{
  "id": 8549613,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROGER LEE VAIL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Vail",
  "decision_date": "1975-05-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 753SC144",
  "first_page": "73",
  "last_page": "74",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 N.C. App. 73"
    }
  ],
  "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": "196 S.E. 2d 597",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 N.C. App. 316",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549188
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/18/0316-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 S.E. 2d 486",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "256 N.C. 236",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572114
      ],
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/256/0236-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 S.E. 2d 49",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 377",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575372
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0377-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 S.E. 2d 3",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 N.C. 212",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560795
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/284/0212-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 284,
    "char_count": 4156,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.579,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1540046093849542e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7689676116252337
    },
    "sha256": "d4a957839ca0d19bbee693122f3c86a87ddc5132c0def5461c970a492aef8e9d",
    "simhash": "1:c32ba5266a061fe2",
    "word_count": 723
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:59:13.418266+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROGER LEE VAIL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CLARK, Judge.\nWe find that the only assignment of error which merits discussion relates to the charge of the trial court in stating the contentions of the State and failing to give the contentions of the defendant.\nThe trial judge is not required by G.S. 1-180 or other law to give the contention of the parties; but when he does state the contentions of the State on a particular aspect of the case, it is error to fail to state defendant\u2019s opposing contentions arising out of the evidence, or lack of the evidence, on the same aspect of the case. State v. Thomas, 284 N.C. 212, 200 S.E. 2d 3 (1973) ; State v. Cook, 273 N.C. 377, 160 S.E. 2d 49 (1968); State v. King, 256 N.C. 236, 123 S.E. 2d 486 (1962) ; State v. Lane, 18 N.C. App. 316, 196 S.E. 2d 597 (1973).\nIn his charge to the jury the trial judge made no attempt to present fully the theories or contentions of either the State or the defendant. We find twice in the charge the use of the word \u201ccontends\u201d, both occurring in a single paragraph when the trial judge defined the elements of breaking or entering.\nIt is apparent that the word \u201ccontends\u201d was used by the trial court in referring to a limited portion of the State\u2019s evidence for the purpose of making an explanation of what constituted a \u201cbreaking\u201d and what constituted an \u201centry\u201d, or a recital of what the State\u2019s evidence \u201ctended to show\u201d as to that phase of the case in order properly to explain and apply the law thereto. It is noted that the defense was alibi, and that there was no conflicting evidence as to the break-in and entry of the store building. The trial judge did not invade the province of the jury with respect to inferences to be drawn from the facts in evidence. While we do not approve the use of the words \u201ccontends and says\u201d in referring to the evidence for the purpose of explaining the law applicable thereto, we find that under the circumstances of this case, there was no prejudicial error.\nJudges Morris and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CLARK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General James L. Blackburn for the State.",
      "William E. Grantmyre for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROGER LEE VAIL\nNo. 753SC144\n(Filed 21 May 1975)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 118\u2014 statement of contentions\nThe trial judge is not required to give the contentions of the parties, but when he does state the contentions of the State on a particular aspect of the case, it is error to fail to state defendant\u2019s opposing contentions arising out of the evidence, or lack of evidence, on the same aspect of the case.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 118\u2014 instructions \u2014 use of word \u201ccontends\u201d \u2014 failure to state defendant\u2019s contentions\nWhere the trial court did not state the contentions of the State but used the word \u201ccontends\u201d in referring to the evidence for the purpose of explaining the law applicable thereto, the court did not err in failing to state the contentions of defendant.\nAppeal by defendant from Martin (Perry), Judge. Judgment entered 8 August 1974, in Superior Court, Pitt County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 April 1975.\nTo charges of breaking or entering a grocery store in Farmville and larceny therefrom, defendant pled not guilty.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that Sgt. W. B. Barber of the Farmville Police Department, investigated a break-in at Heath\u2019s grocery, where he found the back door prized open, and a drawer from the cash register and a money bag from the unlocked safe were missing. His investigation led to defendant, who was confronted and advised of his rights against self-incrimination. He signed a written waiver and made a full confession, which was reduced to writing. After voir dire, the trial court found the confession admissible, and no error is assigned to this ruling. After confession, defendant led the officer to stolen money, which he had hidden in his grandfather\u2019s house.\nDefendant testified that he was coerced into signing a statement which he did not make; that he won $62.00 that night playing poker; and that he knew nothing about the break-in and larceny.\nThe jury found defendant guilty as charged, and from judgment imposing consecutive prison sentences, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General James L. Blackburn for the State.\nWilliam E. Grantmyre for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0073-01",
  "first_page_order": 101,
  "last_page_order": 102
}