{ "id": 8548814, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHNNY REID", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Reid", "decision_date": "1974-10-02", "docket_number": "No. 7421SC502", "first_page": "194", "last_page": "200", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "23 N.C. App. 194" } ], "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": "76 S.E. 2d 356", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "238 N.C. 118", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8600445 ], "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/238/0118-01" ] }, { "cite": "163 S.E. 2d 31", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2 N.C. App. 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553722 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "446" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/2/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 S.E. 2d 536", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "267 N.C. 457", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559691 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/267/0457-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 U.S. 737", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12047392 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0737-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 L.Ed. 2d 358", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "86 S.Ct. 439", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "382 U.S. 953", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6398115, 6397835, 6398220, 6398041, 6397946 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/382/0953-04", "/us/382/0953-01", "/us/382/0953-05", "/us/382/0953-03", "/us/382/0953-02" ] }, { "cite": "339 F. 2d 770", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 883924 ], "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/339/0770-01" ] }, { "cite": "221 F. Supp. 494", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 64990 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/221/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "310 F. 2d 904", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 193748 ], "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/310/0904-01" ] }, { "cite": "196 F. Supp. 488", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 43551 ], "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/196/0488-01" ] }, { "cite": "160 S.E. 2d 296", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 418", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "78 N.C. 555", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8697890 ], "year": 1878, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/78/0555-01" ] }, { "cite": "485 F. 2d 531", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 669739 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/485/0531-01" ] }, { "cite": "294 P. 2d 854", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "case_ids": [ 10511478 ], "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/p2d/294/0854-01" ] }, { "cite": "294 P. 2d 851", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "case_ids": [ 10511436 ], "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/p2d/294/0851-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 So. 2d 308", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 9891267, 9891398 ], "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/108/0308-01", "/so2d/108/0308-02" ] }, { "cite": "82 Okl. Cr. 119", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Okla. Crim.", "case_ids": [ 8736867 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1946, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/okla-crim/82/0119-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 S.W. 2d 716", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "year": 1940, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "176 Tenn. 457", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tenn.", "case_ids": [ 8532149 ], "year": 1940, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/tenn/176/0457-01" ] }, { "cite": "305 S.W. 2d 756", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10178147 ], "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/305/0756-01" ] }, { "cite": "305 S.W. 2d 755", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10178083 ], "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/305/0755-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 659, "char_count": 13972, "ocr_confidence": 0.595, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.427502806708816e-08, "percentile": 0.5165938245820509 }, "sha256": "fabda576a7cbf6e52b563e1180f5d2d3a70f87d915c5d095458d87100da528af", "simhash": "1:b2e9a208011294f3", "word_count": 2326 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:39.683180+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Martin concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHNNY REID" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nDefendant first contends that the trial court erred in allowing the evidence, pills and pints of whiskey, that was seized from the search of a 1970 Pontiac, to be entered in that said search was illegal.\nThe automobile was parked in the lot of a service station of which defendant was night manager. The search warrant gave the officers authority to search the premises but did not specifically refer to the automobile.\nAlthough we find no North Carolina appellate court decision which has addressed itself to the question of whether- the search of a vehicle not mentioned in the warrant is permissible, various' other states have held that where the warrant designates: the building on the premises to be searched, a search of a motor vehicle parked near the building and on the same premises is not an unreasonable search. 79 C.J.S., Searches and Seizures, \u00a7 83, p. 903. In Massey v. Commonwealth, 305 S.W. 2d 755 (1957), a search of a vehicle parked at the rear door of the premises being searched was upheld. On the same day, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky held that if a search warrant validly.-describes the premises, a vehicle found thereon may be s\u00e9ar'ched even though the warrant contains no description of the vehicle. McCissell v. Commonwealth, 305 S.W. 2d 756 (1957). In Lawson v. State, 176 Tenn. 457, 143 S.W. 2d 716 (1940), where the vehicle was owned by the person mentioned in the warrant and the vehicle was within the boundaries of the premises being searched,, a search of the vehicle was- upheld.\nA number of cases have upheld the search of a; vehicle on the'premises where the search warrant authorized a!.-search of a building and \u201coutbuildings,\u201d or \u201cthe yard and outhouses,\u201d or the building \u201ctogether with all-outbuildings, places, and premises used or connected therewith.\u201d Bowdry v. State, 82 Okl. Cr. 119, 166 P. 2d 1018 (1946) ; Alexander v. State, 108 So. 2d 308 (1959); Lindley v. State, 294 P. 2d 851 (1956). Similarly a search of a vehicle on the premises has been upheld where the search warrant directed officers to search \u201cspecific realty and curtilage and appurtenances.\u201d Leslie v. State, 294 P. 2d 854 (1956).\nAlthough the search warrant in this case does not specifically refer to all outbuildings, appurtenances, etc., it does refer to the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued and incorporates the description of the premises contained therein. This description refers to \u201ca small one-room gray metal out building . . . approximately 15-feet ...\u201d from the service station. Thus it seems clear that the warrant authorized a search not only of the service station building itself, but also the surrounding premises. Consequently, a search of defendant\u2019s vehicle, which was on the premises at the time and within the area encompassed by the search warrant, was authorized and not unreasonable.\nThe fact that the officers observed vials of pills and capsules on the dashboard of defendant\u2019s vehicle also provided grounds for a search of the vehicle. Probable caus\u00e9 for a warrantless search of an automobile exists if there is \u201ca belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains that which by law is subject to seizure and destruction . . . \u201d U. S. v. Moody, 485 F. 2d 531 (3d Cir. 1973). Having observed vials of pills and capsules in plain view on the dashboard of the defendant\u2019s vehicle, which vials they reasonably suspected contained controlled substances, the officers here could reasonably conclude the vehicle contained other contraband which justified a complete search of the vehicle.\nDefendant next contends that the trial court erred in allowing Officer Wilson to testify as to any evidence pertaining to a Rossi firearm found within the defendant\u2019s car. Defendant argues that this testimony was irrelevant and prejudicial.\nThe State apparently concedes this testimony was irrelevant in that it had no logical tendency to prove any fact in issue and that it was error to admit such testimony. The State, however, contends that the defendant was not substantially prejudiced by this testimony.\n\u201cNot every erroneous ruling on the admissibility of evidence will result in a new trial being ordered. When the reviewing court is convinced that justice has been done and that evidence which was excluded would not, if admitted, have changed the result of the trial, a new trial will not be granted. So also where evidence has been improperly admitted, \u2018The burden is on the appellant not only to show error but to enable the Court to see that he was prejudiced 'or;the verdict of the jury probably influenced thereby.\u2019\u201d \u25a0 Stansbury, N. C. Evidence 2d, \u00a7 9, (Brandis Rev. 1973).\nAfter a careful review of the record we are convinced that justice has been done in this case and that the admission of testimony regarding the Rossi firearm did not affect the outcome of this case. The defendant has failed to show that the admission of such testimony substantially prejudiced him or that the verdict of the jury was influenced thereby.\nDefendant\u2019s third assignment of error relates to the testimony of Vernon H. Smith, Vice-President of Davis Insurance Company, who testified as to the signature on an assigned risk, automobile insurance policy. Defendant contends that in admitting this testimony, the trial court committed error since the witness testified that the signature on the policy was the defendant\u2019s signature and there was no showing the witness had seen the defendant sign his name before. From the record, however, we find that the testimony was not that the signature on the policy was defendant\u2019s but rather only that the policy was issued to one \u201cJohnny Reid\u201d and that the signature on the policy read \u201cJohnny Reid\u201d. The witness specifically stated he did not know whether the signature was that of the defendant, or someone else with the same name, or whether someone else signed the name \u201cJohnny Reid\u201d to the policy. The State did not by this witness attempt to prove that the writing was the defendant\u2019s signature, and it was not, therefore, necessary to establish the witness\u2019s familiarity with the defendant\u2019s handwriting. Defendant also argues that this testimony was essential to show ownership-of the car by the defendant and thereby show constructive possession of the liquor within. We find no merit in this contention in light of the fact that one of the arresting officers testified the defendant admitted the car was his. This was sufficient to show ownership of the car in the defendant.\n! The defendant\u2019s fourth assignment of error charges that the trial court erred in its instruction to the jury in that the trial judge used the word \u201ctestimony\u201d instead of the word \u201cevidence\u201d in defining \u201ca reasonable doubt\u201d. According to defendant, this led the jury to consider only oral testimony in determining whether there was reasonable doubt, instead of all of the evidence. The jury could not have been misled in this case nor was defendant prejudiced in any way. The charge, taken as a whole, was fully understandable and left no doubt as to what the jury should, or should not, consider in arriving at its verdict.\nDefendant next contends the trial judge erred in instructing the jury by stating that he possessed an opinion about the case, although it would be highly improper for him to try to convey it to them since they were the exclusive judges' of the facts. Defendant admits that the judge did not directly express his opinion but contends that the comment by the judge implied that he believed the State had proved its case. \u2022::\nIt is well settled in this State that unless it appears with ordinary certainty that the rights of either party have been in some way prejudiced by the remark or conduct of the court, it cannot be treated as error. State v. Browning, 78 N.C. 555 (1878) ; Kanoy v. Hinshaw, 278 N.C. 418, 160 S.E. 2d 296 (1968). Furthermore, the petitioner has the burden of showing that the judge\u2019s remarks constituted prejudicial error. Davis v. State of North Carolina, 196 F. Supp. 488 (E.D.N.C. 1961), rev\u2019d and remanded 310 F. 2d 904 (4th Cir. 1962), Hab. corp. denied 221 F. Supp. 494 (E.D.N.C. 1963), aff\u2019d 339 F. 2d 770 (4th Cir. 1964), cert. granted 382 U.S. 953, 86 S.Ct. 439, 15 L.Ed. 2d 358 (1966), rev\u2019d and remanded on other grounds 384 U.S. 737, 86 S.Ct. 1761, 16 L.Ed. 2d 895 (1966).\nWe find no merit in the defendant\u2019s contention on these facts. Here, there was no evidence of a direct expression of opinion by the judge and defendant has failed to show any indirect expression of opinion. We conclude the defendant has failed to show that he was prejudiced to any extent 'by this comment.\nDefendant next contends the trial court erred in its instruction as to constructive possession in that the charge did not include intent as an element of constructive possession. An examination of the record shows that the charge, when considered as a whole, sufficiently informed the jury that \u201cintent\u201d was an element which they needed to find present in order to . find the defendant guilty. When the charge considered contextually adequately presents the law of the case to the jury, the charge is not subject to the objection that it failed to explain the law on \u00e1 particular aspect of the case. Lewis v. Barnhill, 267 N.C. 457, 148 S.E. 2d 536 (1966).\nAnd in Jackson v. Jones, 2 N.C. App. 441, 446, 163 S.E. 2d 31 (1968), this Court, quoting from Vincent v. Woody, 238 N.C. 118, 76 S.E. 2d 356 (1953), said:\n\u201cTo require him [the presiding judge] to state every clause aqd sentence so. precisely that even when lifted out of context it expressed the law applicable to the facts in the cause on trial with such exactitude and nicety that it may held, in and of itself, a correct application of the law of the case would exact of the nisi prim judges a task impossible of performance.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s final assignment of error also relates to the trial jtidge\u2019s charge to the jury. He contends that the trial judge erred in that he did not instruct the jury while \u2019restating the evidence, that prior convictions of the same or different crime are admissible solely for the purpose of establishing'.the credibility of the witness. The jury was adequately informed that the State introduced the evidence solely for the purpos\u00e9 of impeaching defendant\u2019s credibility. Previously cited authorities are determinative here.\nTaken as a. whole, the charge was not improper, ;and the jury could not have been misled.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Martin concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MORRIS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Carson, by Associate Attorney Wallace, for the State.", "Harrell Powell, Jr., for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHNNY REID\nNo. 7421SC502\n(Filed 2 October 1974)\n1. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 4\u2014 search warrant for service station \u2014 search of vehicle proper\nWhere a warrant gave officers authority to search a service station and surrounding premises b.ut it made no mention of defendant\u2019s vehicle, search of the vehicle which was parked on the service station \u2022 \u25a0 lot was authorized and not unreasonable.\n2. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 1\u2014 suspected contraband in plain view \u2014 war-rantless search proper\nHaving observed vials of pills and capsules in plain view on the dashboard of the defendant\u2019s vehicle, which vials they reasonably suspected contained controlled substances, officers could reasonably conclude that the vehicle contained other contraband which justified a complete search of the vehicle.\n3. Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 12\u2014 testimony as to firearm \u2014 no prejudice\nIn a prosecution for the unlawful possession of taxpaid liquor for the purpose of sale, defendant failed to show that the admission of testimony pertaining to a Rossi firearm found within defendant\u2019s car substantially prejudiced him or that the verdict of the jury was influenced thereby.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 58\u2014 signature on insurance policy \u2014 evidence not prejudicial\nThe trial court did not err in allowing testimony as to the signature on an assigned risk automobile insurance policy, though there was no evidence of the witness\u2019s familiarity with defendant\u2019s handwriting, since the State did not attempt to prove by the witness that the writing was defendant\u2019s signature.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 77\u2014 ownership of vehicle \u2014 admission by defendant\nAdmission of defendant to an arresting officer that a car containing one gallon of taxpaid liquor for sale was his was sufficient to show ownership of the vehicle in defendant.\n6. Criminal Law \u00a7 112\u2014 instruction on reasonable doubt\nTrial court\u2019s use of the word \u201ctestimony\u201d instead of the word \u201cevidence\u201d in defining a reasonable doubt did not prejudice defendant.\n7. Criminal Law \u00a7 114\u2014 opinion held by judge \u2014 no expression\nTrial court\u2019s instruction to the jury that he possessed an opinion about the case but it would be highly improper for him to try to convey it to them since they were the exclusive judges of the facts did not prejudice defendant.\n8. Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 19\u2014 constructive possession of liquor \u2014 instructions on intent\nTrial court\u2019s instruction on intent as an element of constructive possession was proper.\n9. Criminal Law \u00a7 89\u2014 evidence of prior crimes \u2014 impeachment\nThe jury was adequately informed that the State introduced evidence of prior crimes solely for the purpose of impeaching defendant\u2019s credibility.\nAppeal by defendant from Armstrong, Judge, 19 November 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Forsyth County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 August 1974.\nThis criminal prosecution is based on a warrant which charges that defendant on or about 17 August 1973 unlawfully and willfully possessed more than one gallon of taxpaid liquor for the purpose of sale in violation of G.S. 18A-7.\nIn the Superior Court after trial oh his plea of not guilty, defendant was found guilty by the jury and judgment was entered on the verdict imposing a sentence of not less '{lian 12 months and one day nor more than 24 months. Defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Carson, by Associate Attorney Wallace, for the State.\nHarrell Powell, Jr., for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0194-01", "first_page_order": 222, "last_page_order": 228 }