{ "id": 8552682, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ERLE DOWNING", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Downing", "decision_date": "1976-12-15", "docket_number": "No. 7612SC596", "first_page": "743", "last_page": "745", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "31 N.C. App. 743" } ], "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": "34 S.E. 651", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1899, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "125 N.C. 718", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11275349 ], "year": 1899, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/125/0718-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S.E. 2d 697", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1946, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 N.C. 69", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8612689 ], "year": 1946, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/226/0069-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 S.E. 667", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1926, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "191 N.C. 595", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630556 ], "year": 1926, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/191/0595-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 S.Ct. 2337", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "case_ids": [ 6182266 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/426/0736-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 L.Ed. 2d 627", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "case_ids": [ 6179008 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/427/0463-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 339, "char_count": 5139, "ocr_confidence": 0.682, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20594521147758035 }, "sha256": "86717882f1443afec2a209943e9c35bb144591c9a5fc8db1cb296149153ff6be", "simhash": "1:90c05d020df1246b", "word_count": 814 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:26.493722+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Hedrick and Clark concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ERLE DOWNING" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nThis appeal is authorized by G.S. 15A-979(c). The parties having stipulated that the search warrants were legally issued and executed, no Fourth Amendment problems are presented. The only question presented is whether suppression of the seized evidence is required by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution or by Article I, Sec. 23, of the North Carolina Constitution. We hold that it is not and accordingly reverse the order of the trial court.\nThe order appealed from was entered 14 June 1976. On 29 June 1976 the United States Supreme Court decided Andresen v. Maryland, _ U.S. _, 49 L.Ed. 2d 627, 96 S.Ct. 2337 (1976), in which, on facts strikingly similar to those here presented, the Court held \u201cthat the search of an individual\u2019s office for business records, their seizure, and subsequent introduction into evidence does not offend the Fifth Amendment\u2019s prescription that \u2018[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.\u2019 \u201d We find Andresen controlling to dispose of defendant\u2019s Fifth Amendment claims.\nWe also find nothing in the Constitution or laws of this State which requires exclusion of the seized records. Article I, Section 23 of the North Carolina Constitution provides that \u201c [i] n all criminal prosecutions, every person charged with crime has the right to . . . not be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence.\u201d Defendant here has not been compelled to do anything. He voluntarily made and kept the records involved, and they were seized by lawful process without his being required to say or do anything. Although the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination applies to the production of papers so that if the accused is compelled to produce them the privilege is violated, State v. Hollingsworth, 191 N.C. 595, 132 S.E. 667 (1926), \u201c[1]awful seizure of such evidence (as, for example, pursuant to a valid search warrant) obviously differs from requiring the accused to produce it and does not violate the privilege.\u201d 1 Stansbury\u2019s N. C. Evidence, Brandis Revision, \u00a7 57, p. 177-78; see State v. Shoup, 226 N.C. 69, 86 S.E. 2d 697 (1946); State v. Mallett, 125 N.C. 718, 34 S.E. 651 (1899).\nReversed.\nJudges Hedrick and Clark concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PARKER, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney General Elisha H. Blunting, Jr., for the State, appellant.", "Donald R. Canady and N. H. Person for defendant appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ERLE DOWNING\nNo. 7612SC596\n(Filed 15 December 1976)\nConstitutional Law \u00a7 33; Criminal Law \u00a7 80 \u2014 business records lawfully seized \u2014 right against self-incrimination not violated by admission\nThe search of defendant\u2019s business office pursuant to legally issued and executed search warrants for business records, their seizure, and subsequent introduction into evidence did not violate defendant\u2019s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, nor did Article I, \u00a7 23 of the N. C. Constitution, require exclusion of the records in defendant\u2019s trial for wilfully and knowingly presenting a fraudulent insurance claim.\nAppeal by the State from Herring, Judge. Order entered 14 June 1976 in Superior Court, Cumberland County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 December 1976.\nThis is an appeal by the State from an order granting defendant\u2019s pre-trial motion to suppress certain evidence consisting of papers and records seized after a search of defendant\u2019s professional office made pursuant to valid search warrants.\nDefendant is a chiropractor who maintains his office in Fayetteville. On 21 January 1976 twenty search warrants were issued for records concerning twenty of defendant\u2019s patients, which records were alleged to be in defendant\u2019s professional office. On 22 January 1976 the chief investigator for the North Carolina Insurance Department and other officers executed the warrants by conducting a search of defendant\u2019s office in his presence. As a result of this search the records now in question were seized. These records consist of defendant\u2019s chiropractic records and copies of letters written by him to various insurance companies relating to his treatment of a patient, one Willie Melvin, as well as his Day Book for the years 1971 through 1975.\nWhen the search was made, no charges were pending against the defendant. He was subsequently indicted for violation of G.S. 14-214 by wilfully and knowingly presenting a false and fraudulent claim and proof in support of said claim for payment of benefits upon a contract of insurance for medical treatment of Willie Melvin for injuries Melvin allegedly sustained in an automobile accident.\nUpon arraignment, prior to entering a plea, defendant moved to suppress the State\u2019s evidence seized pursuant to the search warrants on the ground that to allow the evidence would be compelling him to be a witness against himself in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, Sec. 23 of the North Carolina Constitution. At the hearing on the motion the defendant and the State stipulated that the search warrants were legally issued and executed. The court allowed the motion, and the State appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney General Elisha H. Blunting, Jr., for the State, appellant.\nDonald R. Canady and N. H. Person for defendant appellee." }, "file_name": "0743-01", "first_page_order": 771, "last_page_order": 773 }