{ "id": 4356194, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF A.M. (Juvenile)", "name_abbreviation": "In re A.M.", "decision_date": "2012-04-17", "docket_number": "No. COA11-1380", "first_page": "136", "last_page": "139", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "220 N.C. App. 136" } ], "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": "535 S.E.2d 566", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "574-75", "parenthetical": "\"To show prejudicial error, a defendant has the burden of showing that there was a reasonable possibility that a different result would have been reached at trial if such error had not occurred.\" (citation and quotation marks omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "140 N.C. App. 15", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12121343 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "26", "parenthetical": "\"To show prejudicial error, a defendant has the burden of showing that there was a reasonable possibility that a different result would have been reached at trial if such error had not occurred.\" (citation and quotation marks omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/140/0015-01" ] }, { "cite": "149 L.Ed. 2d 384", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "532 U.S. 964", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9336642, 9336803, 9337092, 9336325, 9336969, 9336746, 9336393, 9336527, 9337039, 9336593, 9336688, 9336495, 9336921, 9336858, 9336445 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/532/0964-07", "/us/532/0964-10", "/us/532/0964-15", "/us/532/0964-01", "/us/532/0964-13", "/us/532/0964-09", "/us/532/0964-02", "/us/532/0964-05", "/us/532/0964-14", "/us/532/0964-06", "/us/532/0964-08", "/us/532/0964-04", "/us/532/0964-12", "/us/532/0964-11", "/us/532/0964-03" ] }, { "cite": "547 S.E.2d 25", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 387", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135648, 135693, 135892, 135643, 135774 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0387-04", "/nc/353/0387-05", "/nc/353/0387-03", "/nc/353/0387-02", "/nc/353/0387-01" ] }, { "cite": "286 S.E.2d 621", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "622", "parenthetical": "concluding that respond-ent should not receive a new hearing where State did not disclose a document but it was unclear \"(1) whether the document contains information required by statute to be disclosed, and (2" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 N.C. App. 673", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527829 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "673-74", "parenthetical": "concluding that respond-ent should not receive a new hearing where State did not disclose a document but it was unclear \"(1) whether the document contains information required by statute to be disclosed, and (2" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/55/0673-01" ] }, { "cite": "721 S.E.2d 317", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2012, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "322", "parenthetical": "citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 440, "char_count": 7442, "ocr_confidence": 0.755, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08, "percentile": 0.3660665158470629 }, "sha256": "5f50ba1092aa6bfe70d430f4127206e0eb1268aca0994b9b134294c53f63a921", "simhash": "1:2b9950237dee3a04", "word_count": 1205 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:35:53.925153+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges ELMORE and STEELMAN concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF A.M. (Juvenile)" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "STROUD, Judge.\nJuvenile appeals adjudication and disposition orders. For the following reasons, we order that juvenile receive a new hearing.\nI. Background\nOn 29 October 2010, three petitions (\u201cOctober petitions\u201d) were filed against juvenile for disorderly conduct at school, misdemeanor assault, and delinquency based upon juvenile allegedly \u201ckick[ing] another student in the groin area of his body, causing this student to fall to the ground in pain.\u201d On 8 December 2010, a petition (\u201cDecember petition\u201d) was filed against juvenile for delinquency based upon juvenile allegedly \u201cwantonly and willfully setfting] fire to and causing] to be burned an uninhabited house[.]\u201d (Original in all caps.) On 24 March 2011, the court heard both the October and December petitions. Petitioner dismissed its petitions as to disorderly conduct and assault inflicting serious injury and the juvenile admitted the allegation of simple assault, leaving the delinquent act alleged in the December petition, \u201cwantonly and willfully setfting] fire to and causing] to be burned an uninhabited house[,]\u201d (original in all caps), as the only contested matter for consideration at the adjudicatory hearing. Also on 24 March 2011, the court adjudicated the juvenile delinquent based upon the juvenile\u2019s admission of simple assault and upon the December petition. On 19 May 2011, the court entered a \u201cJUVENILE LEVEL 2 DISPOSITION ORDER (DELINQUENT)\u201d requiring juvenile be placed on probation for 12 months, cooperate with a community commitment program, pay $500.00 in restitution, abide by a curfew set by a \u201cCOURT COUNSELOR AND/OR PARENT[,]\u201d not associate with \u201cANYONE DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE BY COURT COUNSELOR AND/OR PARENT[,]\u201d not be anywhere it is \u201cUNLAWFUL FOR [a] JUVENILE TO BE[,]\u201d cooperate with a wildness program, be on house arrest by \u201cbe[ing] with parents or grandparents at ALL times[,]\u201d \u201cbe confined . . . [at] an approved detention facility\u201d for fourteen days, perform community service, and \u201cFOLLOW ALL OTHER COURT COUNSELORS RECOMMENDATIONS[.]\u201d Juvenile appeals.\nII. Witness List\nJuvenile contends that \u201cthe trial court erred when it failed to order the petitioner to publish a list of the witnesses it intended to call at trial when the juvenile followed the statutory requirement of filing a written request for the list.\u201d (Original in all caps.) \u201c[Juvenile] alleges a violation of a statutory mandate, and alleged statutory errors are questions of law. A question of law is reviewed de novo. Under the de novo standard, the Court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the lower court.\u201d State v. Reeves,_N.C. App._,_, 721 S.E.2d 317, 322 (2012) (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted).\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2300(b) provides that\n[u]pon motion of the juvenile, the court shall order the petitioner to furnish the names of persons to be called as witnesses. A copy of the record of witnesses under the age of 16 shall be provided by the petitioner to the juvenile upon the juvenile\u2019s motion if accessible to the petitioner.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2300(b) (2009) (emphasis added).\nOn 21 March 2011, juvenile filed a \u201cMOTION IN LIMINE FOR THE STATE TO DISCLOSE THE PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY AND RECORDS OF ALL STATE\u2019S WITNESSES AND A LIST OF WITNESSES IT INTENDS TO CALL AT TRIAL[.]\u201d According to the transcript, the petitioner provided the names of some witnesses to juvenile prior to the hearing, but the court never addressed juvenile\u2019s motion in limine. On 24 March 2011, the day of juvenile\u2019s hearing, the petitioner for the first time disclosed a new witness; this witness was the only eyewitness to testify that she had seen juvenile set a fire. Juvenile\u2019s attorney moved to continue the hearing so she could \u201cdo some investigationf.]\u201d Petitioner\u2019s counsel claimed that it only became aware of the witness \u201ctoday\u201d and had given juvenile\u2019s attorney an opportunity to speak with the witness earlier that day. The court denied the motion to continue. However, during the witness\u2019 testimony, she testified she had received a subpoena \u201cback in Decemberf.]\u201d\nWhile it appears from the transcript that more than one individual from the district attorney\u2019s office handled this case, it also appears clear from the witness\u2019s testimony that petitioner was aware of her as a witness long before the date of juvenile\u2019s hearing. Petitioner\u2019s brief essentially concedes this point. Furthermore, the witness was an important one as she was the only eyewitness to testify that she saw juvenile start a fire. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2300(b) mandates that when requested the petitioner shall disclose the names of witnesses to juvenile, and it is clear that this witness was certainly material to the case against juvenile. Contrast In re Coleman, 55 N.C. App. 673, 673-74, 286 S.E.2d 621, 622 (1982) (concluding that respond-ent should not receive a new hearing where State did not disclose a document but it was unclear \u201c(1) whether the document contains information required by statute to be disclosed, and (2) whether the information would be favorable or material to respondent\u2019s case\u201d). We thus agree with juvenile that the court erred in failing to allow her motion in limine, continue the case, or find another way to remedy a situation created by the petitioner\u2019s failure to comply with the plain mandate of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2300(b). See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7b-2300(b). Accordingly, we conclude that the petitioner\u2019s failure to comply with a statutory mandate and the court\u2019s failure to remedy the situation was prejudicial as with more notice juvenile may have been able to impeach this material witness and thus may not have been adjudicated delinquent for setting a fire and would not have received the disposition as ordered by the court. See generally State v. Godley, 140 N.C. App. 15, 26, 535 S.E.2d 566, 574-75 (2000) (\u201cTo show prejudicial error, a defendant has the burden of showing that there was a reasonable possibility that a different result would have been reached at trial if such error had not occurred.\u201d (citation and quotation marks omitted)), disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 387, 547 S.E.2d 25, cert denied, 532 U.S. 964, 149 L.Ed. 2d 384 (2001).\nIII. Conclusion\nFor the foregoing reasons, we conclude that juvenile must receive a new hearing. As juvenile is receiving a new hearing, we need not address her other issue on appeal.\nNEW HEARING.\nJudges ELMORE and STEELMAN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "STROUD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Creecy Johnson, for the State", "Geeta Kapur, for juvenile-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF A.M. (Juvenile)\nNo. COA11-1380\n(Filed 17 April 2012)\nJuveniles \u2014 delinquency\u2014failure to order publication of witness list \u2014 failure to remedy violation of mandate \u2014 prejudicial\nThe trial court erred in a juvenile case by failing to order petitioner to publish a list of the witnesses it intended to call at trial. The court erred in failing to allow petitioner\u2019s motion in limine, continue the case, or find another way to remedy the situation created by the petitioner\u2019s failure to comply with the plain mandate of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2300(b). Petitioner\u2019s failure to comply with a statutory mandate and the court\u2019s failure to remedy the situation was prejudicial.\nAppeal by juvenile from orders entered 24 March 2011 by Judge Paul A. Hardison and 19 May 2011 by Judge Carol Jones Wilson in District Court, Onslow County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 March 2012.\nAttorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Creecy Johnson, for the State\nGeeta Kapur, for juvenile-appellant." }, "file_name": "0136-01", "first_page_order": 146, "last_page_order": 149 }