{
  "id": 11299475,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THOMAS MAY and REGINALD GATLIN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. May",
  "decision_date": "1974-06-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 743SC204",
  "first_page": "71",
  "last_page": "72",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "22 N.C. App. 71"
    }
  ],
  "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": "70 S.E. 2d 907",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "235 N.C. 623",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626323
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/235/0623-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 259",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558566,
        8558630,
        8558599,
        8558615,
        8558583
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0259-01",
        "/nc/283/0259-05",
        "/nc/283/0259-03",
        "/nc/283/0259-04",
        "/nc/283/0259-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 S.E. 2d 60",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 N.C. App. 317",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555238
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/17/0317-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 S.E. 2d 697",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 533",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575742
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0533-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 S.E. 2d 651",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "267 N.C. 470",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559707
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/267/0470-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 S.E. 2d 538",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 469",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569778
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0469-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 254,
    "char_count": 3446,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.582,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.728108280744093e-08,
      "percentile": 0.45458654153195804
    },
    "sha256": "696ba2812f8f7b815158047dd46c4f5bd6a4896f35035124bdfe323d2fd1b64e",
    "simhash": "1:d26fd5762e4f52ae",
    "word_count": 557
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:41.671000+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THOMAS MAY and REGINALD GATLIN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nSince defendant May brings forward no assignments of error, his appeal only raises the question of whether error appears on the face of the record. State v. Mcllwain, 279 N.C. 469, 183 S.E. 2d 538. Defendant was tried under an indictment proper in form by a duly constituted court, the verdict supports the judgment, and defendant was sentenced to a prison term within the applicable statutory limits.\nDefendant Gatlin\u2019s only argument is that he contends the verdict does not support the judgment against him. Defendant bases his argument on the fact that the jury foreman stated the verdict as \u201cGuilty of controlled substance, marijuana,\u201d omitting the term \u201cpossession.\u201d The clerk then asked \u201cGuilty of possession of a controlled substance, marijuana? And this is your verdict, so say you all?\u201d The jury response was \u201cYes, sir.\u201d We hold that the verdict supports the judgment. A jury\u2019s pronouncement is not a verdict until it is accepted by the court. State v. Rhinehart, 267 N.C. 470, 148 S.E. 2d 651. Since the foreman\u2019s initial statement which failed to refer to possession was not accepted without clarification, it was not a verdict. Moreover, contrary to defendant\u2019s assertions, the clerk did not improperly suggest a verdict to the jury but rather asked a question. See Davis v. State, 273 N.C. 533, 160 S.E. 2d 697; State v. Martin, 17 N.C. App. 317, 194 S.E. 2d 60, cert. den., 283 N.C. 259. When the sequence upon which defendant\u2019s objection is based is considered in terms of the issue being tried and the evidence, it is apparent that the jury intended to convict the defendant of something. The clerk\u2019s inquiry and the jury\u2019s response enabled the court to determine precisely what that something was. See Davis v. State, supra; State v. Sears, 235 N.C. 623, 70 S.E. 2d 907. We also note that defendant declined to exercise his right to poll the jury.\nWe find no prejudicial error in the trials from which defendants appealed.\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by H. A. Cole, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State. ;",
      "Laurence S. Graham and Nelson B. Crisp, attorneys for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THOMAS MAY and REGINALD GATLIN\nNo. 743SC204\n(Filed 5 June 1974)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 126\u2014 incomplete verdict \u2014 question by clerk \u2014 acceptance of verdict\nWhere the jury foreman stated the verdict as \u201cGuilty of controlled substance, marijuana,\u201d omitting the word \u201cpossession,\u201d the clerk then asked, \u201cGuilty of possession of a controlled substance, marijuana? And this is your verdict, so say you all?\u201d and the jury responded, \u201cYes, sir,\u201d the clerk did not improperly suggest a verdict to the jury and a verdict of guilty of possession of marijuana was properly accepted by the court.\nAppeal by defendants from Rouse, Judge, 1 October 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Pitt County.\nDefendants, Thomas May and Reginald Gatlin, were separately indicted for the felonious possession with intent to distribute the controlled substance marijuana.\nThe State offered evidence indicating that two Greenville police officers observed the defendants as they discarded several small envelopes containing vegetable matter which the defense stipulated was marijuana.\nDefendants offered no evidence. The jury found each defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance, marijuana, and each was sentenced to a prison term of six months.\nDefendants appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by H. A. Cole, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State. ;\nLaurence S. Graham and Nelson B. Crisp, attorneys for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0071-01",
  "first_page_order": 103,
  "last_page_order": 104
}
