{
  "id": 8554965,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BARRY CHAPPEL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Chappel",
  "decision_date": "1978-06-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 789SC30",
  "first_page": "608",
  "last_page": "611",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "36 N.C. App. 608"
    }
  ],
  "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": "231 S.E. 2d 663",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 N.C. 505",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558753
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/291/0505-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 375,
    "char_count": 6874,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.816,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530981535989164
    },
    "sha256": "57a5f0c26f4a18e652edc3a459da0a1687d280dc3f8e0e35fced5efffb4334fe",
    "simhash": "1:b41d9c9330f52140",
    "word_count": 1107
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:02:41.791978+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BARRY CHAPPEL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nPrior to trial, defendant\u2019s court-appointed counsel filed a motion by which he sought to require the \u201cprosecutor to produce for the Defendant a copy of the computerized print-out of the criminal record of one, Sammy Bullock.\u201d The motion was denied. Defendant contends that the denial of the motion violated his \u201cright of confrontation\u201d and also violated the mandate of G.S. 15A-903(d). Neither argument has merit. He was given the \u201cright of confrontation\u201d when the witness Bullock testified against him. Although not material to our decision, we note that when defendant cross-examined Bullock, he did not ask him about his participation in any prior criminal activity. Defendant\u2019s reliance on G.S. 15A-903(d) is misplaced. The Legislature has expressly rejected a proposal to require the State to disclose even the names and addresses of the witnesses it intends to call and also rejected a proposal to require the production of a proposed witness\u2019s criminal record. State v. Smith, 291 N.C. 505, 231 S.E. 2d 663 (1977); see Official Commentary to G.S. 15A-903. The Legislature recognized the obvious danger of witness harassment and intimidation inherent in such a procedure.\nDefendant argues that there is a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof as they relate to the ownership of the stolen property. The indictment alleged that the property was the property of \u201cLawrence Denny D/B/A Denny\u2019s Appliance Mart, Inc.\u201d A witness for the State, Martin Hall, testified that the stolen merchandise was \u201cowned by Lawrence Denny, the owner of Denny\u2019s Appliance Mart.\u201d On cross-examination, Hall testified that he could not answer whether the property was owned by Denny personally or whether it was part of the inventory of Denny\u2019s Appliance Mart, Inc. He further explained that Denny\u2019s Appliance Mart, Inc., a corporation, was a \u201csole proprietorship\u201d of Lawrence Denny, that Denny did business as Denny\u2019s Appliance Mart, Inc., and that Denny was personally responsible for the merchandise under a floor plan arrangement with Borg Warner. We conclude that there was no fatal variance between the allegations in the bill and the proof at trial. The indictment certainly seems to have served the purpose of the rule as to variance. It advised defendant of exactly what and whose property he was alleged to have taken and was sufficient to enable him to prepare his defense and to protect him from a subsequent prosecution for the same offense.\nDefendant discharged his court-appointed attorney when the case was called for trial. On appeal, he argues that it was error for the court to refuse to continue the case until he could seek out and employ another attorney or prepare to represent himself. He further argues that it was error for the court to allow court-appointed counsel to remain nearby and offer such help as defendant might request. Those arguments do not merit discussion.\nWe have reviewed the assignments of error brought forward on appeal and conclude that no prejudicial error has been shown.\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Kaye R. Webb, for the State.",
      "Ramsey, Hubbard & Galloway, by Mark Galloway, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BARRY CHAPPEL\nNo. 789SC30\n(Filed 6 June 1978)\n1. Constitutional Law \u00a7 30; Bills of Discovery \u00a7 6\u2014 discovery \u2014criminal record of State\u2019s witness\nThe trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s pretrial motion to require the State to furnish to him the criminal record of a State\u2019s witness did not violate defendant\u2019s right of confrontation or G.S. 15A-903(d), since defendant was afforded his right of confrontation when the witness testified at the trial, and G.S. 15A-903(d) does not require the production of a proposed witness\u2019s criminal record.\n2. Larceny \u00a7 7.3\u2014 ownership of property \u2014 no fatal variance\nIn this prosecution for larceny, there was no fatal variance between indictment and proof as to ownership of the stolen property where the indictment alleged the larceny of the property of \u201cLawrence Denny, D/B/A Denny\u2019s Appliance Mart, Inc.\u201d and a witness testified that the stolen merchandise was owned by Lawrence Denny, the owner of Denny\u2019s Appliance Mart, that he could not answer whether the property was owned by Denny personally or whether it was part of the corporation\u2019s inventory, and that Denny was personally responsible for the merchandise under a floor plan arrangement with Borg Warner.\n3. Constitutional Law \u00a7 46; Criminal Law \u00a7 91.4\u2014 discharge of court-appointed counsel \u2014 denial of continuance to obtain new counsel \u2014allowing court-appointed counsel to remain nearby\nWhere defendant discharged his court-appointed attorney when his case was called for trial, the trial court did not err in refusing to continue the case until defendant could seek out and employ another attorney or prepare to represent himself or in allowing court-appointed counsel to remain nearby and offer such help as defendant might request.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Preston, Judge. Judgment entered 20 October 1977 in Superior Court, PERSON County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 May 1978.\nDefendant was tried on a bill of indictment charging him with, on 15 September 1976, feloniously breaking and entering a building occupied by \u201cLawrence Denny, D/B/A Denny\u2019s Appliance Mart, Inc.,\u201d and with the felonious larceny therefrom of a Sylvania amplifier and two speakers, the property of \u201cLawrence Denny, D/B/A Denny\u2019s Appliance Mart, Inc.,\u201d and having a value of $1,029.85.\nDefendant waived counsel at his hearing when probable cause was found, but subsequently the attorney who represented him on this appeal was appointed. When the case was called for trial in October, 1977, defendant discharged his court-appointed counsel and, at his own insistence, attempted to represent himself. Court-appointed counsel was directed to make himself available throughout the trial for such assistance as defendant might desire.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that the amplifier in question was in the store when it was closed about 5:30 p.m. on 15 September 1976. It was missing when the store manager was called to the premises later that night. A hole had been knocked in a back door, and a window had been broken. Some time later the police located a witness, Newman, who testified that he saw defendant beating on the back door of the store around 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. on the date of the theft. Defendant traded the stolen amplifier to Samuel Bullock from whom it was recovered by the police.\nDefendant did not testify but offered evidence tending to show that he was elsewhere when the crime took place. He also elicited testimony tending to show that Denny\u2019s Appliance Mart, Inc. was a corporation solely owned by Lawrence Denny.\nDefendant was found guilty as charged, and judgment imposing consecutive prison sentences was entered.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Kaye R. Webb, for the State.\nRamsey, Hubbard & Galloway, by Mark Galloway, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0608-01",
  "first_page_order": 636,
  "last_page_order": 639
}
