{
  "id": 4079272,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EVERETT GREGORY McCAIN Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. McCain",
  "decision_date": "2011-05-17",
  "docket_number": "No. COA10-647",
  "first_page": "228",
  "last_page": "231",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "212 N.C. App. 228"
    }
  ],
  "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": "463 S.E.2d 176",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "179",
          "parenthetical": "the defendant's motion to strike the witness' in-court identification was not timely as the defense counsel allowed the witness to answer three subsequent questions following the witness identification before making the motion to strike."
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "342 N.C. 123",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        796093
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "127",
          "parenthetical": "the defendant's motion to strike the witness' in-court identification was not timely as the defense counsel allowed the witness to answer three subsequent questions following the witness identification before making the motion to strike."
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/342/0123-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 S.E.2d 376",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "380",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "380"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "303 N.C. 75",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571418
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "81",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "81"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/303/0075-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 S.E.2d 598",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1943,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "600",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 N.C. 173",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8602236
      ],
      "year": 1943,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "176",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/223/0173-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 392,
    "char_count": 7291,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.75,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1298687684108224
    },
    "sha256": "57cfd6c48dbe5073947f373bdd4d693ef4eb8e1d058f385275fc3225d796ee6a",
    "simhash": "1:dbda67fe54ce67f1",
    "word_count": 1168
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:12:23.503415+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges BRYANT and BEASLEY concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EVERETT GREGORY McCAIN Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "STROUD, Judge.\nEverett Gregory McCain (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals from a conviction for possession of cocaine. For the following reasons, we find no error in defendant\u2019s trial.\nOn 11 May 2009, defendant was indicted for one count of possession with intent to manufacture, sell, and deliver, oxycontin and possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine. Defendant was tried on these charges during the 17 February 2010 Criminal Session of Superior Court, Person County. The State\u2019s evidence tended to show that on 6 November 2008, the Roxboro Police Department executed a search warrant of defendant\u2019s residence at 970 Allie Clay Road in Person County. As a result of the execution of that search warrant, police seized, among other items, eight plastic bags containing a white powdery substance. This evidence was submitted to the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (\u201cSBI\u201d) for examination. Irvin Lee Alcox, a forensic chemist with the SBI, analyzed the white powder and testified that the eight plastic bags contained 14.0 grams of the controlled substance cocaine hydrochloride. During trial, the State voluntarily dismissed the charge of possession with intent to manufacture, sell, and deliver oxycontin. On 18 February 2010, the jury found defendant guilty of possession of cocaine. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of six months to eight months imprisonment. The trial court suspended this sentence and placed defendant on supervised probation for 36 months. Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court.\nIn his only argument on appeal, defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting SBI forensic chemist Irvin Alcox to testify as an expert witness, as the State had committed a discovery violation by not providing defendant with a copy of Mr. Alcox\u2019s laboratory notes stating that he had combined all of the eight bags of white powdery substance for analysis based on a visual examination and this violation amounted to a surprise to the defense. We note that defendant raised these arguments at trial in a motion to strike Mr. Alcox\u2019s testimony, which was denied by the trial court.\nOur Supreme Court has stated that\na motion to strike out the testimony, to which no objection was aptly made, is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and his ruling in the exercise of such discretion, unless abuse of that discretion appears, is not subject to review on appeal.\nState v. Hunt, 223 N.C. 173, 176, 25 S.E.2d 598, 600 (1943) (citation omitted). N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 103(a)(1) (2009) states that \u201c[e]rror may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits . . . evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and ... a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record. ...\u201d (emphasis added). Our Supreme Court has further noted that \u201c[i]t is axiomatic that an objection to or motion to strike an offer of evidence must be made as soon as the party objecting has an opportunity to discover the objectionable nature thereof. Unless prompt objection is made, the opponent will be held to have waived it.\u201d State v. Cox, 303 N.C. 75, 81, 277 S.E.2d 376, 380 (1981) (citations omitted). Therefore, \u201c[a] motion to strike will ... be deemed untimely if the witness answers the question and the opposing party does not move to strike the response until after further questions are asked of the witness.\u201d State v. McCray, 342 N.C. 123, 127, 463 S.E.2d 176, 179 (1995) (the defendant\u2019s motion to strike the witness\u2019 in-court identification was not timely as the defense counsel allowed the witness to answer three subsequent questions following the witness identification before making the motion to strike.).\nHere, the trial transcript shows that defendant\u2019s motion to strike was untimely. During direct examination of Sergeant Shawn Williams of the Roxboro Police Department, the State, with permission from defendant, suspended Sergeant Williams\u2019 testimony and brought Mr. Alcox to the stand for direct examination. During the State\u2019s direct examination, Mr. Alcox testified as to his analysis of the white powder and his conclusion that it was cocaine hydrochloride, but the only objection raised by defendant was as to the State\u2019s introduction of Mr. Alcox\u2019s laboratory report into evidence. Defendant made no objection as to Mr. Alcox\u2019s testimony during direct examination. Defense counsel cross-examined Mr. Alcox, including questions regarding his laboratory notes. After Mr. Alcox\u2019s testimony, Sergeant Williams was then brought back to the stand and defense counsel was permitted to cross-examine Sergeant Williams; the State asked questions on redirect; and defendant asked questions to Sergeant Williams in recross examination. Defense counsel then moved to suppress the physical evidence, which was denied by the trial court. It was at this point in the trial that defense counsel moved \u201cto strike the chemical, the forensic scientist\u2019s opinion of cocaine based on [a] discovery violation[,]\u201d as the State had not provided defendant Mr. Alcox\u2019s laboratory notes which provided for the underlying basis of the expert\u2019s opinion, and this omission amounted to a surprise to the defense. The trial court denied defendant\u2019s motion.\nIt appears from the transcript that defense counsel had already discovered \u201cthe objectionable nature[,]\u201d see Cox, 303 N.C. at 81, 277 S.E.2d at 380, of Mr. Alcox\u2019s testimony prior to trial, as defense counsel during his argument for a motion to strike stated:\nI will say for the record, right before the trial began [the prosecutor] spoke to the chemist and the chemist told him he only pretested five bags and the combined, but that was the notice we had with regards to how this testing was done.\nTherefore, defendant should have made his objection or motion to strike during or prior to Mr. Alcox\u2019s testimony. We also note that defense counsel gave no reason for his delay in raising his motion to strike. As defense counsel did not make an objection to Mr. Alcox\u2019s testimony during direct examination but waited until after the completion of Mr. Alcox\u2019s and Sergeant Williams\u2019 testimony, and his motion to suppress before raising the above motion to strike, we hold that defendant\u2019s motion to strike was untimely. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant\u2019s motion to strike. Accordingly, we overrule defendant\u2019s argument and hold that defendant received a trial free from error.\nNO ERROR.\nJudges BRYANT and BEASLEY concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "STROUD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Special Deputy' Attorney General Kathleen Mary Barry, for the State.",
      "Anne Bleyman, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EVERETT GREGORY McCAIN Defendant\nNo. COA10-647\n(Filed 17 May 2011)\nEvidence\u2014 untimely motion to strike \u2014 witness testimony\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in a possession of cocaine case by denying defendant\u2019s untimely motion to strike an SBI forensic chemist\u2019s testimony when an objection was not made during direct examination, but made after the completion of this witness and another witness\u2019s testimony plus a motion to suppress.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered on or about 18 February 2010 by Judge W. Osmond Smith, III, in Superior Court, Person County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 November 2010.\nAttorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Special Deputy' Attorney General Kathleen Mary Barry, for the State.\nAnne Bleyman, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0228-01",
  "first_page_order": 238,
  "last_page_order": 241
}