{
  "id": 8550478,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LAWRENCE EDWARD SAMUELS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Samuels",
  "decision_date": "1975-03-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7421SC974",
  "first_page": "77",
  "last_page": "79",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 77"
    }
  ],
  "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": "158 S.E. 2d 617",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573790
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0509-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 844",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 306",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571880
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0306-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "199 S.E. 2d 431",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 N.C. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559828
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/284/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "179 S.E. 2d 404",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.C. 268",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560114
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/278/0268-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 S.E. 2d 781",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 N.C. 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562772
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/285/0181-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 384,
    "char_count": 5453,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.587,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.5330875625009783e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2843515201079291
    },
    "sha256": "14b244c3c9454db52a1ed8376744a5fe6a168d4ab9a6cc5c3ff1e1016ffbaab4",
    "simhash": "1:a3a1c46067c8765b",
    "word_count": 887
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:30:12.075015+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. LAWRENCE EDWARD SAMUELS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress inculpatory statements made during the search. He argues that the court\u2019s findings on voir dire do not support the conclusion that he voluntarily and understandingly waived the right to remain silent.\nA trial court\u2019s finding of voluntariness, when supported by competent evidence, is conclusive on appeal. State v. Thomp son, 285 N.C. 181, 203 S.E. 2d 781 (1974) ; State v. Barber, 278 N.C. 268, 179 S.E. 2d 404 (1971) ; State v. Wright, 275 N.C. 242, 166 S.E. 2d 681, cert. denied 396 U.S. 934 (1969). Moreover, volunteered statements are admissible regardless of waiver. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) ; State v. Blackmon, 284 N.C. 1, 199 S.E. 2d 431 (1973) ; State v. Haddock, 281 N.C. 675, 190 S.E. 2d 208 (1972) ; 2 Stansbury N. C. Evidence (Brandis rev.), \u00a7 184.\nIn the case at bar, the trial court found that when defendant was arrested and advised of his rights, he repeatedly said, \u201cI know all that stuff.\u201d The court further found that each of defendant\u2019s statements was made \u201csuddenly, spontaneously and voluntarily\u201d and not in response to police interrogation. These findings are supported by the evidence. The motion to suppress was properly denied.\nDefendant also assigns as error the trial court\u2019s denial of his motion for a continuance for the purpose of retaining new counsel. He does not contend that his constitutional rights have been violated. His motion therefore rests in the trial court\u2019s discretion, reviewable only upon a showing of abuse. State v. Stepney, 280 N.C. 306, 185 S.E. 2d 844 (1971) ; State v. Moses, 272 N.C. 509, 158 S.E. 2d 617 (1967). Defendant had been found indigent and had obtained court-appointed counsel, who was prepared for trial. Charges against him had been pending for almost six months. We find no abuse in refusing to order a continuance at this late date.\nWe have carefully examined the record and find no error prejudicial to defendant.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Robert P. Gruber, for the State.",
      "Nelson, Clayton, Boyles & Roscoe, by Laurel 0. Boyles, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LAWRENCE EDWARD SAMUELS\nNo. 7421SC974\n(Filed 5 March 1975)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 76\u2014 statements during search \u2014 constitutional warnings\u2014 volunteered statements\nStatements made by defendant during a search of his apartment for narcotics were properly admitted in evidence where the court found upon supporting evidence that when defendant was arrested and advised of his rights before making the statements, he repeatedly said, \u201cI know all that stuff,\u201d and that each of defendant\u2019s statements was made \u201csuddenly, spontaneously and voluntarily\u201d and was not in response to police interrogation.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 91 \u2014 denial of continuance to obtain new counsel\nThe trial court did not err in the denial of defendant\u2019s motion for continuance for the purpose of retaining new counsel where defendant had court-appointed counsel who was ready for trial and the charges against him had been pending for six months.\nAppeal by defendant from Exim\u00ed, Judge. Judgment entered 16 August 1974 in Superior Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 February 1975.\nDefendant was indicted for possession of heroin in violation of the North Carolina Controlled Substances Act. He also was charged in separate warrants with possession of the controlled substances marijuana, morphine, cocaine and ethchlorvynol. Defendant pleaded not guilty and the cases were consolidated for trial.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that on 8 February 1974 officers of the Winston-Salem Police Department, having obtained two search warrants, went to an apartment at 911 East 3rd Street, Winston-Salem, where defendant sometimes resided. They found defendant standing in the bedroom. After reading the warrants to him, the officers began their search. Under the mattress they found an envelope containing material shown by preliminary tests to be marijuana. Defendant was then placed under arrest and given his Miranda warnings. The officers continued searching the apartment and discovered other controlled substances and drug paraphernalia. In the dresser they found a steel box which they opened with a key produced by defendant. Inside the box were scales, spoons, tape, gauze and a sifter. As these items were being removed, defendant said, \u201cYou are not going to find anything on that stuff. I have washed it. It\u2019s all clean.\u201d In the hall closet was a jacket containing a letter addressed to Samuels and a packet of white powder. When this was discovered, he said, \u201cThat is not mine. All my dope is brown.\u201d Finally, when officers found more drugs in a trash bag in the kitchen, defendant said, \u201cThat is the stuff I use to cut with. You\u2019re a day too late. I sold everything.\u201d\nAfter conducting a voir dire hearing, the trial court concluded that all of the above statements were admissible in evidence. Defendant did not object to the introduction of physical evidence obtained during the search. He testified that he was not a resident of the apartment and had no knowledge of the drugs found there. Defendant\u2019s girl friend testified that she lived in the apartment with her son and also had no knowledge of the drugs.\nThe jury found defendant guilty of all five charges against him. From judgment imposed thereon, he appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Robert P. Gruber, for the State.\nNelson, Clayton, Boyles & Roscoe, by Laurel 0. Boyles, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0077-01",
  "first_page_order": 105,
  "last_page_order": 107
}