pleadings have no proper place in this area. A grudging or negative attitude by reviewing courts toward warrants will tend to discourage police officers from submitting their evidence to a judicial officer before acting.\u201d State v. Ellington, supra, at 204, [quoting U. S. v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed. 2d 684 1965)].\nDefendant\u2019s final assignment of error is to the court\u2019s charging the jury that the evidence tended to show that a pistol was found in defendant\u2019s pocket. This charge was made after the court granted defendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit on the charge of possession of a pistol without a permit. Nevertheless, defendant has failed to sustain his burden of showing prejudice. It is not sufficient that appellant show error; he must show that it was prejudicial to him and that a different result would likely have ensued absent the error. State v. Bass, 280 N.C. 485, 186 S.E. 2d 384 (1972); State v. Crump, 280 N.C. 491, 186 S.E. 2d 369 (1972). The error \u2014 if any \u2014 was harmless in light of the other evidence of defendant\u2019s possession of the heroin.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Hedrick and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan, by Associate Attorney Raney, for the State.",
      "Williamson and Shoffner, by Robert L. Shoffner, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MELVIN EARL BROWN\nNo. 733SC569\n(Filed 9 January 1974)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 167; Searches and Seizures \u00a7 3\u2014 validity of search warrant \u2014 review by issuing judge \u2014 no error\nThere is no statutory or constitutional proscription in this State against a judge\u2019s presiding at a hearing to review the validity of a search warrant issued by that judge, and defendant in this case has failed to show that he was prejudiced by such procedure.\n2. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 3\u2014 reliability of informer \u2014 general allegation in affidavit sufficient\nAn affidavit which stated that \u201cThe affiant received information from a reliable informant who in the past has provided reliable information concerning the drug traffic in Greenville ...\u201d provided a sufficient statement of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded the informant was reliable to support issuance of a search warrant.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 168\u2014 possession of pistol without permit \u2014 nonsuit, granted \u2014 subsequent charge harmless error\nIn a prosecution for possession of heroin, possession of phenobarbital, possession of a weapon without a permit and resisting officers, where the trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit on the charge of possession of a pistol without a permit but subsequently charged the jury that the evidence tended to show that a pistol was found in defendant\u2019s pocket, error, if any, was harmless in the light of the other evidence of defendant\u2019s possession of heroin.\nAppeal from Tillery, Judge, 12 March 1973 Session of Pitt County Superior Court.\nDefendant was charged with possession of heroin and with three misdemeanors \u2014 possession of phenobarbital, possession of a weapon without a permit, and resisting officers. The four charges were consolidated for trial in District Court. Defendant was found guilty of the three misdemeanor charges and probable cause was found as to the charge of possession of heroin. Defendant gave notice of appeal to Superior Court, and the cases were consolidated for trial. Judgment as of nonsuit was entered in the three misdemeanor cases, and defendant was found guilty of possession of heroin.\nThe evidence presented at the trial tended to establish the following:\nGreenville Police Officers, acting on the information of a confidential informant, obtained from Judge Whedbee a warrant to search the persons and premises of Delores Vines and Melvin Brown. Pursuant to the warrant, they proceeded to the premises and observed two people who came to the front door, looked out the window and ran to the back of the house. The officers identified themselves and forced the front door open. They forced the kitchen door open and attempted to take a brown paper bag from Brown. The bag was dropped in the struggle and when it was recovered, it was found to contain 13 glassine bags containing a white powdery substance, identified by the S.B.I. as heroin.\nThe officers stated that there were three black males in the room in addition to Brown and Miss Vines at the time of the seizure, and they identified Brown as one of the persons they observed looking out the window.\nFrom judgment committing him to a term of five years in the custody of the State Department of Corrections, defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Morgan, by Associate Attorney Raney, for the State.\nWilliamson and Shoffner, by Robert L. Shoffner, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0413-01",
  "first_page_order": 441,
  "last_page_order": 444
}