{ "id": 8550107, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMMY MADDOX", "name_abbreviation": "Carolina v. Maddox", "decision_date": "1975-09-17", "docket_number": "No. 7510SC332", "first_page": "58", "last_page": "61", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "27 N.C. App. 58" } ], "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": "170 S.E. 2d 125", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "6 N.C. App. 327", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8547908 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/6/0327-01" ] }, { "cite": "276 N.C. 498", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562114, 8562248, 8562170, 8562140, 8562204, 8562079 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/276/0498-02", "/nc/276/0498-06", "/nc/276/0498-04", "/nc/276/0498-03", "/nc/276/0498-05", "/nc/276/0498-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 S.E. 2d 83", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "7 N.C. App. 320", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549612 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/7/0320-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 S.E. 2d 217", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "17 N.C. App. 367", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8555611 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/17/0367-01" ] }, { "cite": "160 S.E. 2d 281", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 N.C. 475", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575623 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/273/0475-01" ] }, { "cite": "195 S.E. 2d 306", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "308" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "17 N.C. App. 691", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8556735 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "694" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/17/0691-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 402, "char_count": 7445, "ocr_confidence": 0.581, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.2058894167188898 }, "sha256": "a93e27c147619706c98d4b7983669bdd86509e9c24c033fa70a6a7956fb36c55", "simhash": "1:af6a58cbbc0f91b5", "word_count": 1274 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:36.927205+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Britt and Martin concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMMY MADDOX" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nBy his first assignment of error defendant contends that his trial in the superior court placed him in double jeopardy in violation of his constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. He argues that by virtue of being punished by prison authorities prior to trial for assaulting Marcellus Murphy, he could not subsequently be tried and convicted by a court of law for the same offense. This court has prevously held that \u201c [a] dministrative discipline of an inmate does not constitute multiple punishment within the meaning and intent of the Fifth Amendment . ... \u201d State v. Carroll, 17 N.C. App. 691, 694, 195 S.E. 2d 306, 308 (1973). Accord, State v. Shoemaker, 273 N.C. 475, 160 S.E. 2d 281 (1968). Consequently, this assignment of error is without merit.\nNext, defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant his timely motions for judgment as of nonsuit. At trial, the State offered evidence tending to show that on 10 April 1974 the defendant was an inmate at Central Prison. At about 12:30 p.m. on that day the defendant, Marcellus Murphy, and two other prisoners were permitted to enter the prison\u2019s recreation area. Soon after the defendant and Murphy had entered the area, Wesley Davis, a prison guard, observed the defendant attack Murphy by making a striking motion at him. When the defendant backed away from Murphy, Davis observed \u201can instrument of a shiny nature in his [the defendant\u2019s] left hand.\u201d The defendant thereafter ran up a set of stairs leading to the J Block Section of the prison and threw the object in his hand through a window into J Block. S. D. Alford, another prison guard, testified that he saw the defendant grab Murphy near his chest and make \u201cjabbing motions at him.\u201d Alford clearly saw the defendant with a knife in his hand and further testified that the defendant ran up the stairs to J Block and threw the knife through a window into that portion of the prison. Lee Hayes, a prison guard, testified that upon instructions from a superior he went into J Block to look for a weapon and that he found a knife lying on the catwalk approximately two or three feet from the window described by Davis and Alford. Murphy received stab wounds in the chest and abdomen as a result of the incident. When the foregoing evidence is viewed in the light, most favorable to the State, we are of the opinion that it is sufficient to require submission of the case to the jury and to support the verdict.\nBy assignment of error number seven, defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing a knife (Exhibit 1) to be admitted into evidence. Defendant argues that this exhibit was not properly identified.\nIt is proper to introduce weapons as evidence where there is evidence tending to show that they were used in the commission of a crime. State v. Ferguson, 17 N.C. App. 367, 194 S.E. 2d 217 (1973). In the instant case Wesley Davis, a prison guard, testified that Exhibit 1 was similar to the shiny object which he observed in the defendant\u2019s possession. S. D. Alford, another guard, testified that the knife he saw in the defendant\u2019s hand was either Exhibit 1 or a \u201cknife identical to it.\u201d Furthermore, there was evidence that the knife seen in the defendant\u2019s possession during the assault was thrown by the defendant through a window into the J Block Section of the prison and that a guard discovered Exhibit 1 on a \u201ccatwalk just inside the window near the top half of the J Block stairs.\u201d We hold that there was plenary competent evidence identifying Exhibit 1 as the knife used in the commission of the crime and that it therefore was not error for the trial court to admit it into evidence. State v. Ferguson, supra; State v. Ashjord, 7 N.C. App. 320, 172 S.E. 2d 83 (1970), cert. denied 276 N.C. 498 (1970) ; State v. Culbertson, 6 N.C. App. 327, 170 S.E. 2d 125 (1969).\nNext, defendant contends that the trial court expressed an opinion as to the credibility of the defendant and his witnesses in violation of G.S. 1-180 in that portion of the charge to the jury in which the court stated the contentions of the State. We do not agree. A review of the portion of the charge objected to reveals that the trial court accurately set forth the contentions of the State on the issue of the credibility of the defendant and his witnesses. The trial court did not assume any fact outside of the record and in no way over-emphasized the State\u2019s contentions to the detriment of the defendant. In our opinion the trial court neither intentionally nor unintentionally expressed his opinion as to the credibility of the defendant and his witnesses.\nDefendant has additional assignments of error which we have carefully considered and find to be without merit.\nDefendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Martin concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HEDRICK, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Sidney S. Eagles, Jr., for the State.", "DeBank and Fullwood by Douglas F. DeBank for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMMY MADDOX\nNo. 7510SC332\n(Filed 17 September 1975)\n1. Constitutional Law \u00a7 34\u2014 prison inmate \u2014 punishment by prison officials \u2014 subsequent trial \u2014 no double jeopardy\nDefendant, a prison inmate who was punished by prison authorities for assaulting a fellow inmate, was not placed in double jeopardy where he was subsequently tried and convicted by a court, of\u2019law for the same offense. . .\n2. Assault and Battery \u00a7 14\u2014 assault with knife \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nIn a prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury evidence was sufficient to be submitted to' the jury where it tended to show that defendant, a prison inmate, \u2022 attacked a fellow inmate with a knife, two prison guards observed the attack, defendant thereafter ran up a set of stairs leading into another cell block, defendant threw an object into that cell block, and a prison guard subsequently found a knife two or three feet from the window through which other guards had seen defendant throw an object.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 42\u2014 assault with knife \u2014 admissibility of knife\nThe trial court in a prosecution for assault did not err in allowing into evidence a knife allegedly used in the commission of the crime where two prison guards testified that the knife offered in evidence was the knife used in the crime or similar to the one used.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 114\u2014 jury instructions \u2014 no expression of opinion'\nThe trial court in an assault prosecution did not express an opinion as to the credibility of the defendant and his witnesses in violation of G.S. 1-180 in that portion of the charge to the jury in which the court stated the contentions of the State.\n\u25a0 \u25a0 Appeal by defendant from McLelland, Judge. Judgment entered 7 February 1975 in Superior Court, WAKE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 August 1975.\nThis is a criminal prosecution wherein the defendant, Jimmy Maddox, an inmate at Central Prison in Raleigh, was charged in a bill of indictment with assaulting Marcellus Murphy, a fellow inmate, with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty and was found guilty by the jury of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury. From a judgment that he be imprisoned for ten (10) years, said sentence to commence at the expiration of the sentence then being served, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Sidney S. Eagles, Jr., for the State.\nDeBank and Fullwood by Douglas F. DeBank for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0058-01", "first_page_order": 86, "last_page_order": 89 }