{
  "id": 8553207,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DENNIS K. TOLLEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Tolley",
  "decision_date": "1976-07-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 7628SC182",
  "first_page": "213",
  "last_page": "217",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "30 N.C. App. 213"
    }
  ],
  "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": "220 S.E. 2d 354",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 704",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555959
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/27/0704-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 S.E. 2d 364",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 N.C. 589",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631230
      ],
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/231/0589-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "217 S.E. 2d 715",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 36",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549869
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/27/0036-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 S.E. 2d 839",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 33",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8557615
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0033-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 S.E. 2d 222",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 N.C. 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565287
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/285/0509-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 S.E. 2d 416",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 N.C. App. 129",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549090
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/16/0129-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 S.E. 2d 920",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1944,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 N.C. 645",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8611534
      ],
      "year": 1944,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/224/0645-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 S.E. 506",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1887,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 N.C. 629",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275644
      ],
      "year": 1887,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/98/0629-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 S.E. 2d 751",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1943,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 N.C. 258",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8605178
      ],
      "year": 1943,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/223/0258-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 A.L.R. 2d 534",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "\u00a7 3"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 443,
    "char_count": 7293,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.684,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.7401767243248674e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9297302661274847
    },
    "sha256": "9b90c103c85ff4fd0c79d86e1cc9baab58c2808c6dc108acb9b356d3d023f662",
    "simhash": "1:bff9d42c440fb646",
    "word_count": 1212
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:34.327987+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Parker and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DENNIS K. TOLLEY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendant assigns error to the failure of the court to grant his motion for judgment of dismissal. He contends that as a matter of law he is not guilty of breaking and entering because he had permission from an occupant of the home, the Rigsby\u2019s son, Michael, to enter the home. We disagree.\nA person entering a residence with the good faith belief that he has the consent of the owner or occupant or his authorized agent is not chargeable with the offense of breaking and entering. See 93 A.L.R. 2d 534, \u00a7 3, Rule that Consent Constitutes a Defense. However, the circumstances of the instant case do not involve parties with good faith beliefs that they had consent to enter the residence. Mrs. Rigsby testified that Bur-nette (the defendant\u2019s accomplice) had been told never to come to the Rigsby home.\nDefendant could not have reasonably believed that Michael Rigsby had authority to permit defendant to enter his parents\u2019 residence for the purpose of stealing valuables which belonged to his parents, and not to Michael Rigsby. Evidence establishes that Michael Rigsby knew of defendant\u2019s and Burnette\u2019s plot and felonious intent to enter into the Rigsby home and steal his parents\u2019 valuables. Defendant did not have authorized consent to enter the Rigsby home. See State v. Friddle, 223 N.C. 258, 25 S.E. 2d 751 (1943); State v. Rowe, 98 N.C. 629, 4 S.E. 506 (1887).\nThere is no merit to defendant\u2019s next contention that the trial court erred in allowing Mr. Rigsby to testify regarding the value of the stolen property. Even though a witness is not qualified as an expert he may testify as to the value of his personal property. State v. Weinstein, 224 N.C. 645, 31 S.E. 2d 920 (1944); see also, Stansbury, N. C. Evidence, Brandis Revision, \u00a7 128, Value.\nThere is also no merit in defendant\u2019s argument that the court erred in failing to limit the scope of testimony given by Rigsby for purposes of corroborating the witness, Hunter. He argues that the corroborative testimony exceeded the scope of Hunter\u2019s testimony. \u201cSlight variances in corroborating testimony do not render such testimony inadmissible.\u201d State v. Laws, 16 N.C. App. 129, 191 S.E. 2d 416 (1972).\nDefendant next excepts to the finding of fact by the court on voir dire that the arresting officer made no inducements to defendant in order to obtain a confession. Since the trial court\u2019s finding of fact that \u201cthe officer made no offer of hope of reward or inducement for the defendant to make a statement\u201d is supported by competent evidence, it is conclusive on appeal. State v. Carey, 285 N.C. 509, 206 S.E. 2d 222 (1974).\nFinally, defendant contends that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury. He argues that the trial court erred in recapitulating the evidence by mentioning other persons\u2019 involvement in the crime who were not on trial or being charged in the crime. Defendant\u2019s argument is without merit. G.S. 1-180 requires the trial judge to recount the evidence presented at trial and to explain the law applicable. State v. Gaines, 283 N.C. 33, 194 S.E. 2d 839 (1973). Furthermore, objection to the trial court\u2019s recapitulation of the evidence should have been made before the jury retired so as to afford the court an opportunity for correction; otherwise, the objections are deemed to have been waived and will not be considered on appeal. State v. Hargrove, 27 N.C. App. 36, 217 S.E. 2d 715 (1975).\nDefendant also contends that there was no evidence to support the court\u2019s charging the jury on non-felonious larceny, and that such a charge was error. Defendant shows no prejudice by the court\u2019s instructions on the lesser charge of non-felonious larceny. State v. Chase, 231 N.C. 589, 58 S.E. 2d 364 (1950); State v. Bunton, 27 N.C. App. 704, 220 S.E. 2d 354 (1975).\nAll of defendant\u2019s assignments of error have been reviewed, and we find\nNo error.\nJudges Parker and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Richard L. Griffin, for the State.",
      "Cecil C. Jackson for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DENNIS K. TOLLEY\nNo. 7628SC182\n(Filed 21 July 1976)\n1. Burglary and Unlawful Breakings \u00a7 2\u2014 breaking and entering \u2014 consent of occupant \u2014 intent to steal property of other occupants\nDefendant did not have such consent to enter a residence by an occupant thereof as would absolve him of guilt of the crime of feloni-ously breaking and entering the residence where his entry was the result of a conspiracy with a friend to enter the residence occupied by the friend and his parents and to steal therefrom property owned by the parents.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 50; Larceny \u00a7 6\u2014 value of personalty \u2014 nonexpert opinion\nEven though a witness is not qualified as an expert he may testify as to the value of his personal property.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 76\u2014 confession \u2014 absence of inducements\nTrial court\u2019s finding that an officer made no inducements to defendant in order to obtain a confession was binding on appeal since it was supported by competent evidence on voir dire.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 113\u2014 recapitulation of evidence \u2014 references to accomplices not on trial\nThe trial court did not err in recapitulating evidence that persons who were not on trial were involved in the crimes for which defendant was being tried.\n5. Larceny \u00a7 8\u2014 submission of lesser offense \u2014 absence of prejudice\nDefendant in a prosecution for felonious larceny was not prejudiced by the court\u2019s submission of the lesser offense of non-felonious larceny.\nAppeal by defendant from Ferrell, Judge. Judgment entered 12 December 1975 in Superior Court, Buncombe County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 June 1976.\nDefendant was tried on an indictment charging felonious breaking and entering and felonious larceny. The State\u2019s evidence at trial tended to establish that the defendant, Patrick Burnette, and Michael Rigsby devised a plan to rob the residence of Mr. and Mrs. Clement Rigsby, parents of Michael Rigsby. Pursuant to their scheme, on 22 July 1975, defendant and Pat Burnette entered the Rigsby home by using a key which Michael Rigsby had told them was located over the door. Mrs. Rigsby also testified that Burnette had seen the Rigsbys place the key over the door on several occasions and did not need Michael Rigsby\u2019s information regarding the location of the key.\nUpon entering the Rigsby\u2019s residence defendant and Bur-nette stole an RCA color television, a police band scanner, a Panasonic radio, a stereo component set, and $37.81 in pennies. Defendant carried the stolen merchandise by automobile to a tunnel where he met with Patrick Edward Haskins. Defendant and Haskins transferred the stolen merchandise from the defendant\u2019s car to Haskins\u2019 car. Total value of the stolen merchandise was $1,700.\nOfficer Robert Webster testified that defendant made a statement to him regarding his involvement in the crime. Defendant objected to his statement being admitted into evidence, and a voir dire hearing was held. The trial judge concluded that the statement was admissible, and Officer Webster testified that defendant admitted that he had participated in the breaking and entering and larceny.\nDefendant did not present any evidence. The jury returned guilty verdicts as to each charge. From the judgments imposing prison sentences, defendant appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Richard L. Griffin, for the State.\nCecil C. Jackson for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0213-01",
  "first_page_order": 241,
  "last_page_order": 245
}
