{
  "id": 8553544,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CURTIS MOSES INGRAM",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ingram",
  "decision_date": "1974-01-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 7321SC753",
  "first_page": "464",
  "last_page": "466",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "20 N.C. App. 464"
    }
  ],
  "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": "185 S.E. 2d 147",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 167",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570300
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0167-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 S.E. 2d 858",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 N.C. 514",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624666
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/250/0514-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 15",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 227",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572279
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0227-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 S.E. 2d 897",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.C. 499",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562301
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/276/0499-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 431,
    "char_count": 6165,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.628,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.776865030097998e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8963794800391838
    },
    "sha256": "0f179defe9cd640a65a4e09d1bad9facdb3ecad8e399ff0ff6622ff78a566a5b",
    "simhash": "1:af2f6d6774702667",
    "word_count": 1056
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:00.958655+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CURTIS MOSES INGRAM"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nDefendant contends that his motion for dismissal should have been granted since there was a variance between the allegations in the indictment and the State\u2019s evidence at trial. The indictment upon which defendant was tried specified \u201c[t]hat Curtis Moses Ingram . . . did unlawfully, willfully and feloni-ously distribute a controlled substance to Clarence Gooche . . . [and that] the defendant distributed the said substance by selling and transferring the same to Clarence Gooche for the price of approximately $300.00 . . . . \u201d The State\u2019s evidence tends to prove that defendant sold the heroin to Hiawatha Hairston.\nThe purpose of an indictment is to give defendant sufficient notice of the charge against him, to enable him to prepare his defense, and to raise the bar of double jeopardy in the event he is again brought to trial for the same offenses. State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 173 S.E. 2d 897; State v. Dorsett, 272 N.C. 227, 158 S.E. 2d 15; State v. Bissette, 250 N.C. 514, 108 S.E. 2d 858. An indictment not meeting these standards will not support a conviction. Our Supreme Court has held that since the now superseded Uniform Narcotic Drug Act of 1935 did not expressly eliminate the common law requirement that an indictment specify the name of the person to whom a defendant allegedly sold narcotics, an indictment which does not include the purchaser\u2019s name, if known, failed to state sufficient facts to sustain a conviction. State v. Bennett, 280 N.C. 167, 185 S.E. 2d 147. The Court reaffirmed the general rule that \u201c \u2018[w]here a sale is prohibited, it is necessary, for a conviction, to allege in the bill of indictment the name of the person to whom the sale was made or that his name is unknown, unless some statute eliminates that requirement. The proof, must, of course, conform to the allegations and establish a sale to the named person or that the purchaser was in fact unknown.\u2019 (Emphasis added.)\u201d State v. Bennett, supra, quoting State v. Bissette, supra. The North Carolina Controlled Substances Act under which defendant was charged does not expressly eliminate the requirement that the name of a known purchaser be alleged in the indictment. In any event, where the bill of indictment alleges a sale to one person and the proof tends to show only a sale to a different person, the variance is fatal.\nThe conviction must be set aside. The State is at liberty to secure another bill of indictment if so advised.\nReversed.\nJudges Britt and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by James E. Magner, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "G. Ray Motsinger for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CURTIS MOSES INGRAM\nNo. 7321SC753\n(Filed 9 January 1974)\nNarcotics \u00a7 2; Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 17\u2014 distribution of heroin \u2014 name of buyer \u2014 fatal variance\nDefendant\u2019s conviction for distribution of heroin is set aside for variance between the indictment and proof where the indictment alleged that defendant sold heroin to one person and the proof tended to show only a sale to a different person.\nAppeal by defendant from Wood, Judge, 7 May 1973 Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Forsyth County.\nDefendant was indicted for feloniously distributing forty-four bindles of heroin.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show the following.\nOn 29 July 1972, Clarence Gooche, an undercover agent for the State Bureau of Investigation, met with SBI agent Gary Batten at the Coliseum on Cherry Street in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Gooche, who was based in Raleigh, was sent to Winston-Salem \u201cto make an undercover buy of heroin\u201d from one Reginald Hiawatha (Hi) Hairston. Gooche was introduced to an informer (Howie) who was to assist in making the contact with Hairston. Howie and Hairston were friends.\nHowie telephoned Hairston, expressed an interest in purchasing \u201csome dope,\u201d and said he and Gooche would come over. Some time between 10:00 p.m. and 10:30 p.m., Gooche and Howie picked Hairston up as he left work. Prior to this meeting, Hairston and Gooche had never seen each other. Gooche asked Hairston to buy between $300.00 and $400.00 worth of heroin. Since Howie was acquainted with Hairston, the latter agreed to make the purchase as a favor to the former. Hairston admitted that he had \u201cexperimented\u201d with heroin, that he \u201cknew where to get some when he needed it\u201d and that he did \u201ca lot of favors for people in order to get [his] shots, so to speak.\u201d\nGooche, Howie and Hairston parked in front of one of the buildings in Colony Park Apartments about 11:45 p.m. Hairston did not know who lived in the apartment, but he was aware that drug users frequented it. Hairston went into a second floor apartment while Gooche and Howie remained in the car which was parked approximately 35 to 40 feet from the building.\nHairston described the purchase as follows:\n\u201cSo, I went up to the apartment and, you know, I went on the inside and began to negotiate, you know, about purchasing the drugs. When I got on the inside, it was Curtis Ingram that I met. I told him what I wanted was $300 worth of dope, three half-loads. So I gave him the $300. He said, \u2018Well, wait a while.\u2019 So, I goes back down to the car and sat and waited. All right. Fifteen or twenty minutes passed. I go back up, you know, to check on everything, and, as I got up the steps, you know, as I was going up the steps, I could vaguely see him standing in the door. So, I walked up to the door. Mr. Ingram, I saw him standing in the doorway, and opened the screen door, handed the package out. I went back down the steps and got in the car and gave the package to this SBI Agent. Well, they took me back to my house and then they left.\u201d\nThe package Hairston gave Gooche contained numerous cellophane wrappers filled with a white powder. The results of a preliminary analysis of one of the bindles indicated that the white powder was heroin. The package was ultimately turned over to Batten who in turn forwarded it to the State Chemical Lab for extensive analysis. The State\u2019s chemist testified that the analysis revealed the white substance was heroin.\nThe verdict was guilty, judgment was entered and defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by James E. Magner, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nG. Ray Motsinger for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0464-01",
  "first_page_order": 492,
  "last_page_order": 494
}