{ "id": 8550247, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENNETH CALVIN ANDERSON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Anderson", "decision_date": "1975-09-17", "docket_number": "No. 7518SC346", "first_page": "72", "last_page": "75", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "27 N.C. App. 72" } ], "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": "183 S.E. 2d 652", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 428", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569396 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0428-01" ] }, { "cite": "202 S.E. 2d 721", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 N.C. 625", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564742 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/284/0625-01" ] }, { "cite": "204 S.E. 2d 709", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "21 N.C. App. 443", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8556411 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/21/0443-01" ] }, { "cite": "196 S.E. 2d 701", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 513", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559288 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0513-01" ] }, { "cite": "195 S.E. 2d 481", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558300 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0191-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 425, "char_count": 7257, "ocr_confidence": 0.58, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.89950402824256e-08, "percentile": 0.30782624778510254 }, "sha256": "09cd243ce7198932abc0ca166634652fe4f46cb560083460c8bef955d4d7ba6c", "simhash": "1:661be0725cb53d11", "word_count": 1223 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:36.927205+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Hedrick and Martin concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENNETH CALVIN ANDERSON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nBy his first assignment of error defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motions .to \u25a0 quash the sale and delivery counts in the bills of indictment as constituting double jeopardy. The assignment is without merit. As conceded by defendant, this question has been answered adversely to his position in several recent opinions of this court and the Supreme Court including State v. Cameron, 283 N.C. 191, 195 S.E. 2d 481 (1973), State v. Thornton, 283 N.C. 513, 196 S.E. 2d 701 (1973), and State v. Patterson, 21 N.C. App. 443, 204 S.E. 2d 709 (1974). We adhere to those opinions and the assignment of error is overruled.\nBy his second assignment of error, defendant contends the court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial. This assignment relates to an answer given by the witness Teresa Dominick to a question asked by the district attorney. In response to a question as to why she was working with Riggsbee, the witness stated: \u201cWell, I got real sick of a lot of my friends dying.\" At that point, defense counsel objected, moved to strike and moved for a mistrial. The trial judge declared that he did not hear what the witness said and doubted if the jury heard her answer. Counsel\u2019s request to be heard in the absence of the jury was granted, but the motion for a mistrial was denied. When the jury returned to the box, the court gave the following instruction: \u201cMembers of the Jury, if you heard any statement that she made in response to the last question that was asked by the District Attorney, just-eliminate it from your minds and not consider it in connection with this trial at all.\"\nWe find no merit in the assignment. It is well settled that the granting of a motion for a mistrial rests largely in the discretion of the trial judge. State v. Jarrette, 284 N.C. 625, 202 S.E. 2d 721 (1974) ; State v. MeVay and State v. Simmons, 279 N.C. 428, 183 S.E. 2d 652 (1971). We perceive no abuse of discretion here. Furthermore, it will be noted that defendant did not object to the question. The assigment of error is overruled.\nBy his third assignment of error, defendant contends the court erred in admitting State\u2019s exhibits 1 and 5, the powdery substance alleged to have been heroin, arguing that a complete \u201cchain of custody\u201d was not established. No useful purpose would be served in reviewing here the evidence with respect t\u00f3 the chain of custody. Suffice it to say, we have carefully reviewed the evidence on this point and conclude that it established a complete chain. The assignment of error is overruled.\nIn his fourth and seventh assignments of error, defendant contends the court erred in \u201ctolerating the district attorney\u2019s attempt to shift the burden of proof in the case\u201d and in permitting the district attorney to make improper argument to the jury. We have reviewed the record with respect to these assignments and finding them without merit, they are overruled.\nAssignments of error 5, 6, 8, and 9 relate to certain jury instructions which defendant requested but the court did not give and certain instructions which the court did give. We have carefully considered these assignments and find them to be without merit, therefore, they are overruled.\nFinally, by his tenth assignment of error, defendant contends the court erred in failing to grant his motion for nonsuit and in signing and entering the judgments as appear of record. We hold that the evidence was sufficient to survive the nonsuit motion and the judgments are fully supported by the verdicts and impose sentences within the limits provided by statute.\nDefendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Hedrick and Martin concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "BRITT, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Joan H. Byers, for the State.", "Ellis J. Harrington, Jr., Assistant Public Defender Eighteenth Judicial District, for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENNETH CALVIN ANDERSON\nNo. 7518SC346\n(Filed 17 September 1975)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 26; Narcotics \u00a7 5\u2014 possession and sale of heroin \u2014 no double jeopardy\nThe trial of defendant for both possession and sale of the same heroin did not place defendant in double jeopardy.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 128\u2014 answer of witness \u2014 motion for mistrial\nIn a prosecution for possession and sale of heroin, the trial court did not err in the denial of defendant\u2019s motion for mistrial when a State\u2019s witness, in response to a question as to why she was working with an undercover agent, stated that she \u201cgot real sick of a lot of (her) friends dying.\u201d\n3. Narcotics \u00a7 3\u2014 chain of custody of heroin\nThe chain of custody of a powdery substance purchased from defendant by an undercover agent and analyzed and identified as heroin was sufficiently shown to permit the admission of the substance into evidence.\nAppeal by defendant from Crissman, Judge. Judgment entered 10 December 1974 in Superior Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 August 1975.\nIn a two-count indictment, defendant was charged with (1) possessing heroin and (2) selling and delivering heroin on 26 March 1974. In another two-count indictment, he was charged with (1) possessing heroin and (2) selling and delivering heroin on 30 March 1974. The cases were consolidated for trial.\nEvidence presented by the State is briefly summarized as follows: SBI Undercover Agent W. M. Riggsbee testified that he saw defendant at a Greensboro' residence on 26 March 1974 and purchased 13 bags of a white powdery substance represented by defendant to be heroin; that he returned to the residence on 30 March 1974 and purchased 15 bags of a white powdery substance from defendant; and that on each occasion he packaged the bags, mailed them to the State Bureau of Investigation in Raleigh and received them back through the mail. The bags and contents were introduced as exhibits. Teresa Dominick testified that she was working with Riggsbee in March 1974 and that she went with him to defendant\u2019s residence on 26 and 30 March 1974. SBI Chemist Jerry M. Dismukes testified that he received one of the mailing envelopes from Riggsbee and delivered it to Dr. Charles H. McDonald, a chemist for the SBI. Dr. McDonald testified that he. received each of the envelopes mailed by. Riggsbee, that he analyzed .the .substances in several bags taken at random from each envelope, that he. determined the substances to, be heroin, and that he mailed the contents back to Riggsbee.\nOn' cross-examinatori Dr. McDonald explained the five tests which he conducted on the substances. He admitted that none of the first four tests could, by itself, specifically identify heroin and stated that the fifth test involved comparison of the substances with a sample of known heroin which he had prepared. He testified that the combination of the five tests yielded a specific answer that the substance was heroin.\nDefendant\u2019s only evidence consisted of the testimony of Dr. Robert Shapiro, a chemist, who testified that the method by which Dr. McDonald claimed to have produced his known sample of heroin for the fifth test would not yield pure heroin. He opined that Dr. McDonald had not identified the substances as heroin.\nA jury found defendant guilty as charged and from judgments entered on the verdicts, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Joan H. Byers, for the State.\nEllis J. Harrington, Jr., Assistant Public Defender Eighteenth Judicial District, for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0072-01", "first_page_order": 100, "last_page_order": 103 }