{
  "id": 8550640,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT LOUIS PORTEE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Portee",
  "decision_date": "1976-02-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 7514SC712",
  "first_page": "507",
  "last_page": "509",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 507"
    }
  ],
  "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": "146 S.E. 2d 654",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 N.C. 555",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561573
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/266/0555-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 S.E. 2d 165",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 N.C. 380",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626399
      ],
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/254/0380-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 3313,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.584,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530651400911791
    },
    "sha256": "f9ff9f3bd6f6995f738129b21a654a813398758887aabd30b6f795def6b2b640",
    "simhash": "1:c23841224c135ce5",
    "word_count": 544
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:46.500479+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT LOUIS PORTEE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Chief Judge.\nThe evidence against defendant consisted primarily of the testimony of an accomplice. The defendant argues that the accomplice\u2019s testimony is uncorroborated and therefore requires a different instruction to the jury than where the accomplice\u2019s testimony is corroborated. The State argues that the accomplice\u2019s testimony is corroborated, and therefore the instruction given is correct. We will not trouble ourselves to settle the argument as to whether it is corroborated. In either event a correct instruction is the same. State v. Bailey, 254 N.C. 380, 119 S.E. 2d 165 (1961).\nAn instruction to the jury upon how it should view the testimony of an accomplice may be given in the discretion of the trial judge, but such is not required in the absence of a timely request. State v. Roux, 266 N.C. 555, 146 S.E. 2d 654 (1966) ; 1 Stansbury\u2019s North Carolina Evidence, Brandis Revision, \u00a7 21.\nIn this case counsel timely tendered an instruction concerning the testimony of an accomplice. Although the trial judge did not give the tendered instruction verbatim, he gave an instruction in substantial conformity therewith. The instruction given by the trial judge was N. C. Pattern Jury Instructions \u2014 Crim. 104.25, which we hold to be in conformity with the case law in this State. This assignment of error is overruled.\nFinally defendant argues that the trial judge committed error in defining reasonable doubt. The trial judge added the following to N. C. Pattern Jury Instructions \u2014 Crim. 101.10: \u201cIt is a doubt based on reason and common sense arising out of some or all of the evidence that you have heard or lack or insufficiency of the evidence as the case may be.\u201d It is defendant\u2019s contention that requiring the doubt to be \u201cbased on reason\u201d constituted a requirement that a juror be able to articulate a reason for his or her doubt. The argument is not persuasive. Although His Honor could have well omitted the above-quoted sentence, we find no prejudice to defendant. This assignment of error is overruled.\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Daniel C. Oakley, for the State.",
      "Traylor T. Mercer, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT LOUIS PORTEE\nNo. 7514SC712\n(Filed 4 February 1976)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 117 \u2014 accomplice testimony \u2014 instruction not required\nAn instruction to the jury upon how it should view the testimony of an accomplice may be given in the discretion of the trial judge, but such is not required in the absence of a timely request.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 119 \u2014 requested instruction given in substance \u2014 no error\nThe trial court\u2019s instruction on accomplice testimony, though not in the exact words of defendant\u2019s tendered instruction, was in substantial conformity therewith and was proper.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 113 \u2014 instructions \u2014 reasonable doubt \u2014 reason and common sense\nAn instruction that reasonable doubt is \u201cbased on reason and . common sense\u201d did not require that a juror be able to articulate a reason for his or her doubt and was proper.\nAppeal by defendant from McLelland, Judge. Judgment entered 20 May 1975 in Superior Court, Durham County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 January 1976.\nDefendant was charged and convicted of robbery with a firearm in violation of G.S. 14-87. He appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Daniel C. Oakley, for the State.\nTraylor T. Mercer, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0507-01",
  "first_page_order": 535,
  "last_page_order": 537
}