{ "id": 8549201, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RONALD CHASE WYRICK", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wyrick", "decision_date": "1978-02-21", "docket_number": "No. 7718SC752", "first_page": "352", "last_page": "359", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "35 N.C. App. 352" } ], "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": "94 S.E. 2d 797", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "244 N.C. 679", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2219444 ], "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/244/0679-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 S.E. 2d 821", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "5 N.C. App. 164", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548615 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/5/0164-01" ] }, { "cite": "163 S.E. 2d 542", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2 N.C. App. 605", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554682 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/2/0605-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 S.E. 2d 651", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1945, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "224 N.C. 848", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616363 ], "year": 1945, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/224/0848-01" ] }, { "cite": "144 S.E. 2d 569", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "265 N.C. 524", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8576044 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/265/0524-01" ] }, { "cite": "153 S.E. 2d 63", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "269 N.C. 550", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564771 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/269/0550-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 S.E. 2d 410", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1948, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "229 N.C. 229", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12165305 ], "year": 1948, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/229/0229-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 S.E. 2d 472", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "244 N.C. 506", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2219540 ], "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/244/0506-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 S.E. 2d 165", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 380", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626399 ], "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/254/0380-01" ] }, { "cite": "215 S.E. 2d 557", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "288 N.C. 44", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564720 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/288/0044-01" ] }, { "cite": "238 S.E. 2d 477", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "480" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.C. 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565386 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "529" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/293/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 S.E. 2d 773", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 244", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8596934 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0244-01" ] }, { "cite": "238 S.E. 2d 493", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "495" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.C. 532", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565412 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "535" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/293/0532-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 655, "char_count": 14814, "ocr_confidence": 0.811, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.5330875625009783e-08, "percentile": 0.2843513270464803 }, "sha256": "de29cb9b7eb841952b436a9fd9da36692383657a07ec1b3675427bb3bd271b41", "simhash": "1:e429522ab66c2978", "word_count": 2470 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:24:32.681632+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Morris and Clark concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RONALD CHASE WYRICK" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MITCHELL, Judge.\nDefendant first contends the trial court erred in allowing Detective G. D. Payne of the Greensboro Police Department to testify, over defendant\u2019s objections, for the purpose of corroborating the State\u2019s witnesses, Frank Campbell and Broughton Sutton. This contention is without merit, as the defendant cross-examined both witnesses and offered evidence contradicting their testimony.\nThe controlling rule of law is set forth in State v. Carter, 293 N.C. 532, 535, 238 S.E. 2d 493, 495 (1977), as follows:\nIn this jurisdiction, evidence tending to support a witness\u2019s credibility is admissible when he is impeached in any manner including contradictory statements, cross-examination, or contradiction by other witnesses. State v. Cope, 240 N.C. 244, 81 S.E. 2d 773. Some of our more recent cases tend to recognize the admissibility of corroborative evidence without even considering the question of whether the witness has been impeached. See, 1 Stansbury\u2019s N.C. Evidence, Witnesses, Sec. 50 (Brandis Rev.), and cases there cited.\nDefendant further contends that the trial court erred in permitting the State to cross-examine him concerning his conviction in 1967 for automobile larceny and fraud. We find no error in the admission of this evidence. State v. Currie, 293 N.C. 523, 529, 238 S.E. 2d 477, 480 (1977).\nDefendant next assigns as error that part of the charge of the trial court relating to the testimony of accomplices. The trial court denied the defendant\u2019s timely submitted written request for an instruction that: \u201cYou may convict on unsupported testimony of an accomplice, or co-conspirator, but it is dangerous and unsafe to do so.\u201d\nDuring its charge, the trial court gave a thorough and complete definition of the term \u201caccomplice\u201d and proceeded to instruct the jury:\nAn accomplice is considered by the law to have an interest in the outcome of the case. If you find that the witness was an accomplice, you should examine every part of the testimony of this witness or these witnesses with the greatest care and caution. If, after doing so, you believe his testimony in whole or in part, you should treat what you believe the same as any other believable evidence in the case.\nThe charge of the trial court was sufficient to meet its obligation to give a correct instruction concerning accomplice testimony. See State v. White, 288 N.C. 44, 215 S.E. 2d 557 (1975). The trial court was not required to parrot the instructions requested by the defendant as the charge given was, to the extent required by the evidence, substantially in conformity with that requested. State v. Bailey, 254 N.C. 380, 119 S.E. 2d 165 (1961).\nThe charge given by the trial court did not conform to the defendant\u2019s request for an instruction with reference to the \u201cunsupported\u201d testimony of an accomplice. This was entirely proper as the testimony of the accomplices tended to be supported by other evidence in the case.\nWitness William Megaw testified that he sold a wrecked blue El Camino truck to the defendant. Additionally, he testified as to the vehicle identification numbers on the wrecked truck. Witness John Cunningham, a salesman at a Tennessee automobile dealership, testified that the defendant brought the green El Camino truck to Tennessee for sale. Cunningham also testified from his direct observation that the confidential vehicle identification number did not match the public identification numbers on the dashboard and engine. Other evidence also tended to support the testimony of those individuals who testified as accomplices.\nAt most, the trial court is required to instruct the jury in conformity with tendered instructions only to the extent such requested instructions are supported by competent evidence in the case. Instructions which are tendered but do not conform to the evidence need not be given in substance or otherwise. The trial court properly denied the written motion for instructions and properly instructed the jury on the weight to be given accomplice testimony. This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant additionally contends that he must be granted a new trial on the charge of altering a motor vehicle serial number in violation of G.S. 20-109(b)(l), as the trial court erred by failing to charge the jury with respect to all elements of the offense. Specifically, defendant contends that the trial court failed to require that, prior to returning a verdict of guilty, the jury find beyond a reasonable doubt the number alleged to have been altered was assigned to the motor vehicle by the Division of Motor Vehicles.\nThe bill of indictment alleges, in pertinent part, that the number in question had been assigned to the vehicle, \u201cby the Department of Motor Vehicles of North Carolina.\u201d The State, through the testimony of Walter J. Parrish, Jr., introduced substantial evidence consuming more than two pages of the printed record and tending to show that the number had been assigned to the vehicle by the Department of Motor Vehicles.\nWith regard to the essential elements of this offense, the trial court instructed the jury:\nI charge that for you to find the defendant Wyrick guilty of this charge the State must prove two things beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that he, Ronald Wyrick, removed or altered a motor vehicle serial number. Second, that he did so with the intent to conceal or misrepresent the true identity of that vehicle.\nSo I charge you, Members of the Jury, that if you find from the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about August 24, 1973, Ronald Chase Wyrick, alone or with others, removed or altered the motor serial number of a 1972 El Camino pickup truck and that in so doing, he intended to conceal or misrepresent the true identity of that 1972 El Camino vehicle, then it would be your duty to find him guilty.\nIn the above quoted portion of the charge, the trial court inadvertently omitted an essential element of the offense condemned by G.S. 20-109(b)(l). At the time of the alleged offense, the statute specifically required, inter alia, that the serial or motor number alleged to have been altered be one assigned by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Effective 1 July 1975, the Department of Motor Vehicles was redesignated the Division of Motor Vehicles of the Department of Transportation by amendment to G.S. 20-1. At the same time, the term \u201cDivision\u201d was substituted for the term \u201cDepartment\u201d by amendment at all pertinent places in G.S. 20-109. The charge of the trial court, however, makes no reference to the requirement that the serial or motor number alleged to have been altered be one assigned by the Department of Motor Vehicles (now, Division of Motor Vehicles of the Department of Transportation).\nThe requirement that a serial or motor number alleged to have been altered be one assigned to a vehicle by the Division of Motor Vehicles of the Department of Transportation (formerly, Department of Motor Vehicles) is an essential element of the offense condemned by G.S. 20-109(b)(l). Before the State is entitled to a conviction under this statute, it must prove the presence of this element beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence. See, State v. Hairr, 244 N.C. 506, 94 S.E. 2d 472 (1956).\nThe trial court must explain each essential element of the offense charged. State v. Lunsford, 229 N.C. 229, 49 S.E. 2d 410 (1948). When it does not, it is prejudicial error sufficient to warrant a new trial. Here, the inadvertent omission of an essential element was such error. State v. Logner, 269 N.C. 550, 153 S.E. 2d 63 (1967); 4 Strong, N.C. Index 3d, Criminal Law, \u00a7 113, p. 581.\nThe State contends that the defendant never challenged that portion of the State\u2019s evidence tending to show the vehicle identification numbers allegedly altered were assigned to the vehicle by the Department of Motor Vehicles. The State further contends that, since there was no issue of fact to which the jury could apply the law, the court was not required to charge on this point. In support of these contentions, the State calls our attention to the case of State v. Spratt, 265 N.C. 524, 144 S.E. 2d 569 (1965).\nSpratt involved a prosecution for an attempt to commit armed robbery. The defendant relied upon an alibi. In charging the jury the trial court omitted an instruction that the jury must find the taking to have been with an intent to steal. It was held that the evidence and the defense of alibi did not raise a direct issue as to intent. Therefore, the trial court\u2019s charge to the jury that, in effect, before they could return a verdict of guilty, they must find the defendant attempted to take the property with \u201cintent to rob\u201d was sufficient. The word \u201crob\u201d was found to import an intent to steal.\nWe find Spratt distinguishable from the present case. It did not involve a situation in which the trial court completely omitted any reference to an essential element. Here, there was just such complete omission.\nThe defendant pled not guilty. His plea of not guilty put in issue every element of the offense charged, including the credibility of the evidence, even though portions of the evidence were uncontradicted. State v. Stone, 224 N.C. 848, 32 S.E. 2d 651 (1945); State v. Patton, 2 N.C. App. 605, 163 S.E. 2d 542 (1968), later app., 5 N.C. App. 164, 167 S.E. 2d 821 (1969); and 4 Strong, N.C. Index 3d, Criminal Law, \u00a7 24, p. 101. The failure of the trial court to instruct the jury as to an essential element of the crime charged was, therefore, prejudicial error which will necessitate a new trial on this charge.\nExceptions and assignment of error relating to the trial court\u2019s instructions to the jury defining the crime of conspiracy to alter a motor vehicle serial number are not brought forward or argued, and we deem them abandoned. Nevertheless, we have thoroughly reviewed the instructions of the trial court relative to conspiracy and find them proper.\nThe defendant brought forward numerous additional exceptions and assignments of error relating solely to his conviction on the substantive charge of altering a motor vehicle serial number. Having found reversible error in that case for which we must order a new trial, we decline to discuss those assignments of error as they may not arise upon retrial.\nWe have found no error in the trial on the charge of conspiracy to alter a motor vehicle identification number (77CRS18020). However, as the sentence on that charge is to begin at the expiration of the sentence on the charge (77CRS18026) of altering a motor vehicle number, it must be set aside and the cause remanded for judgment. State v. Sutton, 244 N.C. 679, 94 S.E. 2d 797 (1956).\nFor error, in the trial (77CRS18026) of the defendant for altering a motor vehicle number in violation of G.S. 20-109(b)(l), we order a\nNew trial.\nIn his trial on the charge of conspiracy to alter a motor vehicle identification number (77CRS18020), the defendant had a fair trial free of prejudicial error, but for reasons previously stated, we order that case\nRemanded for judgment.\nJudges Morris and Clark concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MITCHELL, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney David Roy Blackwell and Deputy Attorney General William M. Melvin, for the State.", "Luke Wright and Robert D. Albergotti for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RONALD CHASE WYRICK\nNo. 7718SC752\n(Filed 21 February 1978)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 89.2\u2014 corroborating testimony\nThe trial court did not err in the admission of a detective\u2019s testimony for the purpose of corroborating two State\u2019s witnesses where defendant had impeached both witnesses by cross-examination and by offering evidence contradicting their testimony.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 117.4\u2014 refusal to instruct on \u201cunsupported\u201d accomplice testimony\nThe trial court did not err in refusing to give defendant\u2019s tendered instruction that the jury could \u201cconvict on unsupported testimony of an accomplice, or coconspirator, but it is dangerous and unsafe to do so,\u201d where the court properly charged on the jury\u2019s duty to scrutinize an accomplice\u2019s testimony and the weight to be given such testimony, and where the accomplice testimony was in fact supported by other evidence in the case.\n3. Automobiles \u00a7 140\u2014 altering vehicle serial number \u2014 assignment of number by DMV\nA conviction of altering a motor vehicle serial number in violation of G.S. 20-109(b)(l) must be set aside and a new trial granted where the trial court failed to require the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the number alleged to have been altered was assigned to the motor vehicle by the Division of Motor Vehicles.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 140.3, 177.1\u2014 sentence to begin at expiration of sentence set aside \u2014 remand\nWhere there was no error in the trial on one charge, but the sentence thereon was made to begin at the expiration of the sentence on another charge upon which a new trial has been granted, the judgment on the charge upheld must be set aside and the cause remanded for judgment.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Collier, Judge. Judgments entered 20 April 1977 in Superior Court, GUILFORD County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 January 1978.\nThe defendant was indicted by separate bills for the felonies of altering a motor vehicle serial number and conspiracy to alter a motor vehicle serial number. Upon his pleas of not guilty to both charges, the jury returned verdicts of guilty. From judgments sentencing him to consecutive terms of five years\u2019 imprisonment for altering a motor vehicle serial number and not less than one nor more than five years\u2019 imprisonment for conspiracy, defendant appealed.\nThe State offered evidence tending to show that, during September, 1972, George Wesley Taylor purchased a green 1972 Chevrolet El Camino truck. In 1973, the defendant, Ronald Chase Wyrick, purchased a wrecked blue 1972 Chevrolet El Camino truck. The defendant, together with Taylor and others, drilled out the serial number of the green truck and replaced it with another number. The engine from the blue truck was then placed into the green truck which the defendant took to a Chevrolet dealership in Mountain City, Tennessee. There it was sold, and the proceeds of the sale were given to the defendant.\nThe green truck was later recovered by law enforcement authorities. An examination of the identification numbers for this vehicle indicated the number on the dashboard and the number on the engine matched the numbers assigned to the blue truck. The confidential identification number placed on the vehicle by the manufacturer matched a number previously assigned to the green truck.\nDefendant\u2019s evidence as to altering the motor vehicle number was in the nature of an alibi. His evidence as to the conspiracy tended to show that he purchased the blue truck as an accommodation to an acquaintance and had never entered into or known of a conspiracy.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney David Roy Blackwell and Deputy Attorney General William M. Melvin, for the State.\nLuke Wright and Robert D. Albergotti for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0352-01", "first_page_order": 380, "last_page_order": 387 }