{
  "id": 8555308,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT LEE VALENTINE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Valentine",
  "decision_date": "1974-02-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 7421SC78",
  "first_page": "727",
  "last_page": "729",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "20 N.C. App. 727"
    }
  ],
  "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": "184 S.E. 2d 523",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 687",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552481
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/12/0687-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 S.E. 2d 469",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575701
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0509-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 S.E. 2d 533",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 N.C. 220",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628943
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/215/0220-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 334,
    "char_count": 6133,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.611,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3660674811543067
    },
    "sha256": "e49bd16016b4478ca02f20124b1549447e7e316612f20566bad54167f948e620",
    "simhash": "1:55c2e62cd95e14e2",
    "word_count": 991
  },
  "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 Carson concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT LEE VALENTINE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Chief Judge.\nDefendant contends that the trial court committed error in denying defendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit at the close of State\u2019s evidence and at the conclusion of all the evidence. Defendant contends that. the.evidence was insufficient to carry the case to the jury.\n\u201cMotion to nonsuit requires the trial court to consider the evidence in its light most favorable to the State,.take it as true, and give the State the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom. (Citations omitted.) Regardless of whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or both, if there is evidence from which a jury could find that the offense charged has been committed and that defendant committed it, the motion to nonsuit should be overruled. State v. Norggins, 215 N.C. 220, 1 S.E. 2d 533.\u201d State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509, 160 S.E. 2d 469.\nThe evidence presented by the State placed the heroin within a foot of where the defendant was standing; the motel room was registered in defendant\u2019s name; the registration card contained the defendant\u2019s driver\u2019s license number; and another occupant of the room had stated he was staying there with defendant.\nThis assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant argues that the trial court erred in allowing Officer Kavenaugh to testify, over defendant\u2019s objection, that Room 203 of the Winkler Motor Lodge was defendant\u2019s room.\nThe testimony of Officer Kavenaugh was based upon his knowledge gathered by his surveillance beginning 4 January 1973, and his subsequent entry with other officers into Room 203 on 5 January 1973.\nAnn Mennick, manager of the Winkler Motor Lodge on 5 January 1973, testified that defendant, according to business records, was the person registered in Room 203 on 4 January 1973 and 5 January 1973.\nEven if Officer Kavenaugh\u2019s testimony was error, it was harmless, technical error, cured by testimony to the same effect by a subsequent witness. This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant contends that the trial court committed error in allowing the State to obtain defendant\u2019s signature, and in allowing the defendant to testify as to the differences in handwriting between the alleged signature of defendant on the registration card and the signature sample given in court.\n\u201cHandwriting samples, blood samples, fingerprints, clothing, hair, voice demonstrations, even the body itself, are identifying physical characteristics and are outside the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination. (Citations omitted.)\u201d State v. Greene, 12 N.C. App. 687, 184 S.E. 2d 523.\nAs to the testimony of defendant regarding the differences in the two signatures, if this is error, it is prejudicial to the State and not the defendant. In order to entitle defendant to a new trial, the error complained of must be prejudicial to him. The defendant will not be granted a new trial upon error prejudicial to the State. See 3 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, \u00a7 167. This assignment of error is overruled.\nIn our opinion the defendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Carson concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan, by Associate Attorney Raney, for the State.",
      "R. Lewis Ray for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT LEE VALENTINE\nNo. 7421SC78\n(Filed 20 February 1974)\n1. Narcotics \u00a7 4\u2014 possession of heroin in motel room \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient for the jury in a prosecution for possession of heroin found in a motel room where it tended to show that the heroin was found next to a bed on which defendant was lying in the motel room, the room was registered in defendant\u2019s name, the registration card contained defendant\u2019s driver\u2019s license number, and another occupant of the room stated he was staying there with defendant.\n2. Narcotics \u00a7 3\u2014 heroin in motel room \u2014 testimony that room was defendant\u2019s\nError, if any, in the admission of an officer\u2019s testimony that the motel room in which heroin was found was defendant\u2019s room was cured when the motel manager testified that her business records showed the room was registered to defendant.\n3. Constitutional Law \u00a7 33; Criminal Law \u00a7 58\u2014 self-incrimination \u2014 handwriting sample\nDefendant\u2019s privilege against self-incrimination was not violated when the State was allowed to obtain defendant\u2019s signature in court for the purpose of comparing it with the signature on a motel registration card.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 58\u2014 handwriting comparisons by defendant \u2014 prejudice to State\nAdmission of testimony by defendant regarding differences between a signature sample given by defendant in court and the alleged signature of defendant on a motel registration card, if erroneous, was prejudicial to the State and not to defendant.\nAppeal by defendant from McLelland, Judge, 11 June 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Forsyth County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 January 1974.\nDefendant was charged in a bill of indictment with possession of heroin and charged in a warrant with possession of marijuana.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that on 5 January 1973, four members of the Winston-Salem Police D\u00e9partment entered Room 203 of the Winkler Motel in Winston-Salem, armed with a search warrant. Upon entering the room registered .in defendant\u2019s name, the policemen found the defendant, along with one Curt Wiley, and one Donald Wallace. Defendant, who was lying upon a bed when the officers entered, was asked to stand. A foil packet of heroin was discovered adjacent to the bed, between defendant and the wall. Remains of marijuana were found in an ashtray within the room.\nThe defendant\u2019s evidence tended to show that in December 1972 he saw Curt Wiley (Wiley) at the home of Donald Wallace; that defendant loaned Wiley his mother\u2019s car; that Wiley possibly had access to defendant\u2019s driver\u2019s license; that defendant had never registered at the Winkler Motel; and that the signature on the motel registration was similar to defendant\u2019s, but contained a number of discrepancies.\nThe jury found defendant not guilty of possession of marijuana, but guilty of possession of heroin. Defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Morgan, by Associate Attorney Raney, for the State.\nR. Lewis Ray for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0727-01",
  "first_page_order": 755,
  "last_page_order": 757
}