{
  "id": 8552728,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EARL COLEMAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Coleman",
  "decision_date": "1975-02-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 742SC919",
  "first_page": "530",
  "last_page": "532",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 530"
    }
  ],
  "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": "142 S.E. 2d 600",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 N.C. 742",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575108
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/264/0742-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 433",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 N.C. App. 110",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547075
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/14/0110-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 S.E. 2d 201",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 N.C. 90",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565700
      ],
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/262/0090-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 302,
    "char_count": 5263,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.593,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.9503341067800256e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3708061744140295
    },
    "sha256": "6eea4a1ffa08c884814dcbc7e36a60651607c817582aef48b2e6c2781fe2ce57",
    "simhash": "1:646034c8280e36af",
    "word_count": 879
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:40.635509+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EARL COLEMAN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nDefendant first assigns error to denial of his motion to quash the indictments made on the ground that they were \u201ctoo vague and insufficient, too broad and general.\u201d The bills of indictment contained allegations sufficient to set forth fully and clearly all essential elements of the offenses charged. The words, \u201cwith force and arms,\u201d included in each bill, constitute a formal phrase traditionally included in bills of indictment and have no significance as an element of the specific crimes charged. State v. Acrey, 262 N.C. 90, 136 S.E. 2d 201 (1964). Defendant\u2019s first assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant next assigns error to the court\u2019s permitting the owner of the stolen automobile to testify that in his opinion the car had a \u201cvalue\u201d of about eighteen hundred dollars, contending that the question should have been limited to the witness\u2019s opinion as to \u201cmarket value\u201d and citing State v. Dees, 14 N.C. App. 110, 187 S.E. 2d 433 (1972) for the proposition that the market value of the stolen item is generally used in determining whether the crime is felonious or non-felonious. We note that no objection was made to the form of the question, no motion was made to strike the witness\u2019s answer, and no assignment of error was made to the charge of the court to the jury, which is not included in the record on this appeal. We hold that the witness\u2019s testimony as to his opinion of the \u201cvalue\u201d of the stolen automobile was properly admitted and was sufficient to require submission to the jury of an issue as to defendant\u2019s guilt of felonious larceny under G.S. 14-72. Defendant\u2019s second assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s motions for directed verdict were properly overruled. There was no fatal variance between the allegations in the bills of indictment and the State\u2019s proof in either case, as defendant now contends. In the larceny case the stolen property was described in the bill of indictment as \u201ca 1970 Plymouth, Serial #PM14360F239110, the personal property of George Edison Biggs.\u201d The evidence showed the taking by defendant of a 1970 Plymouth automobile which was owned by George Edison Biggs. The fact that there was no evidence as to the serial number is immaterial.\nIn the escape case the bill of indictment charged that defendant escaped while lawfully confined in the North Carolina State Prison System in the lawful custody of the North Carolina Department of Correction. The evidence showed he escaped while assigned by an official of the Department of Correction to work under an employee of the State Highway Commission. This constituted an escape from the State Prison System. State v. Whitley, 264 N.C. 742, 142 S.E. 2d 600 (1965).\nIn defendant\u2019s trial and in the judgments appealed from we find\nNo error.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Alfred N. Salley for the State.",
      "Arthur E. Cockrell for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EARL COLEMAN\nNo. 742SC919\n(Filed 5 February 1975)\n1. Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 9\u2014 words \u201cwith force and arms\u201d\nIndictments for escape and larceny were not rendered invalid by use of the words \u201cwith force and arms\u201d since such words constitute a formal phrase traditionally included in bills of indictment and have no significance as an element of the specific crimes charged.\n2. Larceny \u00a7 6\u2014 testimony as to \u201cvalue\u201d\nWitness\u2019s opinion of the \u201cvalue\u201d rather than the \u201cmarket value\u201d of a stolen automobile was properly admitted where defendant did not object to the form of the question or move to strike the answer, and such testimony was sufficient to require submission to the jury of an issue as to defendant\u2019s guilt of felonious larceny under G.S. 14-72.\n3.Larceny \u00a7 7\u2014 failure of evidence to show serial number of stolen car \u2014 no fatal variance\nThere was no fatal variance between a larceny indictment describing the stolen property as a 1970 Plymouth with a certain serial number, the personal property of a named person, and evidence showing a taking by defendant of a 1970 Plymouth owned by the person named in i^he indictment but failing to show the serial number of the vehicle.\n4. Escape \u00a7 1\u2014 escape while working for Highway Commission \u2014 escape from State Prison System\nAn escape by a prisoner assigned by an official of the Department of Correction to work under an employee of the State Highway Commission constituted an escape from the State Prison System.\nAppeal by defendant from James, Judge, 3 September 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Washington County.\nBy indictments proper in form defendant was charged with (1) felonious escape and (2) felonious larceny of a 1970 Plymouth automobile. He pled not guilty. The State\u2019s evidence showed: On 16 May 1973 defendant was in custody of the North Carolina Department of Correction serving a sentence imposed upon him for robbery. On that date he was assigned to work for the State Highway Commission. He escaped and drove away in a 1970 Plymouth belonging to one Biggs, taking the car without authority of its owner. He was apprehended a short time later while driving alone in the stolen automobile.\nDefendant offered no evidence. He was found guilty on both charges, and from judgments imposed on the verdicts, appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Alfred N. Salley for the State.\nArthur E. Cockrell for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0530-01",
  "first_page_order": 558,
  "last_page_order": 560
}