{
  "id": 8552507,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PHILLIP JOSEPH TRAVATELLO",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Travatello",
  "decision_date": "1975-02-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7419SC926",
  "first_page": "511",
  "last_page": "513",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 511"
    }
  ],
  "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": "119 S.E. 2d 165",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 N.C. 380",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626399
      ],
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/254/0380-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "162 S.E. 2d 495",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 N.C. 186",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559668
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/274/0186-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 S.E. 2d 214",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 261",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558671
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0261-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 S.E. 2d 208",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.C. 675",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8576347
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/281/0675-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 S.E. 2d 49",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 N.C. 182",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560687
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/284/0182-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "384 U.S. 436",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        12046400
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/384/0436-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "396 U.S. 934",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11396132,
        11396007,
        11396200,
        11396232,
        11396173,
        11396051,
        11396087
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/396/0934-04",
        "/us/396/0934-01",
        "/us/396/0934-06",
        "/us/396/0934-07",
        "/us/396/0934-05",
        "/us/396/0934-02",
        "/us/396/0934-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "166 S.E. 2d 681",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 N.C. 242",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558359
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/275/0242-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 S.E. 2d 37",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.C. 308",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561047
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/276/0308-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 S.E. 2d 610",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.C. 52",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559625
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/278/0052-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 S.E. 2d 656",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 N.C. 708",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569743
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/285/0708-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 S.E. 2d 422",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "286 N.C. 323",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565401
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/286/0323-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 881",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 341",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571955
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0341-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 420,
    "char_count": 6488,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.584,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5498100299817815e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6744512904034173
    },
    "sha256": "f6eda03c90ce59efd0d51e69660be15d3c84ba8e50070deec957c0cbb42918f2",
    "simhash": "1:23cc043b4506147a",
    "word_count": 1074
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:40.635509+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PHILLIP JOSEPH TRAVATELLO"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendant assigns as error the trial court\u2019s denial of his motions to suppress evidence. Upon each motion the court conducted a voir dire hearing and concluded that the evidence was admissible. We agree.\nA search warrant will be presumed regular if no irregularity appears on the face of the record. State v. Spillars, 280 N.C. 341, 185 S.E. 2d 881 (1971). Attached to the warrant was the affidavit of Officer D. C. Frey of the Albemarle Police Department. Among other things set forth was the affiant\u2019s familiarity with the investigation of a breaking and entering at Phillips Drug Company on 24 December 1973, information concerning a crowbar identified as a tool used in that break-in and found in defendant\u2019s truck, and the fact that defendant had been charged with the offense. This affidavit was clearly adequate to support an issuing magistrate\u2019s independent finding of probable cause to authorize a search of defendant\u2019s vehicle and premises for property missing from Phillips Drug Company. The search of defendant\u2019s premises did not exceed the scope of the warrant by including a tool shed as well as the house itself. See State v. Reid, 286 N.C. 323, 210 S.E. 2d 422 (1974). While conducting a lawful search, officers found in plain view property identified as that reported missing from Moose Drug Company. These items were lawfully seized, State v. Rigsbee, 285 N.C. 708, 208 S.E. 2d 656 (1974), and the motion to suppress was properly denied.\nDefendant contends that his confessison was inadmissible because he was under the influence of drugs when taken into custody. In determining whether an in-custody statement is voluntarily and understandingly made, the trial court\u2019s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence. State v. Haskins, 278 N.C. 52, 178 S.E. 2d 610 (1970) ; State v. McRae, 276 N.C. 308, 172 S.E. 2d 37 (1970) ; State v. Wright, 275 N.C. 242, 166 S.E. 2d 681, cert. denied 396 U.S. 934 (1969). The trial court found that defendant was fully apprised of his rights to counsel and to remain silent, that he said he understood them, that he did not appear to be under the influence of drugs, and that he knew what he was doing. These findings were supported by the testimony of Officer J. G. Berrier which shows that defendant was given full warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966),\u00a1and: that the officers, knowing defendant had used drugs in the past, specifically asked whether he was ill or under the influence of drugs at the time. Defendant replied that he was not and signed a waiver of his rights. The trial court ruled correctly that his subsequent confession was admissible. See State v. Lock, 284 N.C. 182, 200 S.E. 2d 49 (1973) ; State v. Haddock, 281 N.C. 675, 190 S.E. 2d 208 (1972).\nDefendant\u2019s contention that the trial court erred by failing to give requested instructions is without merit. Defendant submitted an exhaustive list of definitions which was repetitious at best. It is sufficient that the court gave the requested instructions in substance. State v. Beach, 283 N.C. 261, 196 S.E. 2d 214 (1973) ; State v. Howard, 274 N.C. 186, 162 S.E. 2d 495 (1968) ; State v. Bailey, 254 N.C. 380, 119 S.E. 2d 165 (1961). It is our opinion that the charge is adequate in all respects. The evidence against defendant was strong and convincing and more than sufficient to support the verdict.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General James E. Magner, Jr., for the State.",
      "Thomas K. Spence for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PHILLIP JOSEPH TRAVATELLO\nNo. 7419SC926\n(Filed 5 February 1975)\n1. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 3 \u2014 search warrant \u2014 sufficiency of affidavit\nAn officer\u2019s affidavit concerning a crowbar identified as a tool used in the break-in of a drug company and found in defendant\u2019s truck and stating that defendant had been charged with the offense was sufficient to support a magistrate\u2019s finding of probable cause for issuance of a warrant to search defendant\u2019s vehicle and premises for property missing from the drug company.\n2. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 4\u2014 warrant to search premises \u2014 search of tool shed\nScope of a warrant to search defendant\u2019s premises was not exceeded by search of a tool shed as well as the house itself.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 76\u2014 confession \u2014 influence of drugs \u2014 findings supported by evidence\nTrial court\u2019s finding that defendant was not under the influence of drugs when he confessed to police was supported by an officer\u2019s testimony that, knowing defendant had used drugs in the past, officers specifically asked whether he was ill or under the influence of drugs, and that defendant replied that he was not and signed a waiver of his rights.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 119\u2014 failure to give requested instructions\nThe trial court did not err in failing to give requested instructions where the court gave such instructions in substance.\nAppeal by defendant from Crissman, Judge, 20 May 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Cabarrus County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 January 1975.\nDefendant was tried on an indictment charging him with feloniously breaking and entering a building occupied by Moose Drug Company in Mt. Pleasant on 27 January 1974 and with larceny and receiving of hypodermic syringes, syringe needles, and miscellaneous controlled drugs valued at $282.00.\nWitnesses for the State testified that pursuant to a warrant law enforcement officers conducted a search and found on defendant\u2019s premises a quantity of drugs and other items fitting the description of property reported missing after a break-in at Moose Drug Company. Over defendant\u2019s objection and motion to suppress, the items were introduced in evidence. The State also introduced testimony concerning defendant\u2019s in-custody statement that he went to the rear of Moose Drug Company on the night of 27 January 1974 and, standing on some milk crates, opened a window and entered the building. He remembered taking drugs, film, syringes, needles and other items. Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress this evidence was also overruled. His only evidence was his testimony denying that he broke into Moose Drug Company and asserting that he was under the influence of narcotics at the time of his arrest.\nHe submitted a request for numerous instructions, all of which were denied, and the jury found him guilty as charged. From judgment imposing a prison sentence, defendant appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General James E. Magner, Jr., for the State.\nThomas K. Spence for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0511-01",
  "first_page_order": 539,
  "last_page_order": 541
}