{
  "id": 8547534,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DENNIS L. GREENE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Greene",
  "decision_date": "1977-09-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 774SC270",
  "first_page": "149",
  "last_page": "152",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "34 N.C. App. 149"
    }
  ],
  "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": "49 L.Ed. 2d 1206",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 S.Ct. 3205",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "428 U.S. 903",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6183298,
        6181252,
        6182756,
        6183146,
        6182571,
        6181805,
        6182223,
        6181423,
        6181585,
        6182964,
        6182388,
        6181945,
        6182076
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/428/0903-13",
        "/us/428/0903-01",
        "/us/428/0903-10",
        "/us/428/0903-12",
        "/us/428/0903-09",
        "/us/428/0903-04",
        "/us/428/0903-07",
        "/us/428/0903-02",
        "/us/428/0903-03",
        "/us/428/0903-11",
        "/us/428/0903-08",
        "/us/428/0903-05",
        "/us/428/0903-06"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 S.E. 2d 721",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 N.C. 625",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564742
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/284/0625-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 A.L.R. 2d 841",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d",
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 A.L.R. 565",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 S.E. 2d 671",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 N.C. App. 682",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553186
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/32/0682-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 S.E. 2d 516",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1944,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 N.C. 527",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8608617
      ],
      "year": 1944,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/224/0527-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 S.E. 2d 37",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1948,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 386",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12166179
      ],
      "year": 1948,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0386-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 S.E. 2d 33",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 99",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8557745
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0099-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 652",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "661"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570781
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "195"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0181-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 380,
    "char_count": 6169,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.812,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2970680932069147e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7869522508841249
    },
    "sha256": "2d773cd9990ef6c28e4e5c1f444918c02fcbf17a58251d676d064a4e5bf2d827",
    "simhash": "1:83eb801c9db93563",
    "word_count": 1018
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:28:15.830309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Martin and Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DENNIS L. GREENE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nIn his brief the defendant presents but one question for review, being the question raised by his first assignment of error. The questions raised by his remaining assignments of error are deemed abandoned. Rule 28(a), North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.\nDefendant\u2019s sole contention on this appeal is that the trial court committed prejudicial error in overruling his objection to the State\u2019s motion to consolidate all three charges for trial. He admits that the charges of kidnapping and second degree rape were properly joined because those offenses involved a single victim and occurred at virtually the same time. He points out, however, that the third offense, assault with intent to commit rape, involved a different victim and occurred at a different time than the other offenses, and he contends that his defense of the rape and kidnapping charges was unreasonably prejudiced when the State was permitted to introduce evidence of the earlier offense against Mrs. Elerick. We find no error.\nG.S. 15A-926(a) provides in part that \u201c[t]wo or more offenses may be joined . . . for trial when the offenses . . . are based on the same act or transaction or on a series of acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan.\u201d Here, the State\u2019s evidence showed \u201ca series of acts or transactions connected together.\u201d The offenses for which defendant was tried occurred in a single afternoon within a three-hour period, with a time lapse of approximately, one hour and twenty-five minutes between offenses. The offenses were similar in nature and occurred within such a short time span that they could logically be considered \u201call parts of a continuing program of action by the defendant.\u201d State v. Frazier, 280 N.C. 181, 195, 185 S.E. 2d 652, 661 (1972), death sentence vacated, 283 N.C. 99, 195 S.E. 2d 33 (1973). Evidence of the offense against either victim was competent to show defendant\u2019s attitude and purpose in connection with the offense or offenses against the other. State v. Davis, 229 N.C. 386, 50 S.E. 2d 37 (1948); State v. Edwards, 224 N.C. 527, 31 S.E. 2d 516 (1944); State v. Gainey, 32 N.C. App. 682, 233 S.E. 2d 671 (1977); 1 Stansbury\u2019s N.C. Evidence (Brandis Rev.), \u00a7 92, p. 299; Annot., 167 A.L.R. 565 (1947); Annot., 77 A.L.R. 2d 841 (1961). Under these circumstances, the consolidation of the cases against defendant for trial was within the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Jarrette, 284 N.C. 625, 202 S.E. 2d 721 (1974), death sentence vacated, 428 U.S. 903, 96 S.Ct. 3205, 49 L.Ed. 2d 1206 (1976). No abuse of discretion has been shown.\nDefendant contends that a consideration of the class or nature of the offenses is improper in making a decision to consolidate because the legislature, in enacting G.S. 15A-926(a), omitted the clause which appeared in former G.S. 15-152 permitting consolidation of charges \u201cfor two or more transactions of the same class of crimes or offenses.\u201d However, that clause could arguably apply to offenses which have no connection other than being of the same class. In any event, we hold that the nature of the offenses is one of the factors which may properly be considered in determining whether certain acts or transactions constitute \u201cparts of a single scheme or plan,\u201d as those words are used in present G.S. 15A-926(a).\nIn defendant\u2019s trial we find\nNo error.\nJudges Martin and Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General James Wallace, Jr., for the State.",
      "Bailey and Raynor by Edward G. Bailey for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DENNIS L. GREENE\nNo. 774SC270\n(Filed 21 September 1977)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 92.3\u2014 three offenses by one defendant \u2014 two victims \u2014 consolidation proper\nThe trial court did not err in consolidating for trial charges of kidnapping and rape of one victim and assault with intent to commit rape on another victim, since the three offenses occurred in a single afternoon within a three-hour period, with a time lapse of approximately one hour and twenty-five minutes between offenses; the offenses were similar in nature and occurred within such a short time span that they could logically be considered all parts of a continuing program of action by defendant; and evidence of the offense against either victim was competent to show defendant\u2019s attitude and purpose in connection with the offense or offenses against the other.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 92\u2014 consolidation \u2014 single scheme or plan \u2014 nature of offenses properly considered\nThe nature of the offenses is one of the factors which may properly be considered in determining whether certain acts or transactions constitute \u201cparts of a single scheme or plan,\u201d as those words are used in G.S. 15A-926(a).\nAppeal by defendant from Rouse, Judge. Judgments entered 15 September 1976 in Superior Court, ONSLOW County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 August 1977.\nDefendant was charged in an indictment with the felonious ass\u00e1ult on Mrs. Debbie Elerick with intent to commit rape. He was also charged in two other indictments with the second degree rape and kidnapping of Mrs. Catherine A. Rutherford. Defendant pled not guilty, and the cases were consolidated for trial.\nThe State presented evidence to show that on the afternoon of 3 May 1976, at approximately two o\u2019clock, the defendant came to Mrs. Elerick\u2019s apartment posing as a painter employed by the apartment management. Upon being admitted to the apartment, he committed the assault as charged and then left the apartment at approximately 2:45 p.m. Later that same afternoon at approximately 4:10 p.m., Mrs. Rutherford was walking to work, and defendant gave her a ride in his car. Instead of taking her to work, however, the defendant took her to a clearing in the woods and raped her.\nDefendant testified and denied that he was the person who assaulted Mrs. Elerick. He admitted that he gave Mrs. Rutherford a ride and engaged in sexual intercourse with her, but he testified that she participated voluntarily.\nThe jury found defendant guilty on two counts of assault with intent to commit rape. From judgments imposing prison sentences, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General James Wallace, Jr., for the State.\nBailey and Raynor by Edward G. Bailey for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0149-01",
  "first_page_order": 177,
  "last_page_order": 180
}