{
  "id": 8556133,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HAROLD DAVID POOLE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Poole",
  "decision_date": "1976-05-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7520SC963",
  "first_page": "411",
  "last_page": "413",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 N.C. App. 411"
    }
  ],
  "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": "210 S.E. 2d 396",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "286 N.C. 265",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565212
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/286/0265-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 S.E. 2d 897",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 N.C. 490",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566737
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/282/0490-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 260,
    "char_count": 3545,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.664,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20602822790054556
    },
    "sha256": "1af4862b9226c65ff46d01cb0fc195af66b58a088eb7fc8fc0dd662ae94e5fbf",
    "simhash": "1:caea962a5c6738f9",
    "word_count": 597
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:22.308082+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HAROLD DAVID POOLE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CLARK, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s sole assignment of error is that the trial court failed to instruct the jury that in order for the defendant to be guilty of kidnapping, the taking and carrying away of the victim must be against his will.\nIn instructing the jury the trial court defined kidnapping as \u201cfalse imprisonment aggravated by conveying the imprisoned person to some other place.\u201d This definition has often been quoted with approval by the Supreme Court of North Carolina. State v. Dix, 282 N.C. 490, 193 S.E. 2d 897 (1973).\nThough the above definition does not include specific language requiring that the taking and carrying away of the victim be against his will, the court then defined false imprisonment and added: \u201cNow, actual force is not required. However, there must be a threat of force or implied threat of force which compels a person to remain where he does not wish to remain or to go where he does not wish to go. If the person consents, that is, if the person goes voluntarily, then there can be no restraint of liberty.\u201d\nWe find the instructions of the trial court to be substantially in accord with the charge that was approved in State v. Roberts, 286 N.C. 265, 210 S.E. 2d 396 (1974).\nDefendant\u2019s testimony tended to show that Bowers, Wilson and Cox voluntarily accompanied him, pretending that they were his hostages to aid him in his escape plan. The trial court applied the law to this evidence by instructing the jury in substance that if they voluntarily went with defendant, he would not be guilty of kidnapping. \u201cAgainst the will of the victims\u201d are not magic words which must be used to correctly define the crime of kidnapping, and in the failure of the court to use these words in this case we find\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CLARK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Noel Lee Allen for the State.",
      "Webb, Lee, Davis, Gibson & Gunter by Hugh A. Lee for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HAROLD DAVID POOLE\nNo. 7520SC963\n(Filed 5 May 1976)\nKidnapping \u00a7 1\u2014 jury instructions \u2014 definition of kidnapping \u2014 sufficiency\nThough the trial court in a prosecution for kidnapping failed to use the words \u201cagainst the will of the victims\u201d in defining kidnapping to the jury, the instruction given clearly informed the jury that if the alleged victims voluntarily went with defendant, he would not be guilty of kidnapping.\nAppeal by defendant from Rousseau, Judge. Judgment entered 17 July 1975, Superior Court, Richmond County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 March 1976.\nDefendant pled not guilty to three separate charges of kidnapping (1) Keith Wilson, (2) Johnnie Bowers and (3) Elwood Cox.\nState\u2019s evidence tends to show that on 16 March 1975 defendant entered Riverside Grocery and abducted Bowers, Wilson and Cox at gunpoint and forced them to drive him to a fire tower; that in the tower defendant tied them, called the Sheriff and demanded a helicopter to fly him to Brazil. After twelve hours in the tower, defendant surrendered after requesting and receiving from Superior Court Judge Robert Gavin a written statement that he would be sent directly to Dorothea Dix Hospital. Defendant\u2019s evidence tended to show that the occurrence was a hoax designed to enable defendant to escape capture by police on other charges, and that Bowers, Cox and Wilson pretended to be hostages.\nDefendant was found guilty of kidnapping Keith Wilson- and Johnnie Bowers, but not guilty of kidnapping Elwood Cox. From the judgments imposing consecutive prison terms of 40 years each, defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Noel Lee Allen for the State.\nWebb, Lee, Davis, Gibson & Gunter by Hugh A. Lee for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0411-01",
  "first_page_order": 443,
  "last_page_order": 445
}
