{
  "id": 11304464,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM BRINKLEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Brinkley",
  "decision_date": "1974-07-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 745SC415",
  "first_page": "339",
  "last_page": "341",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "22 N.C. App. 339"
    }
  ],
  "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": "195 S.E. 2d 481",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 191",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558300
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0191-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 S.E. 2d 701",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 513",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559288
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0513-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 2847,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.568,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7531286573078199
    },
    "sha256": "dfbc7a1fe8c187db65967d109c26b9eefbc75869f19fcd15d71171c5baf9fc45",
    "simhash": "1:0bbd626ad00a3df1",
    "word_count": 469
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:41.671000+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. WILLIAM BRINKLEY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nAppellant first assigns error to the denial of his motion to compel the State to elect to try him either on the charge of possession of heroin or on the charge of sale of heroin. He contends that, the heroin involved in both cases being the same and the only evidence of possession being that shown when the distribution took place, denial of his motion subjected him to double jeopardy and to multiple punishment for the same offense. Our Supreme Court has held to the contrary in State v. Thornton, 283 N.C. 513, 196 S.E. 2d 701, and State v. Cameron, 283 N.C. 191, 195 S.E. 2d 481, and on authority of those decisions appellant\u2019s first assignment of error is overruled.\nThe only other assignment of error brought forward in appellant\u2019s brief challenges the trial court\u2019s action in allowing the State\u2019s witnesses to testify, over defendant\u2019s objections and motions to strike, concerning their observations of certain other \u201csmall glassine bags with white powder,\u201d similar to the two bags, which were purchased from defendant, which they saw at the time of the purchase in a small brown leather pouch in defendant\u2019s possession. The witnesses testified that the two glassine bags containing white powder, later determined to be heroin, which defendant sold, were removed from this same pouch by the defendant immediately prior to the sale. The testimony concerning the pouch and its contents was clearly relevant, and this assignment of error is also overruled.\nNo error.\nJudges Hedrick and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney James Wallace, Jr., for the State.",
      "Charles E. Rice III for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM BRINKLEY\nNo. 745SC415\n(Filed 3 July 1974)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 26; Narcotics \u00a7 5 \u2014 possession and sale of same heroin \u2014 two crimes\nDefendant was not placed in double jeopardy by his conviction for both possession and sale of the same heroin.\n2. Narcotics \u00a7 3\u2014 purchase of bags of heroin \u2014 observation of other similar bags\nIn a prosecution for possession and sale of heroin, the trial court properly allowed the State\u2019s witnesses to testify that, at the time they purchased two bags of heroin from defendant, they observed other small glassine bags with white powder in the pouch from which the two purchased bags were taken.\nAppeal by defendant from Cohoon, Judge, 26 November 1973 Session of Superior Court held in NEW Hanover County.\nBy separate bills of indictment, proper in form, defendant was charged with (1) unlawful possession of a controlled substance, \u201cto wit: two (2) dosage units of heroin,\u201d and (2) felonious distribution of the same heroin. The cases were consolidated for trial and defendant pled not guilty to both charges. The jury found him guilty in both cases, and from judgments imposing consecutive prison sentences, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney James Wallace, Jr., for the State.\nCharles E. Rice III for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0339-01",
  "first_page_order": 371,
  "last_page_order": 373
}
