{
  "id": 8550936,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROGER DALE CURRY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Curry",
  "decision_date": "1975-03-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7422SC1000",
  "first_page": "101",
  "last_page": "102",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 101"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 243,
    "char_count": 3542,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.571,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.838474306333757e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8397273354546926
    },
    "sha256": "96ea3967e4ee8ea4ec2061535b74a559534ca5d77106e82f755edd854705cad7",
    "simhash": "1:9f26c11816290bbf",
    "word_count": 588
  },
  "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. ROGER DALE CURRY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Chief Judge.\nDefendant argues that it was error to deny his motion for nonsuit. He contends there was insufficient evidence to support a verdict of guilty of felonious larceny because the evidence does not show that defendant actually entered the house or actually removed the stolen items from the house. This argument seems to miss the main point in the State\u2019s case. The case was tried and submitted to the jury on the theory that defendant aided and abetted in the felonious breaking and the felonious larceny. The evidence is ample to support a verdict of guilty of felonious larceny on this theory.\nDefendant argues that he was entitled to a mistrial because of prejudicial error in the reception of evidence. Defendant\u2019s motion to strike the objectionable testimony was allowed, and the jury was specifically instructed to disregard it. This prompt action by the trial judge cured the error if error, in fact, existed.\nOur review of the record discloses no prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Robert R. Reilly, for the State.",
      "Larry L. Eubanks and Larry G. Reavis, for the defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROGER DALE CURRY\nNo. 7422SC1000\n(Filed 5 March 1975)\nLarceny \u00a7 7\u2014 guilt as aider and abettor\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of defendant\u2019s guilt of felonious larceny as an aider and abettor where it tended to show that defendant rode in a truck with two others to the scene of a break-in, that defendant \u201cwent up and down the road\u201d while his companions broke into a house and stole items therefrom, that defendant helped unload the stolen items, that defendant broke open a steel box stolen from the house, and that defendant sold a television stolen from the house.\nOn writ of certiorari to review proceedings before Wood, Judge. Judgment entered 6 June 1974 in Superior Court, Davidson County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 February 1975.\nDefendant was charged in a bill of indictment with felonious breaking and entering and felonious larceny. He pleaded not guilty.\nThe evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State, tended to show that Larry Hamilton and Floyd \u201cWild-man\u201d Francis broke into the house of Robert Ketchie on 5 November 1973. Items valued at $2,200.00 were stolen. The evidence tended to show that defendant rode to the scene of the break-in in a truck with Hamilton and Francis and that defendant \u201cwent up and down the road\u201d while the break-in occurred. After defendant had been.apprehended, he signed a waiver of rights and made a statement in which he denied entering the house but admitted selling a color TV, one of the items stolen from Ketchie\u2019s house. He also admitted helping unload the goods at Hamilton\u2019s trailer.\nDefendant\u2019s evidence consisted of the testimony of Hamilton and Francis. They testified that defendant did not participate in the break-in. Although Hamilton earlier had implicated defendant, he maintained that he had done this out of spite because he then believed defendant had told on him and Francis.\nMrs. Jacqueline Hamilton, co-defendant Larry Hamilton\u2019s wife, testified for the State in rebuttal. She stated that defendant not only helped unload the stolen items at her trailer, but also broke open a steel box containing items that did not belong to him. The box was among the items stolen from the.Ketchie house.\nThe jury found defendant guilty of felonious larceny, and a prison sentence was imposed. Defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Robert R. Reilly, for the State.\nLarry L. Eubanks and Larry G. Reavis, for the defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0101-01",
  "first_page_order": 129,
  "last_page_order": 130
}