{
  "id": 8555492,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD THEODORE RAY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ray",
  "decision_date": "1969-01-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 6814SC406",
  "first_page": "470",
  "last_page": "473",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "3 N.C. App. 470"
    }
  ],
  "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": "63 S.E. 2d 170",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 N.C. 218",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8602130
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/233/0218-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "164 S.E. 2d 457",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 N.C. 556",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561062
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/274/0556-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 456,
    "char_count": 8719,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.561,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20601239686174755
    },
    "sha256": "0d05541446b55fa885d40531aa6ace27fe52258183386fb3a8b8efce71d9ae6a",
    "simhash": "1:716f456ad6fc551c",
    "word_count": 1469
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:33:22.618564+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mall\u00e1RD, C.J., and Campbell, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD THEODORE RAY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, J.\nThis is a companion case to State v. Edward Theodore Ray, 274 N.C. 556, 164 S.E. 2d 457. In that case- defendant appealed from a verdict of guilty as charged to the capital offense of rape with recommendation that punishment be imprisonment in the State's Prison for life. Defendant was tried on that charge at the April 1967 Session of Durham Superior Court. That charge and the convictions from which he now appeals arose from the same occurrence. As was noted in Chief Justice Parker\u2019s opinion in S. v. Bay, supra, defendant was represented by his court-appointed attorneys, C. C. Malone, Jr., and R. Roy Mitchell, Jr. From both convictions he was permitted to appeal in forma pauperis. For each appeal, the County of Durham was ordered to furnish his counsel a transcript of the trial, and the County of Durham was ordered to pay the cost of mimeographing the appeal and the brief of his counsel. In this Court, as in the Supreme Court, a writ of certiorari was allowed, upon petition of defendant\u2019s counsel, C. C. Malone, Jr., giving him additional time within which to prepare and docket his case on appeal. On 29 July 1968, this Court entered an order granting additional time and directing that case on appeal be docketed in this Court by 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, 3 September 1968. The case on appeal was not docketed until 5 September 1968. Under the rules of practice in this Court, the delay beyond the time granted subjects this appeal to dismissal. Nevertheless, we have carefully examined all defendant\u2019s assignments of error and find no prejudicial error in his trial.\nAssignments of error Nos. 1 and 2 relate to the court\u2019s failure to sustain defendant\u2019s motion for a change of the venire and his motion for the call of a special venire from a contiguous county. Assignment of error No. 3 is addressed to the court\u2019s failure to sustain defendant\u2019s motion to quash the bills of indictment upon the ground that Negroes were systematically excluded from service upon the grand jury solely by reason of their race and in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of these United States and Article I, Section 17, of the Constitution of North Carolina. Assignment of error No. 5 is addressed to the court\u2019s failure to sustain defendant\u2019s challenge to the array of petit jurors for the same reason.\nThese questions were before the Court in S. v. Ray, supra. We find no substantial difference in the evidence presented in this case in support of defendant\u2019s position. The arguments advanced here in defendant\u2019s brief are identical to the arguments advanced in the Supreme Court. We think the opinion of Parker, C.J., in S. v. Bay, supra, holding these arguments to be without merit is decisive of these questions and we so hold.\nDefendant further contends that the trial tribunal committed prejudicial error in allowing State\u2019s Exhibit #9 to be introduced into evidence. State\u2019s Exhibit #9 was a dark blue shirt belonging to defendant which defendant contends was illegally obtained by an officer with other articles of clothing belonging to the defendant. The reasons advanced by defendant to sustain his contention are the same as those advanced by him in his appeal to the Supreme Court with respect to the same exhibit, in that case State\u2019s Exhibit #18. As to this assignment of error, S. v. Ray, supra, is controlling and assignment of error No. 7 is overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s remaining assignment of error is addressed to the trial court\u2019s failure to sustain defendant\u2019s objection to testimony regarding State\u2019s Exhibit #6 and the identification of this exhibit. Defendant, in his brief, states that the \u201cState exposed and flaunted this exhibit before the jury without offering to introduce same into evidence.\u201d The record before us is devoid of any evidence or indication that the State \u201cflaunted\u201d this exhibit before the jury. There is no exception taken to any comment of the solicitor to the jury. This particular exhibit, cigarettes and sales slip, was identified by the prosecuting witness as being \u201cin all respects similar to those purchased (by her) at Eckerd\u2019s on the night in question.\u201d The assistant manager of Eckerd\u2019s testified that on the night in question cigarettes were being sold at a reduced price; that this brand of cigarettes was on sale for $1.99 per carton; that the sales slip, part of Exhibit #6, was a sales slip for merchandise bought at Eckerd\u2019s; that it was dated 7 December 1966, the date this offense occurred; that the number on the sales slip indicated that the merchandise was sold at the tobacco counter; that the rest of State\u2019s Exhibit #6 \u2014 cigarettes and paper bag \u2014 were in all respects similar to the cigarettes being sold and paper bag in which cigarettes were placed at Eckerd\u2019s on Broad Street. State\u2019s Exhibit #6 was identified by Mrs. Mary Ann Gibson. She testified that defendant lived at her house, with the permission of her husband; that he paid no rent and contributed nothing to the expense of the home; that he slept on a sofa in the living room and she, her husband and two children occupied the bedroom; that defendant left her home the evening of 7 December and returned about 9:30; that she opened the door for him and he had a paper bag; that she saw the bag later in the week and it contained cigarettes; that she gave the bag containing the cigarettes to the officer the day after defendant left her home. Over defendant\u2019s objection, she identified State\u2019s Exhibit #6. Defendant\u2019s exception to the court\u2019s overruling his objection is the basis for defendant\u2019s assignment of error No. 6. According to the record, at the close of the State\u2019s evidence, State\u2019s Exhibit #6, with other exhibits, was received in evidence. The record does not indicate that any objection was made by defendant to the introduction thereof.\nState v. Eagle, 233 N.C. 218, 63 S.E. 2d 170, is cited by defendant as authority for his position. In that case, the defendant objected to the solicitor\u2019s argument and particularly to the solicitor\u2019s stating to the jury that he was willing for a whiskey bottle which had not been identified nor introduced into evidence during the trial then to be shown to the jury and that he had sent for it to be brought to the courtroom. We do not think that case is applicable here.\nIn allowing the witness to identify the exhibit, the trial court did not commit prejudicial error.\nIn the trial below, we find\nNo error.\nMall\u00e1RD, C.J., and Campbell, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General T. W. Bruton, Deputy Attorney General Harry W. McGalliard and Deputy Attorney General James F. Bullock for the State.",
      "C. C. Malone, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD THEODORE RAY\nNo. 6814SC406\n(Filed 15 January 1969)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 15\u2014 motion for change of venire\nIn prosecutions for kidnapping and robbery, assignments of error relating to trial court\u2019s failure to sustain defendant\u2019s motion for change of the venire and his motion for the call of a special venire from a contiguous county are held, without merit.\n2. Granel Jury \u00a7 3; Jury \u00a7 7\u2014 challenge to racial composition of grand and petit juries\nIn prosecutions for kidnapping and robbery, assignments of error relating to (1) trial court\u2019s failure to sustain defendant\u2019s motion to\u00bb quash the bills of indictment on ground that Negroes were systematically excluded from service upon the grand jury solely by reason of their race and (2) trial court\u2019s failure to sustain defendant\u2019s challenge to the array of petit jurors for the same reason a/re held without merit.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 84\u2014 admission of seized article\nIn prosecutions for kidnapping and robbery, defendant\u2019s contention that trial court erred in failing to exclude a shirt belonging to defendant on the ground that the shirt was illegally seized is held without merit.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 42\u2014 articles connected with crime \u2014 identification\nIn prosecutions for robbery and kidnapping, trial court did not err in allowing State\u2019s witness to identify a carton of cigarettes and a sales slip as articles being in defendant\u2019s possession on the date of the offense, the State attempting to show that the prosecuting witness had purchased the article earlier in the day, and the defendant\u2019s contention that the State \u201cflaunted\u201d the exhibit before the jury is not supported by the record.\nAppeal by defendant from Bailey, J., 11 October 1967 Regular Criminal Session, Superior Court of Durham.\nDefendant was tried on separate bills of indictment charging kidnapping and robbery. The cases were consolidated for trial. Defendant pleaded not guilty, and, from a verdict of guilty as charged in each bill of indictment and judgments entered thereon, defendant appeals.\nAttorney General T. W. Bruton, Deputy Attorney General Harry W. McGalliard and Deputy Attorney General James F. Bullock for the State.\nC. C. Malone, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0470-01",
  "first_page_order": 490,
  "last_page_order": 493
}