{ "id": 8555849, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JACKIE RIMMER", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Rimmer", "decision_date": "1975-05-07", "docket_number": "No. 7512SC85", "first_page": "637", "last_page": "639", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "25 N.C. App. 637" } ], "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": 270, "char_count": 4432, "ocr_confidence": 0.591, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.1618190013584225e-07, "percentile": 0.7698653473619504 }, "sha256": "cdc878335743a6bbf3c3fcd5c8a6d10b11795755f93823f7fe6f5b63bc02528c", "simhash": "1:816d2fb0f438f2ce", "word_count": 692 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:30:12.075015+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Parker and Arnold concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JACKIE RIMMER" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BROCK, Chief Judge.\nDefendant argues that the identification of defendant by Mr. Repsher should not have been permitted in evidence because of a chance meeting of the witness and the defendant at the police station. After a full hearing upon the question, in the absence of the jury, the trial judge found, upon plenary competent evidence, that the witness\u2019 identification of defendant was independent of his chance meeting at the police station and that the meeting at the police station in no way violated any of defendant\u2019s rights. This assignment of error is overruled.\nIn each case defendant and his counsel waived the finding and return into court of \u00bf.bill.of indictment. In each case defendant- and .his counsel signed, this waiver attached .tp. an information signed by Ed Grannis, Jr., assistant district attorney. Defendant now moves in arrest of judgment in each case upon the ground that each information was not signed by the district attorney.\nDefendant relies upon G.S. 15-140.1, which provides in part as follows: \u201c. . . [T]he prosecution shall be on an information signed by the solicitor [district attorney].\u201d Defendant argues that this requirement of the statute does not permit the assistant district attorney to sign an information.\nG.S. 7A-63 provides in part as follows:\n\u201cEach solicitor [district attorney] shall be entitled to the number of full-time assistant solicitors [assistant district attorneys] set out in this Subchapter, to be appointed by the solicitor [district attorney], to serve at his pleasure. . . . An assistant solicitor [assistant district attorney] shall take the same oath of office as the solicitor [district attorn\u00e9y], and shall perform such duties as may be assigned \u25a0by the solicitor [district attorney].\u201d\nNo evidence was offered and no argument made to the effect that the district attorney had not duly delegated and assigned the duty of signing an information to the assistant district attorney. /\nIt is interesting to note that G.S. 7A-61 specifically provides that the district attorney \u201cshall . . . prosecute in the name of the State all criminal actions requiring prosecution. . . .\u201d However,, defendant does not suggest that the assistant district attorney was thereby disqualified from prosecuting these actions.\nWe think it is eminently clear that the legislative intent and the statutory provisions contemplate that an assistant district attorney is fully authorized to carry out such duties of the district attorney as the district attorney may assign to him.\nThe motion in arrest of judgment in the trial court was properly denied, and the same is denied by this. Court.\nNo error.\nJudges Parker and Arnold concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "BROCK, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General William F. O\u2019Connell, for the State.", "Deno G. Economore, Assistant Public Defender, Twelfth District, for the defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JACKIE RIMMER\nNo. 7512SC85\n(Filed 7 May 1975)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 66 \u2014 meeting of witness and defendant at police station\u2014 in-court identification proper\nThe trial court properly allowed a witness to make an in-court identification of defendant where the court found that the witness\u2019s identification was independent of his chance meeting of defendant at \u25a0 the police station and the meeting at the police station in no way violated any of defendant\u2019s rights.\n2. Constitutional Law \u00a7 28\u2014 waiver of indictment \u2014 signature of assistant district attorney on information\nDefendant was not entitled to have judgment arrested where he was tried upon an information signed by the assistant district attorney rather than the district attorney himself. G.S. 7A-63; G.S. 15-140.1.\nAppeal by defendant from Aim's, Judge. Judgments entered 17 October 1974 in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 April 1975.\nDefendant was tried and convicted upon two charges of failure to stop or render aid or give information after two automobile accidents, each of which resulted in property damage and personal injury. G.S. 20-166.\nAfter the second collision defendant was observed by Mr. William Repsher, a security guard at a nearby store. Defendant jumped from his car and ran across a field towards some trees. Mr. Repsher pursued defendant, tackled defendant in the field, lost his grip on defendant\u2019s legs, and further pursued and caught defendant. Defendant struck and cut Mr. Repsher and evaded him. Mr. Repsher identified defendant at trial.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General William F. O\u2019Connell, for the State.\nDeno G. Economore, Assistant Public Defender, Twelfth District, for the defendant." }, "file_name": "0637-01", "first_page_order": 665, "last_page_order": 667 }