{ "id": 8555551, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. AL BOBBY RAINES, SAMUEL EARL WHITAKER, LARRY LESTER LANE, WILLIE GUY, JR.", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Raines", "decision_date": "1976-05-05", "docket_number": "No. 7510SC979", "first_page": "303", "last_page": "308", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "29 N.C. App. 303" } ], "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": "203 S.E. 2d 10", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561608 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 755", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 561", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561152 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0561-01" ] }, { "cite": "213 S.E. 2d 214", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 612", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570009 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0612-01" ] }, { "cite": "208 S.E. 2d 519", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "23 N.C. App. 186", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548745 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/23/0186-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 116", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 150", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570201 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0150-01" ] }, { "cite": "168 S.E. 536", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1933, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N.C. 401", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8619481 ], "year": 1933, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0401-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 568, "char_count": 10753, "ocr_confidence": 0.702, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.2055646406357337e-07, "percentile": 0.7756674230814229 }, "sha256": "0978840ce9eae3b580edd677eaac8e1524a68adc668c647ab808fc501687a88c", "simhash": "1:85dda6ea0e1c1e99", "word_count": 1768 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:22.308082+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Morris and Hedrick concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. AL BOBBY RAINES, SAMUEL EARL WHITAKER, LARRY LESTER LANE, WILLIE GUY, JR." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendants contend that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence the crowbar, owner\u2019s manual, warranty, antenna and plastic bag found in the automobile in which defendants were riding when they were arrested. Defendants argue that the relevancy of evidence was \u201cremote and conjectural\u201d and that admission of the objects into evidence invited prejudice. This contention is unfounded.\nThere was sufficient competent evidence presented at trial to prove that in the early hours of 2 May 1975 the Firestone Store in Raleigh was broken into and that valuable articles were stolen from the store. There was further evidence establishing that the defendants were observed at the scene of the crime during the time when the crime was probably committed. The evidence was properly admitted in that it had a logical tendency to connect the defendants with the perpetration of the crime. State v. Fogleman, 204 N.C. 401, 168 S.E. 536 (1933).\n\u201cTangible traces of various sorts may indicate the presence of a person or the happening of an event of a certain character at a particular place, and evidence of them is therefore admissible if the inference sought to be drawn is a reasonable one. Thus, . . . the finding of weapons, . . . burglar tools, or other paraphernalia used in the commission of the crime, or other clues tending to place the accused at the scene, may be received as tending more or less strongly to connect the accused with the crime.\u201d Stansbury\u2019s N. C. Evidence, Footprints and Other Tangible Clues. \u00a7 85, pp. 263-265.\nDefendants contend that the trial judge erred in denying their motion for a jury view. Absent a showing that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the jury to view the area surrounding the Firestone Store, we cannot say that the trial judge erred in denying the defendants\u2019 motion. State v. Payne, 280 N.C. 150, 185 S.E. 2d 116 (1971) ; State v. Ingram, 23 N.C. App. 186, 208 S.E. 2d 519 (1974).\nDefendants Raines and Guy assign error to the trial court\u2019s rulings admitting testimony of SBI agents R. D. Cone and Fred Hurst, Jr. The SBI agents\u2019 testimony effectually determined, through an analysis of the paint on the door and the crowbar, and the markings on the door, that the crowbar found in the car in which the defendants were riding when they were arrested was the instrument used to break into the Firestone Store. Defendants argue that tests used in determining whether the crowbar was the instrument used in the break-in are not scientifically reliable. We disagree.\n\u201cIt seems abundantly clear that, despite occasional technical roadblocks erected by the \u2018rule\u2019 against invading the jury\u2019s province and by notions about the jury\u2019s sublime capacity to draw its own inferences, there can be expert testimony upon practically any facet of human knowledge and experience.\u201d Stansbury\u2019s N. C. Evidence, Subject Matter of Expert Testimony, \u00a7 134, p. 438.\nThe record establishes that SBI agent Cone is a forensic chemist with a B.S. degree from North Carolina State University, and a M.S. degree from Michigan State University. Mr. Cone had teaching experiences in his field of chemistry at the secondary education and college levels. He has had his works published by the Southern Association of Forensic Scientists and by the Academy of Forensic Scientists.\nAgent Hurst is assigned to the firearm and toolmark division of the technical section of the criminal laboratory of the State Bureau of Investigation. He studied firearm and toolmark identification under the chief examiner for the SBI, and at the Chicago Police Crime Laboratories. He has conducted numerous comparisons of tools and toolmarks for the SBI since 1971.\nThe trial court\u2019s findings that Agents Cone and Hurst were properly qualified as experts is supported by the evidence, and the trial judge did not err in admitting the witnesses\u2019 testimony tending to establish the crowbar as the instrument used in the break-in of the Firestone Store. State v. Woods, 286 N.C. 612, 213 S.E. 2d 214 (1975) ; State v. Vestal, 278 N.C. 561, 180 S.E. 2d 755 (1971).\nDefendant Raines assigns error to the trial judge\u2019s definition of breaking in his instruction to the jury. The trial judge stated that breaking \u201csimply means the opening or removal of anything blocking entry.\u201d Defendant Raines notes that the North Carolina Supreme Court disapproved of a similar definition of breaking in State v. Henderson, 285 N.C. 1, 203 S.E. 2d 10 (1974). However, Justice Branch, writing for the majority, states that [a] Ithough we do not approve of the language used by the trial judge in this portion of the charge, we do not believe that the jury was misled by this single statement.\u201d State v. Henderson, supra, at 22.\nThe evidence at trial established that the building was broken into through the use of a crowbar on the door. We do not believe that defendant Raines was prejudiced by the trial court\u2019s definition of breaking, and we find no error.\nWe have reviewed the remaining assignments of error and do not find any error prejudicial to defendants.\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Hedrick concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ARNOLD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General John M. Silverstein, for the State.", "Thomas S. Erwin for defendant appellant Willie Guy, Jr.", "Manning, Fidton and Skinner, by James E. Davis, Jr., for defendant appellant Bobby Raines.", "William A. Smith, Jr., for defendant appellant Lester Lane.", "James A. Everett for defendant appellant Earl Whitaker." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. AL BOBBY RAINES, SAMUEL EARL WHITAKER, LARRY LESTER LANE, WILLIE GUY, JR.\nNo. 7510SC979\n(Filed 5 May 1976)\n1. Burglary and Unlawful Breakings \u00a7 4; Criminal Law \u00a7 42\u2014 breaking and entering \u2014 items in defendants\u2019 vehicle \u2014 admissibility\nIn a prosecution for breaking and entering, larceny, and possession of burglary tools, the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence a crowbar, TV owners\u2019 manual, warranty, antenna and plastic bag found in the automobile in which defendants were riding when they were arrested, since there was evidence presented that a store had been broken into and valuable articles were stolen therefrom, and defendants were observed at the scene of the crime during the time when the crime was probably committed, and since the articles in the car had a logical tendency to connect defendants with the perpetration of the crime.\n2. Burglary and Unlawful Breakings \u00a7 4\u2014 breaking and entering \u2014 analysis of paint on door and crowbar \u2014 testimony admissible\nThe trial court in a prosecution for breaking and entering, larceny, and possession of burglary tools did not err in allowing into evidence testimony of SBI agents which showed that, through analysis of paint on the door of the store broken into and paint on the crowbar found in defendants\u2019 vehicle, and through analysis of the markings on the door, the crowbar found in the car in which the defendants were riding when they were arrested was the instrument used to break into the store.\n3. Burglary and Unlawful Breakings \u00a7 6\u2014 breaking and entering \u2014 definition of breaking not prejudicial\nDefendant was not prejudiced in a prosecution for breaking and entering by the trial court\u2019s jury instruction that breaking \u201csimply means the opening or removal of anything blocking entry.\u201d\nAppeal by defendants from McKinnon, Judge. Judgments entered 27 June 1975 in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 March 1976.\nDefendants were indicted on charges of breaking and entering, larceny, receiving, and possession of burglary tools. The receiving charges were not prosecuted, and they were tried on the remaining charges.\nThe State presented evidence at trial tending to establish that Donald Duty, manager of the Raleigh Firestone Store, returned to the store in the early morning hours of 2 May 1975 in response to a call from the police department and discovered that the back door of the warehouse had been forced open. Duty testified that three television sets were missing from the warehouse.\nDetective D. C. Williams testified that he \u201chad received information as to planned criminal activities by these four defendants on May 1st.\u201d Williams stated that he received information that the defendants planned to steal television sets. Williams\u2019 information was provided by an informant who had, on prior occasions, given information leading to the arrest and conviction of other persons. Williams said that he began surveillance on the four defendants at approximately 6:00 p.m. on 1 May 1975. Williams observed defendant Willie Guy driving a Monte Carlo at the corner of Martin and Hargett Streets. Williams followed Guy to the 400 block of South Bloodworth Street where A1 Bobby Raines got into the car. Williams stated that he lost track of the vehicle for a short time, but, upon regaining visual contact, he observed that Larry Lane was also in the car. At approximately midnight all four of the defendants were seen together in the vehicle.\nWilliams testified that he directed his surveillance to the Firestone Store when he saw the defendants\u2019 car parked on Commerce Street, and the Firestone Store was the only store in the area stocking television sets.\nWilliams stated that he heard a loud banging outside the Firestone Store and saw A1 Bobby Raines, Larry Lane, and Sammy Whitaker by the door of the building. Willie Guy, driving the Monte Carlo, picked up the other three men. Williams made a visual check of the Firestone Store\u2019s door but did not detect any evidence of breaking and entering. He then pursued the defendants.\nPolice Sergeant Lockey made a thorough search of the Firestone Store and discovered that the building had been broken into. Williams stopped the vehicle in which the defendants were traveling and searched the vehicle. Pursuant to the search, Williams found a sawed-off shotgun, a 357 magnum pistol, and a crowbar. Williams seized the guns but left the crowbar in the car. After obtaining a search warrant, the crowbar, a TV owner\u2019s manual, and other items found in the car were impounded.\nSBI chemist, R. D. Cone, testified that the paint on the crowbar originated from the door broken into at the Firestone Store. SBI agent Frederick Hurst, Jr. was qualified as an expert in the field of toolmark identification. Agent Hurst testified that the crowbar made the marks on the door which was broken open at the Firestone Store.\nDefendants Raines and Whitaker presented evidence of alibi. Defendants Lane and Guy presented no evidence. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as to each of the defendants for breaking and entering, and possession of burglary tools. Each defendant was acquitted on the charge of larceny. From a judgment imposing prison sentences, the defendants appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General John M. Silverstein, for the State.\nThomas S. Erwin for defendant appellant Willie Guy, Jr.\nManning, Fidton and Skinner, by James E. Davis, Jr., for defendant appellant Bobby Raines.\nWilliam A. Smith, Jr., for defendant appellant Lester Lane.\nJames A. Everett for defendant appellant Earl Whitaker." }, "file_name": "0303-01", "first_page_order": 335, "last_page_order": 340 }