{
  "id": 8553193,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WELDON MASON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Mason",
  "decision_date": "1975-02-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7414SC948",
  "first_page": "568",
  "last_page": "570",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 568"
    }
  ],
  "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": "169 S.E. 711",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1933,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 N.C. 710",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624511
      ],
      "year": 1933,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/204/0710-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 S.E. 2d 722",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 N.C. App. 610",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553294
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/15/0610-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 335,
    "char_count": 5017,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.577,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4140098515396071
    },
    "sha256": "75d2aa85501a2ec479cdb938ea5cddff57f160e10bf35204e73cf1833c1fe55a",
    "simhash": "1:b93ff047cfae18e6",
    "word_count": 828
  },
  "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 Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WELDON MASON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN, Judge.\nDefendant contends in his first assignment of error that the trial court erred in denying his motion for nonsuit on the charge of conspiracy. It is argued that the State\u2019s evidence raised only a suspicion that the crime of conspiracy was committed.\nA criminal conspiracy is the unlawful concurrence of two or more persons in a scheme or agreement to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act unlawfully. State v. Miller, 15 N.C. App. 610, 190 S.E. 2d 722 (1972). \u201cDirect proof of the charge is not essential, for such is rarely obtainable. It may be, and generally is, established by a number of indefinite acts, each of which, standing alone, might have little weight, but, taken collectively, they point unerringly to the existence of a conspiracy.\u201d State v. Whiteside, 204 N.C. 710, 169 S.E. 711 (1933).\nWe are of the opinion, and so hold, that defendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit.was properly overruled. State\u2019s evidence, through testimony by one McGill, tended to show that on 15 December 1973 defendant, Joe McGill, .and Aubrey Johnson met together at a vacant lot. Defendant asked, \u201cHow can we make some money?\u201d or \u201cWhere can we make some money?\u201d McGill suggested the movies. According to testimony, McGill knew defendant was speaking of robbery.- Defendant indicated that he needed a gun, and McGill said, \u201cYes, man.\u201d A shotgun was obtained from Johnson\u2019s home. McGill testified that en route to the theatre defendant said, \u201cI am going to show all how to pull a robbery.\u201d Arriving at the Yorktown Theatre in Durham, defendant demanded money, and the theatre employee complied, placing money into a bag held by Johnson. McGill also testified that he participated in the robbery out of a fear of defendant. We find the evidence sufficient to survive a motion for nonsuit on the charge of conspiracy.\nJames Beaulieu, manager of the Yorktown Theatre, was allowed to testify that defendant was one of the men who robbed his theatre and shot him. Before admitting this testimony, a voir dire examination was held to determine its admissibility. Based on ample evidence, the trial court found that the in-court identification was not the result of any impermissibly suggestive pre-trial identification procedures and that the in-court identification was based solely on what the witness saw at the time of the crime. Such a finding, supported by competent evidence, is conclusive on appeal and must be upheld. Defendant\u2019s assignment of error in this matter is overruled.\nDefendant argues the trial court erred in failing to strike a portion of testimony by Detective Moore of the Durham police. The record shows that this testimony was brought out by defendant\u2019s counsel on cross-examination of the State\u2019s witness. \u201cDefendant may not complain of the admission of testimony brought out by his counsel in the cross-examination of a witness for the state . ...\u201d 3 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, \u00a7 173, p. 145.\nWe conclude defendant\u2019s trial was free of prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Charles J. Murray, for the State.",
      "Vann & Vann, by Arthur Vann III, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WELDON MASON\nNo. 7414SC948\n(Filed 5 February 1975)\n1. Conspiracy \u00a7 6; Robbery \u00a7 4 \u2014 conspiracy to commit armed robbery \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nEvidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury in a prosecution for conspiracy to commit armed robbery where it tended to show that defendant and two others met in a vacant lot to discuss how they could make some money, one of the conspirators suggested the movies, defendant indicated that he needed a gun, defendant Stated that he was \u201cgoing to show all how to pull a robbery,\u201d defendant demanded money at a theater, and the theater employee complied by placing money in a bag held by one of the conspirators.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 66\u2014 identification of defendant \u2014 observation at crime scene as basis\nIn a prosecution for armed robbery, the trial court properly determined that testimony of a theater manager identifying defendant as one of the men who robbed a theater employee was based solely on the manager\u2019s observation of defendant at the crime scene.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 173 \u2014 objectionable testimony of State\u2019s witness \u2014 error invited by defendant\nThe trial court did not err in failing to strike a portion of testimony by a police detective where the objectionable testimony was brought out by defendant\u2019s counsel on cross-examination of the State\u2019s witness.\nAppeal by defendant from Brewer, Judge, 28 May 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Durham County. Heard in the Court of Appeals on 23 January 1975.\nDefendant was tried upon separate bills of indictment charging him with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, inflicting serious injury, armed robbery, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all charges, and from a judgment imposing prison sentences totaling fifty years, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Charles J. Murray, for the State.\nVann & Vann, by Arthur Vann III, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0568-01",
  "first_page_order": 596,
  "last_page_order": 598
}