{
  "id": 8553701,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLAYTON ALLEN MARTIN alias MANUEL CLAY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Martin",
  "decision_date": "1976-03-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 7519SC835",
  "first_page": "17",
  "last_page": "20",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 N.C. App. 17"
    }
  ],
  "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": "288 N.C. 395",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569158,
        8569288,
        8569195,
        8569113,
        8569247
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/288/0395-02",
        "/nc/288/0395-05",
        "/nc/288/0395-03",
        "/nc/288/0395-01",
        "/nc/288/0395-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "216 S.E. 2d 399",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 N.C. App. 399",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552890
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/26/0399-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 S.E. 2d 705",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 N.C. 566",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567055
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "569-570"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/282/0566-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "286 N.C. 339",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566243,
        8566276,
        8566310,
        8566348,
        8566382
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/286/0339-01",
        "/nc/286/0339-02",
        "/nc/286/0339-03",
        "/nc/286/0339-04",
        "/nc/286/0339-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 S.E. 2d 206",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 N.C. App. 52",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547675
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/23/0052-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 N.C. 619",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564037,
        8564073,
        8564116,
        8564054,
        8564091
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/284/0619-01",
        "/nc/284/0619-03",
        "/nc/284/0619-05",
        "/nc/284/0619-02",
        "/nc/284/0619-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 S.E. 2d 85",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 N.C. App. 235",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551351
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/20/0235-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 S.E. 2d 372",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 479",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572596
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0479-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 S.E. 2d 649",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 N.C. 238",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563902
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/285/0238-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 S.E. 2d 334",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 N.C. App. 653",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554516
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "657"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/8/0653-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 358,
    "char_count": 5419,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.701,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.6186033422661375e-07,
      "percentile": 0.821094202789429
    },
    "sha256": "9c19375d54208ab2597fde808a63d94a219b9741cc2c70aa63402cf2aaf522e4",
    "simhash": "1:032b503d6c2e3abd",
    "word_count": 889
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:22.308082+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Clark concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLAYTON ALLEN MARTIN alias MANUEL CLAY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nDefendant, noting that the bill of indictment only referred to the alleged armed robbery of Clyde Adams, Jr., contends that the trial court erred in charging the jury that defendant would be accountable for the crime charged if they, inter alia, found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant robbed \u201cMr. Adams or Mrs. Plott.\u201d Defendant argues that this variance \u201c ... is an inaccurate and misleading mandate on armed robbery.\u201d We disagree. This variance, if any, works no prejudice to the defendant and raises no constitutional claim of potential double jeopardy.\nIn State v. Harris, 8 N.C. App. 653, 657, 175 S.E. 2d 334 (1970), our Court stated that \u201c\u2018[t]he purpose of the rule as to variance is to avoid surprise and to protect the accused from another prosecution for the same offense. . . . \u2019 \u201d (Citation omitted.) Here the evidence indicates that defendant, by the use or threatened use of a firearm, robbed various Big Star employees of company monies and did not rob Mrs. Plott of any of her personal property. Therefore, we have before us but one, single criminal transaction and the defendant is in no danger of a subsequent prosecution for the armed robbery of Mrs. Plott. This variance, therefore, worked no prejudice to defendant, and the charge did not confuse the jurors as to the charge for which defendant was being tried; namely, armed robbery of a food store\u2019s cash receipts. See: State v. Potter, 285 N.C. 238, 204 S.E. 2d 649 (1974) ; State v. Ballard, 280 N.C. 479, 186 S.E. 2d 372 (1972) ; State v. Holland, 20 N.C. App. 235, 201 S.E. 2d 85 (1973), cert. denied 284 N.C. 619 (1974). Cf: State v. Johnson, 23 N.C. App. 52, 208 S.E. 2d 206 (1974), cert. denied 286 N.C. 339 (1974).\nDefendant next maintains that the trial court erred in failing to charge on the lesser included offense of common law robbery. We find no merit in this contention. Here all the evidence supports the instruction on armed robbery, and there is no evidence that defendant engaged in an offense tantamount to common law robbery. \u201cIf the State\u2019s evidence shows an armed robbery as charged in the indictment and there is no conflicting evidence relating to the elements of the crime charged an instruction on common law robbery is not required.\u201d State v. Lee, 282 N.C. 566, 569-570, 193 S.E. 2d 705 (1973) ; State v. Segarra, 26 N.C. App. 399, 216 S.E. 2d 399 (1975), cert. denied 288 N.C. 395 (1975).\nDefendant also contends that the trial court erred in permitting witness Mike Stevens to identify the defendant prior to conducting a voir dire examination as to the admissibility of the witness\u2019s in-court identification after defendant interposed an objection. We overrule this contention. The trial court did allow a subsequent voir dire examination and determined that the identification was admissible. Moreover, Mike Stevens\u2019s identification of defendant merely corroborated previous in-court identifications offered by several other witnesses. While it would have been better procedure for the court to have conducted a voir dire upon defendant\u2019s first objection, we nevertheless deem it to be harmless in view of the total circumstances of this case.\nWe have considered defendant\u2019s other contentions and find them also to be without merit.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Clark concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General John R. B. Matthis, for the State.",
      "Robert M. Critz for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLAYTON ALLEN MARTIN alias MANUEL CLAY\nNo. 7519SC835\n(Filed 17 March 1976)\n1. Robbery \u00a7 4; Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 17\u2014 robbery of grocery store \u2014 indictment naming employee \u2014 instructions as to another employee \u2014 no fatal variance\nIn an armed robbery prosecution wherein the indictment referred only to the armed robbery of a grocery store stock clerk, defendant was not prejudiced by the court\u2019s instruction that defendant would be guilty if the jury found defendant robbed the stock clerk or a female store employee where the evidence showed that defendant robbed various employees of the grocery store of company monies and did not rob the female employee of any of her personal property, since there was but a single criminal transaction and defendant is in no danger of a subsequent prosecution for the armed robbery of the female employee.\n2. Robbery \u00a7 5\u2014 armed robbery \u2014 failure to submit common law robbery\nThe trial court in an armed robbery prosecution did not err in failing to charge on the lesser included offense of common law robbery.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 66\u2014 in-court identification \u2014 failure to hold voir dire at time of objection \u2014 subsequent hearing\nDefendant was not prejudiced when the trial court permitted a witness to identify defendant prior to conducting a voir dire examination after defendant interposed an objection where the court allowed a subsequent voir dire examination and determined that the identification was admissible.\nAppeal by defendant from Crissman, Judge. Judgment entered 29 April 1975 in Superior Court, Cabarrus County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 February 1976.\nDefendant was indicted for the 19 May 1973 armed robbery of Clyde Adams, Jr., head stock clerk of a Kannapolis Big Star Food Store. From a plea of not guilty, the jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. From judgment sentencing him to a term of imprisonment, defendant appealed.\nOther facts necessary to decision are cited below.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General John R. B. Matthis, for the State.\nRobert M. Critz for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0017-01",
  "first_page_order": 49,
  "last_page_order": 52
}
