{
  "id": 8547851,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN RICKY BARRINGTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Barrington",
  "decision_date": "1975-12-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 7515SC697",
  "first_page": "215",
  "last_page": "217",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 215"
    }
  ],
  "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": "182 S.E. 2d 636",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 128",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547777
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/12/0128-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 S.E. 2d 469",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575701
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0509-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 220,
    "char_count": 3119,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.56,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20584617095436838
    },
    "sha256": "1252db2d989134eb982ab7e18b25f57023e34310cc15660f7b093c83f8b86018",
    "simhash": "1:bba13d99f801b4e8",
    "word_count": 519
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:46.500479+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Parker and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN RICKY BARRINGTON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendant first assigns as error the denial of his motion for judgment as of nonsuit at the close of the State\u2019s evidence. Defendant offered no evidence.\nThere was no error in refusing defendant\u2019s motion. A motion to nonsuit requires that the evidence he considered in the light most favorable to the State, be taken, as true, and that the State be given the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom. State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509, 160 S.E. 2d 469 (1968).\nIn the light most favorable to the State the evidence clearly showed that defendant and three females, who testified for the State, went to the laundromat planning to break into the machines. Two of the females \u201clooked out for people in cars\u201d while defendant, with the use of a screwdriver, broke open the machines, and stole money in the amount of ninety dollars.\nWe also reject defendant\u2019s contention that nonsuit should have been .allowed because of a discrepancy in the evidence concerning the time when the machines were broken into. Time is not of the essence of the offense charged in this case. State v. Lemmond, 12 N.C. App. 128, 182 S.E. 2d 636 (1971). The only contradictory evidence concerned the date of the occurrence, and there was plenary evidence to support the allegations in the indictment.\nFinally defendant argues that the court erred in refusing to charge the jury as to the potential bias of Officer Fox because Officer Fox was both the owner of the machines that were broken into, and the officer who investigated the alleged crime. We see no merit in this argument.\nOfficer Fox testified that he owned the machines, and that in addition to the damage the amount of money taken was' estimated at ninety dollars.\nWe find that defendant\u2019s trial was free of prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Parker and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Cynthia Jean Zeliff, for the State.",
      "Harris & McEntire, by Mitchell M. McEntire, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN RICKY BARRINGTON\nNo. 7515SC697\n(Filed 17 December 1975)\nLarceny \u00a7 7 \u2014 breaking into coin operated machines \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nEvidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury in a prosecution for breaking into coin operated machines at a self-service laundry where such evidence tended to show that defendant and three females went to the laundromat planning to break into the machines and two of the females kept a lookout while defendant broke open the machines with a screwdriver and stole money; also, discrepancy concerning the time the machines were broken into did not require nonsuit since time was not of the essence of the offense charged in this case.\nAppeal by defendant from Alvis, Judge. Judgment entered 15 May 1975 in Superior Court, Alamance County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 November 1975.\nFrom a judgment in district court defendant appealed to superior .court where he was tried and found guilty of breaking into coin operated machines at a self-service laundry. The superior court judgment imposed- an active prison sentence and defendant appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Cynthia Jean Zeliff, for the State.\nHarris & McEntire, by Mitchell M. McEntire, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0215-01",
  "first_page_order": 243,
  "last_page_order": 245
}
