{
  "id": 8557200,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GARY CARLON SWINK",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Swink",
  "decision_date": "1976-06-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 7622SC180",
  "first_page": "745",
  "last_page": "746",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 N.C. App. 745"
    }
  ],
  "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": "162 S.E. 2d 583",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 N.C. App. 109",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551268
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/2/0109-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 335",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 N.C. 646",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566320
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/271/0646-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 289,
    "char_count": 3763,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.627,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.237952326873136e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3299499314438796
    },
    "sha256": "b00fa4824d8a46a86b20f8b99dfe029c9a4153182bfc070dbf9bc35b1df08e29",
    "simhash": "1:3b4d3042bcbfb8ee",
    "word_count": 622
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:22.308082+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Parker and Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GARY CARLON SWINK"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nThe defendant contends \u201cthe trial court committed reversible error in allowing the . . . [district attorney] to make prejudicial and improper remarks to the jury.\u201d In his closing argument, the district attorney made the following statements:\n\u201cYou know, we read a lot in the paper about coddling criminals, but now it is your chance to stand up and be counted. By convicting this man, you are saying that we will not have this go on here in Iredell County.\u201d\n\u201cThis man (indicating the defendant) is a professional criminal. I know it and Mr. Bender (defendant\u2019s attorney) knows it too.\u201d\nThere was an objection by defendant but no ruling was made from the bench.\nIn State v. Miller, 271 N.C. 646, 157 S.E. 2d 335 (1967), the Supreme Court held it to be prejudicial error for the solicitor to refer to defendants as \u201chabitual storebreakers.\u201d In State v. Foster, 2 N.C. App. 109, 162 S.E. 2d 583 (1968), the use of the term \u201cprofessional crook\u201d was held to be prejudicial error. We believe the remarks made in this case fall within the prohibition of the above cited cases and entitle defendant to a new trial.\nWe do not discuss defendant\u2019s other assignments of error since they are not likely to occur at a new trial.\nNew trial.\nJudges Parker and Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Charles J. Murray and Assistant Attorney General Ann Reid for the State.",
      "Pope, McMillan and Bender by Harold J. Bender for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GARY CARLON SWINK\nNo. 7622SC180\n(Filed 16 June 1976)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 102\u2014 jury argument \u2014 statement that defendant is \u201cprofessional criminal\u201d\nIn a prosecution for breaking and entering and larceny, the district attorney\u2019s statement in his jury argument that defendant is a \u201cprofessional criminal\u201d constituted prejudicial error.\nAppeal by defendant from Crissman, Judge. Judgment entered 23 October 1975 in Superior Court, Iredell County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 June 1976.\nThe defendant, Gary Carlon Swink, was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with breaking or entering Houston L. Johnston\u2019s home, and larceny of personal property belonging to Houston Johnston having a total value of $2,000.00. Defendant pleaded not guilty to each charge and the State offered evidence tending to show the following:\nHouston Johnston left home for work at about 8:15 a.m. on 11 April 1975. He returned home approximately one hour and fifteen minutes later and found that someone had entered his home by breaking out a window and knocking out a screen in the basement. A coin collection valued at approximately $1,800.00 and a \u201cWinchester Commemorative Rifle\u201d valued at $250.00 were missing.\nRonnie Saintsing testified that he, along with Gary Swink, Larry Jessup and Buddy Whitaker went to Johnston\u2019s house the morning of 11 April 1975. While Jessup and Whitaker waited outside, he and the defendant broke out a basement window and entered Johnston\u2019s house. Once inside, they took a steel tackle box containing a coin collection and a Winchester. rifle and left through the same window. They saw the police approaching so they ran into the woods near Johnston\u2019s house and hid the stolen articles. Jessup and Saintsing were apprehended and the stolen property was recovered. Saintsing also testified that it was the defendant\u2019s plan to rob the house and he had led them to the house on the morning of 11 April 1975.\nThe defendant did not testify and offered no evidence.\nThe jury returned verdicts of guilty as to each charge. From judgment entered that defendant be imprisoned for four to six years for breaking or entering and from judgment entered that he be imprisoned for three years for larceny, suspended on certain conditions, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Charles J. Murray and Assistant Attorney General Ann Reid for the State.\nPope, McMillan and Bender by Harold J. Bender for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0745-01",
  "first_page_order": 777,
  "last_page_order": 778
}