{
  "id": 8553896,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DARRELL SCOTT MILLER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Miller",
  "decision_date": "1977-04-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 7626SC823",
  "first_page": "770",
  "last_page": "772",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "32 N.C. App. 770"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 287,
    "char_count": 4211,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.661,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.7492960360752035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29845697567696033
    },
    "sha256": "e4f8308672fb67f9d498055e5d067af73dd9551bb7f564b30d05082c612ba589",
    "simhash": "1:0eeda0b4ebb52d84",
    "word_count": 688
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:52:52.366891+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. DARRELL SCOTT MILLER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Chief Judge.\nDefendant presents one assignment of error for review. He contends that the trial judge committed reversible error in the denial of defendant\u2019s motion for mistrial made during the district attorney\u2019s argument to the jury.\nThe district attorney explained to the jury that \u201cthe defense has the last argument when the defense does not offer evidence.\u201d The trial judge denied defendant\u2019s motion for a mistrial and, at defendant\u2019s request, instructed the jury upon how it should consider defendant\u2019s election to offer no evidence.\nWhen the judge\u2019s curative instructions are considered in the light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt, we cannot see where the rather innocuous remark to the jury by the district attorney could have affected the outcome of the case. If the remark should be considered error, we hold that it was not prejudicial beyond a reasonable doubt.\nWe fail to perceive why the district attorney felt it necessary to explain the order of arguments to the jury, and we suggest that it would be a better practice not to do so. However, if it is felt that an explanation is necessary of why the district attorney is addressing the jury first, a simple statement to the effect that \u201cI am addressing you first because in this case the defense has the last argument to the jury\u201d would be sufficient.\nWe find no prejudicial error in the trial proceedings.\nThe State\u2019s evidence was fully narrated in the record on appeal. This was sufficient. However, the public defender fully repeated the narration of the evidence in his brief. This was absolutely unnecessary. There was no assignment of error to the testimony or exhibits, and therefore no need to discuss even a part of the evidence in the brief, much less the entire evidence. The only argument in the brief is addressed to the district attorney\u2019s remark to the jury during argument for the State.\nThe public defender has a great responsibility, and his office and expenses are supplied by public funds. However, his position does not grant him a license to become a spendthrift with tax dollars. The absolutely unnecessary repetition of the narration of the evidence in defendant\u2019s brief consumes ten pages. The cost of printing these unnecessary pages of defendant\u2019s brief is $18.50, for which the taxpayers would otherwise be charged. The Public Defender, Twenty-Sixth Judicial District, Michael S. Scofield, will b\u00e9 taxed personally with the unnecessary printing costs.\nNo error.\nJudges Parker and Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Jerry B. Fruitt,-for the State.",
      "Michael S. Scofield, Public Defender, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DARRELL SCOTT MILLER\nNo. 7626SC823\n(Filed 6 April 1977)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 102\u2014 district attorney\u2019s jury argument \u2014 order of argument \u2014 no error\nDefendant was not prejudiced by the district attorney\u2019s explanation to the jury .that \u201cthe defense has the last argument when the defense does not offer evidence,\u201d particularly in view of the fact that the court, at defendant\u2019s request, instructed the jury upon how it should consider defendant\u2019s election to offer no evidence.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 145, 166\u2014 unnecessary matter in brief \u2014 costs taxed against public defender\nThe public defender is taxed with the costs of printing the unnecessary narration of the evidence in the brief.\nAppeal by defendant from Tillery, Judge. Judgment entered 3 June 1976 in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 March 1977.\nDefendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of felonious larceny.\nThe State offered the following evidence: On 12 December .1975 defendant removed two Homelite chain saws from the display rack in J. C. Penney\u2019s Eastland Mall store. The saws were still in their boxes. Defendant walked out of the store without paying for the saws, placed them in the trunk of his car, and drove away. Two employees of the store observed defendant as he walked out with the saws. They followed him to the parking lot, observed his features, and recorded his auto license number. The saws were worth over $200.00. On 17 February 1976 defendant signed a written confession of the theft.\nDefendant offered no evidence.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Jerry B. Fruitt,-for the State.\nMichael S. Scofield, Public Defender, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0770-01",
  "first_page_order": 798,
  "last_page_order": 800
}