{
  "id": 8556306,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LARRY SOUSA",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Sousa",
  "decision_date": "1976-05-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 764SC30",
  "first_page": "473",
  "last_page": "478",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 N.C. App. 473"
    }
  ],
  "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": "194 S.E. 2d 353",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 N.C. 633",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568083
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/282/0633-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 S.E. 2d 549",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 545",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554917
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "547"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/27/0545-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 S.E. 2d 23",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 N.C. App. 414",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553953
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/19/0414-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "220 S.E. 2d 495",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 N.C. 514",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570236
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/288/0514-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 533,
    "char_count": 10818,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.634,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.60167783687625e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2886475234656538
    },
    "sha256": "3305fdb5ca7e603ea70de25b58b8f80b5ffc7023e115e4a223fea8928fd0151e",
    "simhash": "1:cb3d15e4ad51a4d5",
    "word_count": 1795
  },
  "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 Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LARRY SOUSA"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendant first contends that it was error to consolidate for trial the charges against him and his wife because the offenses allegedly committed by his wife occurred on 17 April 1975 while the offenses for which he was charged occurred on 18 April 1975. We find no merit in the contention. Defendant and his wife were indicted for identical offenses which were connected in time, place and circumstances. Evidence resulting from the lawful search of the residence of defendant and his wife was competent and admissible at the trial of either of them. See G.S. 15-152; State v. Branch, 288 N.C. 514, 220 S.E. 2d 495 (1975) ; State v. Keitt, 19 N.C. App. 414, 199 S.E. 2d 23 (1973).\nDefendant next contends that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued is defective. We disagree. The affidavit reads as follows:\n\u201cJames E. Henderson Narcotic Agent Sheriff Dept.; being duly sworn and examined under oath, says under oath that he has probable cause to believe that Larry Sousa \u2014 Doreen Sousa has on their Premises and Curtilage certain property, to wit: Marijuana and L.S.D. the possession of which is a crime, to wit: G.S. 90-95. The property described above is located on the Premises and Curtilage described as follows: Beige trailer trimmed in gold outline with black at lot 110 Gatlin Trailer Park, Hubert, N. C. The facts which establish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant are as follows: A reliable and confidential informant has purchased L.S.D. from this residence on three occasions. On 17 April 75 he purchased 6 tablets L.S.D. for $15.00. On 18 April 75 he purchased 4 tablets L.S.D. for $10.00. On 21 April 75 he purchased 1 tablet L.S.D. for $2.00. This informant has given information in the past leading to numerous narcotic arrest and conviction. This informant has made over fifteen Narcotic buys for this Narcotic division and has testified in Court before on Narcotic buys.\ns/ James E. Henderson\nSignature of Affiant\u201d\nBefore issuing a search warrant the magistrate must have before him circumstances which form a reasonable ground to believe that the proposed search will reveal the presence of the objects sought upon the premises to be searched, and that such objects will aid in apprehension or conviction of the offender. State v. English, 27 N.C. App. 545, 547, 219 S.E. 2d 549 (1975).\nThe affidavit in this case is not conclusory. It states the underlying circumstances upon which the conclusions are based. The basis for the informant\u2019s belief that the drugs were where he said they were is provided by the averment that the informant had been to defendant\u2019s premises on three specific dates, and that he purchased specific amounts of L.S.D. The basis for the informant\u2019s reliability is also provided by the averment that this informant has made more than fifteen buys for the narcotic division of the sheriff\u2019s office, and that he has given information in the past which led to numerous arrests and convictions.\nDefendant further attacks the sufficiency of the affidavit to support the search warrant because it refers to marijuana, and fails to state the basis for any marijuana, since all the informant\u2019s purchases were of L.S.D. Defendant cites State v. Miller, 282 N.C. 633, 194 S.E. 2d 353 (1973), where the search warrant was held to be invalid by this Court and the Supreme Court. In Miller the warrant authorized a search for intoxicating liquor while the affidavit alleged gambling devices. Clearly there was no probable cause to search for intoxicating liquor.\nThe warrant in the instant case authorizes a search for \u201cmarijuana and L.S.D.\u201d We hold that there was an ample showing of probable cause as to the presence of L.S.D., and the inclusion of \u201cmarijuana\u201d in the warrant in no way affects its validity authorizing the search for L.S.D.\nAfter one hour\u2019s deliberation a juror indicated the jury might not ever reach a unanimous verdict. The jury was then allowed to go home and report back the next morning. The next morning the court instructed the jury to attempt to reconcile their differences unless they could not do so without violating their individual consciences. The jury resumed deliberations but subsequently returned again and stated that they were deadlocked. The court then instructed them that if they failed to reach a verdict the case would be tried again by another jury, and the jury was again asked to attempt to reconcile their differences.\nIt is defendant\u2019s contention that the court improperly coerced the jury to reach a verdict by failing to remind the jurors not to violate their consciences and principles in attempting to reach a verdict.\nThe court gave specific instructions to the jury that they should not violate their consciences in an attempt to reach a verdict. Considering a-11 of the court\u2019s instructions we fail to see how the jurors could possibly have been misled. Moreover, we find nothing in the instructions that tends to coerce, or in any way intimate an opinion as to what the verdict ought to be. We find no error in the additional instructions to the jury concerning their duty to make an effort to reconcile differences and reach a verdict.\nWe have examined defendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error, including those relating to the court\u2019s charge to the jury, and we find no prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Ralf F. Haskell, for the State.",
      "Bailey & Gaylor, by Edward G. Bailey, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LARRY SOUSA\nNo. 764SC30\n(Filed 19 May 1976)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 92\u2014 consolidation of charges against defendant and wife \u2014 offenses on different days\nThe trial court did not err in consolidating for trial charges against defendant and his wife for possession of L.S.D. with intent to distribute and distribution of L.S.D., although the offenses allegedly committed by the wife occurred on the day before the offenses allegedly committed by the husband, since the offenses were sufficiently connected in time, place and circumstances, and evidence obtained in a search of the residence of defendant and his wife was admissible in the trial of either.\n2. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 3\u2014 affidavit for search warrant \u2014 information from confidential informant.\nAffidavit based on information received from a confidential informant was sufficient to support issuance of a warrant to search defendant\u2019s premises for narcotics where it alleged that the informant had been to defendant\u2019s premises on three specific dates and bought specific amounts of L.S.D., and that the informant had more than fifteen buys for the narcotics division of the sheriff\u2019s office and had given information in the past which led to numerous arrests and convictions.\n3. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 3\u2014 warrant to search for \u201cmarijuana and L.S.D.\u201d \u2014 showing of probable cause for L.S.D. only\nWarrant authorizing a search of defendant\u2019s premises for \u201cmarijuana and L.S.D.\u201d was not invalid where the affidavit showed probable cause only as to the presence of L.S.D. since the inclusion of \u201cmarijuana\u201d in the warrant in no way affected its validity in authorizing a search for L.S.D.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 122\u2014 instructions to deliberate further \u2014 verdict not coerced\nThe trial court did not coerce a verdict when the jury, after one hour\u2019s deliberation, indicated that it might not be able to reach a unanimous verdict, the court instructed the jurors to attempt to reconcile their differences unless they could not do so without violating their individual consciences, the jury deliberated further without reaching a verdict, the court then instructed that if the jury failed to reach a verdict the case would be tried again by another jury, and the jurors were again asked to attempt to reconcile their differences.\nAppeal by defendant from James, Judge. Judgment entered 14 August 1975 in Superior Court, Onslow County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 April 1976.\nDefendant was charged in a two-count indictment with (1) felonious possession of L.S.D. with intent to sell and deliver and (2) felonious sale and delivery of L.S.D. Defendant\u2019s wife was also indicted on similar charges, and their cases were consolidated for trial. Defendant pleaded not guilty, but the jury returned a verdict of guilty of both counts.\nAn undercover agent, Ken Jones, testified for the State that on 17 April 1975 he went to defendant\u2019s house and bought six green pills from defendant\u2019s wife. Defendant\u2019s wife indicated that defendant was at softball practice, but that he [defendant] had left the drugs there, and the cost was $2.50 \u201ca hit.\u201d Jones paid her $15.00.\nOn 18 April 1975 Jones returned to defendant\u2019s house and defendant and his wife were present. Jones testified that defendant sold him four green pills and he paid $10.00.\nJones went to defendant\u2019s house on 21 April 1975 and defendant was not at home. Defendant\u2019s wife sold him one green pill and indicated that was all she had.\nIt was stipulated that all of the pills obtained by Agent Jones contained lysergic acid diethylamide.\nAgain on 22 April 1975 Jones returned to defendant\u2019s house and he was told that defendant had no drugs, but defendant stated that he was expecting delivery of a pound of marijuana later on that night.\nRandy Scott testified that he accompanied Jones on 22 April to defendant\u2019s house and he overheard defendant say that he expected delivery of a pound of marijuana at nine p.m. that night.\nAccording to their testimony, Deputy Sheriff Henderson and Jones returned to defendant\u2019s house about 9:00 p.m. on 22 April 1975. Deputy Henderson had obtained a search warrant and searched the house. No drugs were found, but Henderson did find a \u201csmoking bong,\u201d smoking pipes, and two pieces of paper, discovered in a dresser drawer in defendant\u2019s bedroom, which contained numbers in multiples of $2.50. Henderson testified that he had a \u201cstrong opinion\u201d as to what the numbers meant.\nDefendant testified that on 18 April 1975 he smoked marijuana with Jones, and that he occasionally smoked marijuana but not in a \u201csmoking bong.\u201d He testified that the bong was not his, and he stated that he never sold L.S.D. to anyone. He identified the slips of paper as betting arrangements with a friend concerning softball hits that each would get during the softball season.\nDefendant\u2019s wife also testified that neither she nor defendant ever sold L.S.D. to anyone. She said the numbers on the paper referred to a bet her husband had with a friend concerning hits in a softball game.\nDonnie Ross testified that he and defendant were on a Marine Corps softball team, and that they had bet $2.50 concerning hits that each would make during the season.\nFrom judgment imposing prison sentence of not less than four nor more than five years, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Ralf F. Haskell, for the State.\nBailey & Gaylor, by Edward G. Bailey, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0473-01",
  "first_page_order": 505,
  "last_page_order": 510
}
