{
  "id": 8550533,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDOLPH DEAN FLYNN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Flynn",
  "decision_date": "1977-06-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 7710SC22",
  "first_page": "492",
  "last_page": "494",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "33 N.C. App. 492"
    }
  ],
  "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": "214 S.E. 2d 213",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 635",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555818
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/25/0635-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 214,
    "char_count": 3834,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.665,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.180689724450327e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7722668387230298
    },
    "sha256": "5d8c0ae3b74300d7515bf597485ac0ef75c52885dd5f184f330513941a32eef0",
    "simhash": "1:027f50b085261c66",
    "word_count": 619
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:09:28.190456+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDOLPH DEAN FLYNN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nAt the hearing on defendant\u2019s motion to suppress the State was allowed, over defendant\u2019s objection, to offer evidence concerning the absence of the magistrate\u2019s signature on the \u201caffidavit of an application\u201d for the search warrant executed in this case. At the hearing Officer Beliveau, the affiant, and T. W. Adams, the magistrate, both testified that Officer Beli-veau was sworn to the affidavit by the magistrate, and that the magistrate\u2019s signature was omitted from the jurat by inadvertence.\nThe defendant offered no evidence at the hearing on his motion to suppress.\nThe trial court made detailed findings with respect to the issuance of the search warrant and included therein that the affiant was sworn to the affidavit, and that the magistrate\u2019s signature was omitted therefrom by inadvertence. The trial court concluded that the search warrant was in all respects proper and denied defendant\u2019s motion to suppress.\nDefendant contends that the court erred in admitting the evidence of the affiant and the magistrate regarding the absence of the magistrate\u2019s signature on the \u201caffidavit of an application\u201d for the search warrant, and in concluding that the search warrant was valid. Defendant concedes that the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence of the magistrate and the affiant if the search warrant is not invalid on its face. Citing G.S. 15A-244, defendant argues that the search warrant is invalid on its face because the affidavit upon which the warrant was issued does hot bear in writing the magistrate\u2019s jurat.\nG.S. 15A-244 in pertinent part provides, \u201cEach application for a search warrant must be made in writing upon oath or affirmation.\u201d Clearly the search warrant in this case was issued upon an application which was in writing, and the trial court\u2019s unchallenged findings clearly establish that the application was made upon \u201coath or affirmation.\u201d The trial judge\u2019s findings with respect to the making of the application and the issuance of the search warrant are supported by plenary competent evidence, and the findings support the conclusion that the search warrant was in all respects proper. State v. Brannon, 25 N.C. App. 635, 214 S.E. 2d 213 (1975).\nThe order denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress is\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Isaac T. Avery III for the State.",
      "William A. Smith, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDOLPH DEAN FLYNN\nNo. 7710SC22\n(Filed 15 June 1977)\nSearches and Seizures \u00a7 3 \u2014 warrant \u2014 failure of magistrate to sign affidavit jurat\nIn a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a warrant on the ground that the magistrate failed to sign the jurat of the affidavit to obtain the warrant, the court properly admitted testimony by the affiant and the magistrate regarding the absence of the magistrate\u2019s signature on the jurat; furthermore, the court properly concluded that the warrant was valid where it found upon supporting evidence that the affiant was sworn to the affidavit and that the magistrate\u2019s signature was omitted therefrom by inadvertence.\nAppeal by defendant from Herring, Judge. Judgment entered 15 October 1976 in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 31 May 1977.\nDefendant was charged in a proper bill of indictment with the possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.\nBefore trial defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained by a search warrant on the grounds that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued was not verified. The motion was denied, the defendant entered a plea of guilty, and a judgment that the defendant be committed as a youthful offender for 3 years was entered.\nPursuant to G.S. 15A-979 (b) defendant appealed from the denial of the motion to suppress.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Isaac T. Avery III for the State.\nWilliam A. Smith, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0492-01",
  "first_page_order": 520,
  "last_page_order": 522
}
