{
  "id": 8553061,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WAYNE BRANDON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Brandon",
  "decision_date": "1975-02-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7414SC567",
  "first_page": "558",
  "last_page": "561",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 558"
    }
  ],
  "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": "153 S.E. 2d 330",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 N.C. 683",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565701
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/269/0683-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "159 S.E. 2d 372",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 N.C. App. 81",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550206
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "82"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/1/0081-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 295,
    "char_count": 5370,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.59,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20595389924277438
    },
    "sha256": "5dcf1428c44dc7cf78856b586e0442d18d0e57b0d708c126fc910c81229c61df",
    "simhash": "1:5f0c43884f375c21",
    "word_count": 880
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:40.635509+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Mor\u00e9is and Clark concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WAYNE BRANDON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nAll of defendant\u2019s assignments of error relate to the trial court\u2019s instructions to the jury. First, he contends that in recapitulating the testimony, the court stated that codefendants Webb and Riggins had each testified that he (Webb and Rig-gins) had pled guilty to assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury when in fact Webb and Riggins had not so testified ; and that in another portion of the charge, the court stated that Webb and Riggins and a third codefendant, Roberts, each had testified that he had pled guilty to assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury when in fact they had not so testified.\nThe record reveals that defendant\u2019s counsel on appeal did not appear at trial and was not employed by defendant until after the record on appeal was filed in this court. After defendant\u2019s brief was filed, in which brief he raised the questions covered by this assignment, this court granted the Attorney General\u2019s motion to be allowed to file a second addendum to the record. That addendum discloses that Webb did plead guilty to assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury and that defendant appellant introduced the transcript of Webb\u2019s plea into evidence. The addendum also discloses that Riggins testified, without objection or motion to strike by defendant, that he had pled guilty. Webb, Riggins and Roberts were presented as witnesses for the State.\nIn 3 Strong, N. C. Index 2d Criminal Law \u00a7 113, at 15, we find: \u201cGenerally, an inadvertence in stating the contentions of the parties or in recapitulating the evidence must be called to the trial court\u2019s attention in time for correction. Thus, a slight inaccuracy in stating the evidence will not be held reversible error when the matter is not called to the court\u2019s attention in apt time to afford opportunity for correction.\u201d\nWhile the trial court was inaccurate in stating that code-fendants Webb and Roberts had testified that they had pled guilty to assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, we perceive no prejudice to defendant appellant. Certainly, testimony by Webb that he had pled guilty would have been no more detrimental to defendant than was the introduction of Webb\u2019s transcript of plea. Evidence of Webb\u2019s plea having been introduced by defendant, and evidence of Riggins\u2019 plea having,been admitted without objection of defendant, we perceive no prejudice to defendant by the court\u2019s inaccurate statement that Roberts had testified that he had pled guilty. Neither of the inaccuracies was called to the attention of the judge in time for him to have corrected them.\nDefendant next contends that the trial judge expressed an opinion in his instructions to the jury by giving more weight to the State\u2019s contentions than to defendant\u2019s contentions. This assignment has no merit. Defendant did not take the witness stand nor did he present any other witness; six witnesses were presented by the State. Applicable here is the following statement from State v. Evers, 1 N.C. App. 81, 82, 159 S.E. 2d 372 (1968) : \u201c. . . Our Supreme Court has held many times that a mere disparity in the length of time devoted by a judge in stating contentions of parties does not constitute prejudicial error. (Citations).\u201d This rule particularly applies in cases where the number of witnesses presented by one side greatly exceeds the number presented by the other side.\nWe have considered defendant\u2019s other assignments relating to the charge but find them also to be without merit.\nDefendant\u2019s appeal itself constitutes an exception to the judgment and presents the case for review for error appearing on the face of the record. State v. Elliott, 269 N.C. 683, 153 S.E. 2d 330 (1967). We have reviewed the record proper and find it to be free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Mor\u00e9is and Clark concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General James H. Carson, Jr., by Assistant Attorney General Charles J. Murray, for the State.",
      "William Alexander Graham III for the defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WAYNE BRANDON\nNo. 7414SC567\n(Filed 5 February 1975)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 113 \u2014 inaccurate recapitulation of evidence \u2014 no prejudicial error\nWhile the trial court in a prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill was inaccurate in stating that codefendants had testified that they had pled guilty to assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, defendant was not prejudiced since he introduced evidence of one codefendant\u2019s plea and did not object to introduction of evidence as to the other codefendant\u2019s plea.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 118 \u2014 jury charge \u2014 more time devoted to State\u2019s contentions\u2014 no error\nWhere defendant did not take the stand or present any other witnesses, but the State presented six witnesses, the trial court did not give more weight to the State\u2019s contentions by devoting different lengths of time to stating contentions of the State and defendant.\nAppeal by defendant from Brewer, Judge, 11 February 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Durham County.\nDefendant was charged in a bill of indictment with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious bodily injury. He pled not guilty and the jury returned a verdict of guilty of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious bodily injury. From judgment imposing sentence of three years as a youthful offender, he appealed.\nAttorney General James H. Carson, Jr., by Assistant Attorney General Charles J. Murray, for the State.\nWilliam Alexander Graham III for the defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0558-01",
  "first_page_order": 586,
  "last_page_order": 589
}