{ "id": 8553947, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM DONALD HAMRICK", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hamrick", "decision_date": "1975-07-02", "docket_number": "No. 7527SC274", "first_page": "518", "last_page": "520", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "26 N.C. App. 518" } ], "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": "410 U.S. 990", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12010016, 12010338, 12010406, 12010221, 12010160, 12010483, 12010293, 12010104, 12009950 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/410/0990-02", "/us/410/0990-07", "/us/410/0990-08", "/us/410/0990-05", "/us/410/0990-04", "/us/410/0990-09", "/us/410/0990-06", "/us/410/0990-03", "/us/410/0990-01" ] }, { "cite": "191 S.E. 2d 603", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 154", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563462, 8563577, 8563482, 8563547, 8563516 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0154-01", "/nc/282/0154-05", "/nc/282/0154-02", "/nc/282/0154-04", "/nc/282/0154-03" ] }, { "cite": "190 S.E. 2d 722", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "15 N.C. App. 610", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553294 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/15/0610-01" ] }, { "cite": "400 U.S. 857", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12084192, 12084284, 12084237 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/400/0857-01", "/us/400/0857-03", "/us/400/0857-02" ] }, { "cite": "398 U.S. 959", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6269377, 6268865, 6270821, 6269961, 6271466, 6269642, 6271150, 6270290, 6270515, 6269109, 6268600 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/398/0959-04", "/us/398/0959-02", "/us/398/0959-09", "/us/398/0959-06", "/us/398/0959-11", "/us/398/0959-05", "/us/398/0959-10", "/us/398/0959-07", "/us/398/0959-08", "/us/398/0959-03", "/us/398/0959-01" ] }, { "cite": "170 S.E. 2d 466", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 651", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559791 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0651-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 301, "char_count": 4506, "ocr_confidence": 0.573, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.0667790989784013e-07, "percentile": 0.7572433759651624 }, "sha256": "ee573152da3246695bcbd563429c3ede409fcdb36fbdc2901d50c6aea0b0db42", "simhash": "1:9c71def3de4f7ac6", "word_count": 739 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:59:13.418266+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM DONALD HAMRICK" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s first two assignments of error concern portions of Johnny Black\u2019s testimony. He contends that Black\u2019s statement; \u201cWe made plans to rob my father,\u201d invaded the province of the jury. We disagree. Black further testified giving details of his discussion with defendant. He was not expressing an opinion but was testifying from personal knowledge. The jury had only to determine his credibility. This assignment of error is overruled.\n' Defendant also contends that the court erred in sustaining the State\u2019s objection to cross-examination involving Black\u2019s communications with his attorney. It is clear that the court ruled properly to protect matters covered by the attorney-client privilege. See generally 1 Stansbury, N. C. Evidence (Brandis rev.), \u00a7 62. This assignment of error also is overruled.\nDefendant next assigns error to the court\u2019s denial of his motion for nonsuit. He contends that there was no evidence of an agreement to commit robbery with a firearm on James O. Black. This contention is without merit. Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, Johnny Black\u2019s testimony was ample evidence of an agreement between defendant and another to commit the offense. See State v. Horton, 275 N.C. 651, 170 S.E. 2d 466, cert. denied, 398 U.S. 959, rehearing denied, 400 U.S. 857 (1970) ; State v. Miller, 15 N.C. App. 610, 190 S.E. 2d 722, cert. denied, 282 N.C. 154, 191 S.E. 2d 603, cert. denied, 410 U.S. 990 (1973). Black testified that a few days before 13 February 1974 he and defendant drew plans of his father\u2019s house and discussed the fact that he usually carried large sums of money on him but rarely kept guns around. He also testified that sometime after 13 February 1974 defendant told him that \u201cthey\u201d had gone to his father\u2019s house, drawn guns, and robbed him. Defendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit was properly overruled.\nFinally, defendant assigns error to several portions of the court\u2019s charge to the jury. We have carefully examined the charge and find it adequate in all respects. These assignments of error are overruled.\nDefendant has received.a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ARNOLD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General John M. Silverstein and Associate Attorney David S. Crump, for the State.", "Julian B. Wray for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM DONALD HAMRICK\nNo. 7527SC274\n(Filed 2 July 1975)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 50\u2014 invasion of province of jury\nIn a prosecution for conspiracy to commit armed robbery, a witness\u2019s testimony, \u201cWe made plans to rob my father,\u201d did not invade the province of the jury and was competent.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 S2\u2014 attorney-client privilege\nIn a prosecution for conspiracy to commit armed robbery, the trial court properly sustained the State\u2019s objection to cross-examination of a coconspirator involving communications with his attorney in order to protect matters covered by the attorney-client privilege.\n3. Conspiracy \u00a7 6\u2014 conspiracy to commit armed robbery \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient for the jury in a prosecution for conspiracy to commit robbery with a firearm where a witness testified that he, defendant and another made plans to rob the witness\u2019s father, that he and defendant drew plans of his father\u2019s house and discussed the fact that the father usually carried large sums of money but rarely kept guns in the house, and that some days later defendant told the witness that \u201cthey\u201d had gone to his father\u2019s house, drawn guns and robbed him.\nAppeal by defendant from Hasty, Judge. Judgment entered 13 December 1974 in Superior Court, Cleveland County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 June 1975.\nDefendant was charged in an indictment, proper in form, with conspiracy to commit armed robbery. He pleaded not guilty and was tried before a jury.\nThe State\u2019s principal witness, Johnny Ray Black, testified that two or three days after he was released from prison on 8 February 1974 he saw defendant at the Royal Poolroom in Shelby. Accompanied by a third man, they left and went to defendant\u2019s apartment where they made plans to rob Black\u2019s father. Defendant and Black drew plans of the father\u2019s house. On 13 February 1974, James O. Black was robbed at gunpoint of nine hundred seventy dollars. He was unable to identify the two men who robbed him.\nThe jury found defendant guilty as charged. From judgment sentencing him to eight to ten years\u2019 imprisonment, he appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General John M. Silverstein and Associate Attorney David S. Crump, for the State.\nJulian B. Wray for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0518-01", "first_page_order": 546, "last_page_order": 548 }