{
  "id": 8554430,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONNIE E. CARTER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Carter",
  "decision_date": "1975-02-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 7422SC951",
  "first_page": "688",
  "last_page": "690",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 688"
    }
  ],
  "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": "210 S.E. 2d 555",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "584"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 148",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549700
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "196"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/24/0148-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 S.E. 2d 842",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.C. 727",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8576444
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/281/0727-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 283,
    "char_count": 4305,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.591,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20599096704093559
    },
    "sha256": "187829bdb4a931f9ac6c607aa04fe7a87a04b117ba3ace21393c8030267dc168",
    "simhash": "1:4f75b667353ae677",
    "word_count": 718
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:40.635509+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Clark concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONNIE E. CARTER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Chief Judge.\nDefendant assigns as error that the court permitted the witness Perrell to testify concerning the value of the four cartons of panty hose. The court allowed defendant\u2019s motion to strike the testimony complained of and emphatically instructed the jury- not to consider it in any way. If there were error in the admission of the testimony, it was cured by the court\u2019s ruling on the motion to strike and by the instructions to the jury.\nDefendant assigns as error that the State was permitted to offer the testimony of the witness Prevette, who was not included on the list of the State\u2019s witnesses furnished by the district attorney to defendant. There is no statute in this State which requires the State to furnish a defendant in a criminal case, with a list of prospective witnesses for the State. Absent a statute, an order to furnish such a list is within the discretion of the trial court. State v. Hoffman, 281 N.C. 727, 190 S.E. 2d 842 (1972) ; State v. Chavis, 24 N.C. App. 148, 196, 210 S.E. 2d 555, 584 (1974). Defendant does not suggest the violation of an order of the court to supply him with a list of witnesses. The defendant was not legally prejudiced merely because the State offered a witness not found on the list previously furnished by the district attorney to the defendant. \u201cPrejudicial surprise results from events \u2018not reasonably to be anticipated or perhaps testimony contrary to a prior understanding between the parties or something resulting from fraud or deception.\u2019 \u201d State v. Hoffman, supra at 735. Defendant has failed to show such prejudicial surprise. We note that the testimony of the witness Prevette was directed only to the value of the four cartons of panty hose. Defendant made no objection to the competency,or relevancy of the testimony. This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant has brought forward additional assignments'-of error. Some are directed to the admission or exclusion of- evidence, some are directed to the court\u2019s instructions to the jury, and some are directed to the rendering and taking of the verdict.' We do not view any of these as requiring a discussion. They are overruled.\nIn our opinion defendant received a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Clark concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorneys General William F. Briley and Thomas B. Wood, for the State.",
      "Barnes & Grimes, by Jerry B. Grimes, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONNIE E. CARTER\nNo. 7422SC951\n(Filed 19 February 1975)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 169\u2014 receiving stolen panty hose \u2014 evidence of value \u2014 admission not prejudicial\nIn a prosecution for feloniously receiving stolen goods, any error of the trial court in allowing a witness who allegedly stole the goods to testify concerning their value was cured by the court\u2019s allowance of defendant\u2019s motion to strike the testimony and by the court\u2019s emphatic instruction to the jury not to consider it in any way.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 87; Witnesses \u00a7 1\u2014 list of State\u2019s witnesses \u2014 testii mony from witness not listed\nDefendant was not legally prejudiced merely because the State offered a witness not found on the list previously furnished by the district attorney to the defendant.\nAppeal by defendant from Winner, Judge. Judgment entered '7 August 1974 in Superior Court, Davidson County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 January 1975.\nDefendant was charged with feloniously receiving stolen goods. He was found guilty as charged, judgment of imprisonment for a term of eight months was entered, and work release was recommended.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that one Charles W. Perrell,'Jr., stole four cartons (five boxes of one dozen panty hose each to the carton) of panty hose. Perrell delivered the four cartons to defendant\u2019s home and asked defendant if he wanted' some panty hose. Perrell told defendant to sell them and to give Perrell half of whatever defendant could get for them. A couple of days later defendant gave Perrell $40.00 or $50.00. The defendant turned over to the investigating officer two boxes,:of.one dozen each which he had remaining at the time of the investigation. Testimony for the State tended to establish the total wholesale value of the four cartons of panty hose at $370.90.\nDef\u00e9ndant offered no evidence.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorneys General William F. Briley and Thomas B. Wood, for the State.\nBarnes & Grimes, by Jerry B. Grimes, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0688-01",
  "first_page_order": 716,
  "last_page_order": 718
}