{
  "id": 8551171,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDY MICHAEL REESE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Reese",
  "decision_date": "1976-12-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 7628SC529",
  "first_page": "575",
  "last_page": "579",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "31 N.C. App. 575"
    }
  ],
  "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": "184 S.E. 2d 235",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 549",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571126
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0549-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 S.E. 2d 106",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "286 N.C. 497",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569011
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/286/0497-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 706",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.C. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573594
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/281/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 S.E. 2d 69",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 N.C. App. 169",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550355
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/20/0169-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 S.E. 2d 523",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 N.C. App. 580",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549605
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/6/0580-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 412,
    "char_count": 6967,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.684,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.416806009014425e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8005945520375899
    },
    "sha256": "bf67df0d525ee39778e8844d06b756e139c00059c1aa2da7ec95c674f2abdea7",
    "simhash": "1:aa2be42268179440",
    "word_count": 1191
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:26.493722+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDY MICHAEL REESE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nBy his first assignment of error defendant contends that the trial court erred in its charge to the jury by expressing an opinion in violation of G.S. 1-180. This assignment is without merit.\nThe record discloses that when the trial judge was instructing the jury on the sixth element of felonious larceny, he instructed as follows: \u201cAnd, sixth, that the property was worth more than $200, and all the evidence which we have, that\u2019s been submitted, indicates that the property was worth some $550, but you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that it was worth more than $200 as an element of this offense.\u201d\nDefendant argues that in telling the jury that \u201call the evidence which we have, that\u2019s been submitted, indicates that the property was worth some $550\u201d that His Honor expressed an opinion on the evidence. We reject this argument.\nAlmost immediately after the challenged statement was given, the trial judge gave the following instruction:\n\u201cNow, Members of the Jury, the Court has no opinion about the facts in this case or the guilt or innocence of the Defendant. If, in my manner of speaking or by some inflection of my voice or some ruling in this matter, I have conveyed such an impression to you, please dismiss it from your mind because it is a responsibility of yours and yours alone to determine what the facts are in this case and to determine the guilt or innocence of the Defendant.\u201d\nIt is well settled that the charge of the court to the jury will be construed contextually, and segregated portions will not be held prejudicial error where the charge as a whole is free from objection. 4 Strong, N. C. Index 3d, Criminal Law \u00a7 168. When the challenged instruction is considered in context, and considered together with the remainder of the charge, we conclude that it was not prejudicial error.\nBy his second assignment of error defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to submit to the jury possible verdicts of misdemeanor larceny and unauthorized use of an automobile. This assignment is without merit.\nAs to a possible verdict of misdemeanor larceny, it is well-established that where there is no evidence from which it can be inferred that the value of the stolen property was less than $200, defendant is not entitled to an instruction with respect to larceny of property of a value less than $200. State v. Smith, 6 N.C. App. 580, 170 S.E. 2d 523 (1969); State v. Dickerson, 20 N.C. App. 169, 201 S.E. 2d 69 (1973). Since all the evidence in the present case indicated that the value of the stolen property exceeded $200, the trial court did not err by failing to instruct as to the lesser included offense of misdemeanor larceny.\nDefendant argues that a possible verdict under G.S. 14-72.2, unauthorized use of a conveyance, should have been submitted to the jury. We disagree. The trial court is not required to submit to the jury the question of a defendant\u2019s guilt of a lesser degree of the crime charged in the indictment when the State\u2019s evidence is positive as to each and every element of the crime charged and there is no conflicting evidence relating to any element of the crime charged. State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1, 187 S.E. 2d 706 (1972). In this case, defendant was charged with the felonious larceny of an automobile; the evidence presented by the State, aided by the doctrine of recent possession of stolen property, was positive as to each and every element of felonious larceny, and there was no conflicting evidence relating to any element.\nAdditionally, the necessity for instructing the jury as to a crime of lesser degree than charged arises when and only when there is evidence from which the jury could find that such included crime of lesser degree was committed. State v. Lampkins, 286 N.C. 497, 212 S.E. 2d 106 (1975); State v. Carnes, 279 N.C. 549, 184 S.E. 2d 235 (1971). In the present case, there was no evidence that would warrant or support a finding that defendant was guilty of the lesser included offense of unauthorized use of an automobile.\nWe conclude that defendant received a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Claudette Hardaway, for the State.",
      "Public Defender Peter L. Roda for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDY MICHAEL REESE\nNo. 7628SC529\n(Filed 1 December 1976)\n1. Larceny \u00a7 8\u2014 felonious larceny \u2014 instruction on value of goods taken \u2014 no expression of opinion\nIn a prosecution for felonious larceny of an automobile, the trial court\u2019s instruction that \u201call the evidence which we have, that\u2019s been submitted, indicates that the property was worth some $550,\u201d together with other instructions of the court, did not amount to an expression of opinion on the evidence.\n2. Larceny \u00a7 8\u2014 felonious larceny prosecution \u2014 failure to instruct on lesser offenses \u2014 no error\nIn a prosecution for felonious larceny of an automobile where all the evidence indicated that the value of the stolen property exceeded $200, the trial court did not err by failing to instruct as to the lesser included offense of misdemeanor larceny; nor did the court err in failing to submit to the jury a possible verdict under G.S. 14-72.2, unauthorized use of a conveyance.\nAppeal by defendant from Baley, Judge. Judgment entered 27 April 1976 in Superior Court, Buncombe County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 November 1976.\nUpon a plea of not guilty, defendant was tried on a bill of indictment charging him with the felonious larceny of a 1967 Mercury Comet automobile owned by James Rivers. The State\u2019s evidence tends to show:\nOn Saturday, 21 February 1976, Mr. Rivers took his car to Howard Sharp\u2019s body shop to have a door lock repaired. At closing time that night, Sharp locked the car, put the keys inside his shop and left the car parked at the front of the building. Earlier that afternoon and evening Sharp had seen defendant pass by his shop several times. When Sharp returned to the shop on the following Sunday morning, the automobile was missing.\nAt approximately 5:00 o\u2019clock on Sunday morning, a green Comet, with license # ABR392, was driven into and turned around in the yard of Harry Sharp, a brother of Howard Sharp. Harry Sharp wrote down the license number, took a rifle and flashlight and walked up to the car where he observed three persons in the car including defendant as the driver. On the following Tuesday, Harry Sharp was at his brother\u2019s shop when he recognized the same car. The car had been recovered earlier that day and towed into the shop. It had b\u00e9en sideswiped; the radiator, battery and air filter had been removed; and the ignition wires and seats were torn out. Both James Rivers and Howard Sharp testified that the car had a value of approximately $550 before the incident in question.\nDefendant presented no evidence.\nThe jury found defendant guilty as charged and from judgment imposing a prison sentence of five years, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Claudette Hardaway, for the State.\nPublic Defender Peter L. Roda for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0575-01",
  "first_page_order": 603,
  "last_page_order": 607
}