{ "id": 11299148, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FREDERICK EARL CANNADY and WILLIE BURNICE HINNANT", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Cannady", "decision_date": "1974-06-05", "docket_number": "No. 747SC216", "first_page": "53", "last_page": "54", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "22 N.C. App. 53" } ], "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": "196 S.E. 2d 617", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "18 N.C. App. 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548190 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/18/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "268 N.C. 69", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560152 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/268/0069-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 S.E. 2d 610", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559625 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0052-01" ] }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 513", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570720, 8570753, 8570794, 8570834, 8570647, 8570683 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0513-03", "/nc/279/0513-04", "/nc/279/0513-05", "/nc/279/0513-06", "/nc/279/0513-01", "/nc/279/0513-02" ] }, { "cite": "182 S.E. 2d 617", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "12 N.C. App. 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8547481 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/12/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 386", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 616", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566256 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0616-01" ] }, { "cite": "163 S.E. 2d 492", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "274 N.C. 277", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559994 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/274/0277-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 311, "char_count": 3902, "ocr_confidence": 0.575, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.5798889719389835e-07, "percentile": 0.8170941626326477 }, "sha256": "373871f5007f8f9ec31e5ed0b38155ee465b4e5378713f0330ff90a402629938", "simhash": "1:4642fc4a6df0c2d0", "word_count": 639 }, "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. FREDERICK EARL CANNADY and WILLIE BURNICE HINNANT" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nDefendants contend that the court erred in consolidating the cases for trial. As defendants concede, the decision to consolidate rests in the discretion of the trial court, State v. Fox, 274 N.C. 277, 163 S.E. 2d 492, and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Fox, supra; State v. Yoes and Hale v. State, 271 N.C. 616, 157 S.E. 2d 386; State v. McCall and State v. Sanders and State v. Hill, 12 N.C. App. 85, 182 S.E. 2d 617, cert. den., 279 N.C. 513. No abuse of discretion has been shown.\nDefendants argued that their respective confessions were improperly admitted into evidence. After an extensive voir dire examination, the court concluded that none of the defendants\u2019 constitutional rights had been violated in connection with the statements. The court\u2019s findings are based on competent evidence, including, among other things, written waivers signed by the defendants. The issue on voir dire is whether the incriminating statements were voluntarily made. State v. Haskins, 278 N.C. 52, 178 S.E. 2d 610; State v. Gray, 268 N.C. 69, 150 S.E. 2d 1. That defendants may have made their statements with the hope that lower bond would be set or in the belief that another participant in the crime implicated them does not render their statements involuntary.\nWe have carefully considered defendants\u2019 other assignments and find no prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges CAMPBELL and MORRIS concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "VAUGHN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Norman L. Sloan, Associate Attorney, for the State.", "Moore, Diedriek & Whitaker by T. G. Diedrick and Turnage and Horton by Frederick E. Turnage, attorneys for defendant appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FREDERICK EARL CANNADY and WILLIE BURNICE HINNANT\nNo. 747SC216\n(Filed 5 June 1974)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 92\u2014 consolidation of charges against two defendants\n\u25a0The trial court did not err in consolidating for trial charges against two defendants for malicious damage to real and personal property by use of an explosive.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 75\u2014 voluntariness of confessions \u2014 hope of lower bond \u2014 belief accomplice had implicated defendants\nDefendants\u2019 confessions were not rendered involuntary by the fact .they may have been made with the hope that lower bond would be set or in the belief that another participant in the crime had implicated them.\nAppeal by defendants from Lanier, Judge, 13 August 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Nash County.\nFor disposition of these cases on a prior appeal, see State v. Cannady and State v. Hinnant, 18 N.C. App. 213, 196 S.E. 2d 617. Defendants \"were separately indicted for maliciously and feloniously damaging the real and personal property of another by the use of an explosive. The cases were consolidated for trial.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that defendant Can-nady was displeased with treatment he received during the course of his dealings at Stanhope Grocery and Hardware Company. Defendant Cannady asked defendant Hinnant to procure some dynamite. In the early morning of 31 March 1972, the defendants and one Bertis (Blue Boy) Evans drove to the vicinity of the Stanhope Grocery in a vehicle operated by \u201cBlue Boy.\u201d The three wrapped a stick and a half of dynamite with string and positioned a fuse and blasting cap. Defendant Hin-nant supplied the components for the bomb. Defendant Cannady lit the fuse, and defendant Hinnant rolled it up to the door of the store. Defendants ran back to the car, and \u201cBlue Boy\u201d drove off. Shortly thereafter, the group heard an explosion.\nTestifying in their own behalf, both defendants Hinnant and Cannady denied participating in the bombing and claimed they were at their respective homes on the night of the incident.\n:/ The jury found both defendants guilty as charged. Defendant Cannady was sentenced to a term of 15-18 years, and defendant Hinnant was sentenced to 12-15 years.\nBoth defendants appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Norman L. Sloan, Associate Attorney, for the State.\nMoore, Diedriek & Whitaker by T. G. Diedrick and Turnage and Horton by Frederick E. Turnage, attorneys for defendant appellants." }, "file_name": "0053-01", "first_page_order": 85, "last_page_order": 86 }