{
  "id": 8549031,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BRUCE LAMONT McNEIL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. McNeil",
  "decision_date": "1976-01-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 7510SC638",
  "first_page": "347",
  "last_page": "349",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 347"
    }
  ],
  "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": "200 S.E. 2d 626",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 N.C. 321",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561787
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "331-334"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/284/0321-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 291,
    "char_count": 3784,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.571,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.4144761763250477e-07,
      "percentile": 0.800313261506752
    },
    "sha256": "b405369cadb6cbe76e87c0df638122fda63f6b90b535af2aad16b3e4ca03fbc2",
    "simhash": "1:0f3f94361b85bdce",
    "word_count": 630
  },
  "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 Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BRUCE LAMONT McNEIL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nDefendant first contends that the trial court erred in allowing into evidence a fingerprint identification card. We disagree. We can see no prejudicial effect in the introduction of this card. State v. Jackson, 284 N.C. 321, 331-334, 200 S.E. 2d 626 (1973). Moreover, there is nothing- in the record to indicate that the objectionable features noted in Jackson in fact appeared in or occurred during the trial of this case.\nDefendant also contends that the \u201c . . . trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to ask the defendant whether he refused to make a statement to the police.\u201d We again disagree. On cross-examination, defendant stated that he had not\n\u201c . . . discussed this case with anyone but that detective there and my lawyer. This detective is the only detective I have talked to about this case.\nQ. I\u2019ll ask you sir, if it\u2019s not true that rather than telling this detective what you testified on the stand, isn\u2019t it true that you didn\u2019t tell him anything, you refused to make a statement?\nMr. Twiggs: Objection.\nThe Court: Overruled.\nException No. 24\nA. That\u2019s a story because I signed my waiver of rights. I told him I didn\u2019t mind talking.\nQ. You refused; didn\u2019t you?\nA. No, I told him I didn\u2019t if he got paper and I waived my rights to discuss the case with him, I told him I didn\u2019t know anything about this.\u201d\nA contextual reading of this testimony indicates that there has been no prejudice to defendant from this line of questioning. In fact, his answer \u201cI didn\u2019t know anything about this\u201d would tend to support his alibi defense.\nNo error.\nJudges Parker and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Joan H. Byers, for the State.",
      "Brenton D. Adams for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BRUCE LAMONT McNEIL\nNo. 7510SC638\n(Filed 7 January 1976)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 60\u2014 fingerprint identification card \u2014 admissibility\nThe trial court did not err in the admission of a fingerprint identification card.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 48\u2014 defendant\u2019s refusal to make statement to police \u2014 question by prosecutor \u2014 no prejudice\nDefendant was not prejudiced when the trial court allowed the prosecutor to ask defendant whether he refused to make a statement to the police where defendant answered that he told the police that he \u201cdidn\u2019t know anything about this.\u201d\nAppeal by defendant from Brewer, Judge. Judgment entered 16 April 1975 in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 November 1975.\nDefendant was indicted for the 17 February 1975 armed robbery of a Raleigh convenience store.\nAccording to the State\u2019s evidence, defendant entered the \u201cKwik-Pik\u201d in Raleigh, brandished a handgun, compelled the assistant manager, Howard Lassiter, to turn over $184 of the store funds and forced Mr. Lassiter into a storage room. At trial, Mr. Lassiter identified defendant as the assailant and indicated that Exhibit 1, a handgun, taken from defendant upon his arrest on 22 February 1975, looked \u201c . . . like the pistol drawn on me.\u201d Two other customers in the store at the time of the robbery, however, were unable to make an identification of the defendant.\nMr. R. E. Lee, an' identification technician for the City, County Identification Bureau, testified that he had taken ink fingerprints of defendant on a card, introduced as Exhibit 2, on 5 July 1973. Mr. J. H. Ross, also of the Identification Lab, then testified that prints lifted from the doorknob of the \u201cKwik-Pik\u201d on the day of the robbery matched those found on the card (Exhibit 2).\nDefendant and two witnesses for the defendant established an alibi defense.\nFrom a plea of not guilty, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. From judgment sentencing him to a term of imprisonment, defendant appealed.\nOther facts necessary for the decision are cited below.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Joan H. Byers, for the State.\nBrenton D. Adams for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0347-01",
  "first_page_order": 375,
  "last_page_order": 377
}