{
  "id": 8549890,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA V. JAMES ROBERT WINFREY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Winfrey",
  "decision_date": "1979-03-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 7821SC1042",
  "first_page": "266",
  "last_page": "269",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "40 N.C. App. 266"
    }
  ],
  "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": "250 S.E. 2d 630",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "635"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 N.C. 314",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565892
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "320-21"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/296/0314-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 S.Ct. 2674",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "case_ids": [
        1769234
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "672"
        },
        {
          "page": "2676-77"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/438/0154-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 391,
    "char_count": 6817,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.834,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.0465872939281685e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8556215053464507
    },
    "sha256": "7928e8f3663516c13aa5fd126cf065c70d7a5ac1410ee068f7120b18c646f66f",
    "simhash": "1:a06e25324ec72ab7",
    "word_count": 1119
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:01:10.825727+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Clark concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA V. JAMES ROBERT WINFREY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nThe record contains eight assignments of error, seven of which defendant has brought forward in three separate arguments in his brief. All of these assignments of error relate to evidentiary rulings by the trial judge at the hearing on defendant\u2019s motion to suppress. The affiant, a police officer, testified at the hearing that he took the informer to the house, gave him ten dollars, and told him to try to buy some marijuana from the occupants of the house; that the informer was gone about five minutes and was out of his sight for approximately three of these five minutes; that the informer was unable to buy any drugs but that he had been able to observe several individuals inside the house smoking marijuana. Using this information, the officer then appeared before a magistrate, obtained the search warrant, executed it and seized the drugs that were the subject of the motion to suppress.\nThe defendant, by cross-examination of the officer, and by testimony from the occupants of the house, attempted to establish that no strangers or persons who the occupants did not know ever gained entry to the house or could have seen any drugs on the night in question. Objections by the State\u2019s attorney to several questions by defense counsel aimed at disclosing this information were sustained by the trial judge.\nThe essence of defendant\u2019s argument on appeal is that the court erred \u201cin not allowing counsel for the defendant to contest the truthfulness of the testimony showing probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant.\u201d Defendant argues that he was entitled to introduce the evidence excluded by the trial judge under the authority of G.S. \u00a7 15A-978(a), which provides:\nA defendant may contest the validity of a search warrant and the admissibility of evidence obtained thereunder by contesting the truthfulness of the testimony showing probable cause for its issuance. The defendant may contest the truthfulness of the testimony by cross-examination or by offering evidence. For the purposes of this section, truthful testimony is testimony which reports in good faith the circumstances relied on to establish probable cause.\nWe think that defendant attempts to read too much into this statute, and for the reasons stated below, we affirm the trial court\u2019s ruling.\nThe statute permits a defendant to challenge only whether the affiant acted in good faith in including the information used to establish probable cause; it does not permit a defendant to attack the factual accuracy of the information supplied by an informant to the affiant. This conclusion is supported by the Official Commentary to G.S. \u00a7 15A-978(a), which states in part, \u201c[T]he testimony given in support of probable cause should be subject to challenge on the ground that it was untruthful in the sense that it was not given in good faith, but not on the ground that it was objectively inaccurate due to an honest mistake.\u201d This limited reading of the statute is in accord with the recent case of Franks v. Delaware, --- U.S. ---,98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed. 2d 667 (1978), holding:\n[W]here the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the af-fiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant\u2019s request. In the event that at that hearing the allegation of perjury or reckless disregard is established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, and, with the affidavit\u2019s false material set to one side, the affidavit\u2019s remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit.\nId. at \u2014, 57 L.Ed. 2d at 672, 98 S.Ct. at 2676-77, accord, State v. Louchheim, 296 N.C. 314, 320-21, 250 S.E. 2d 630, 635 (1979).\nSince all of defendant\u2019s questions were directed toward showing that the supporting affidavit contained false statements, and none were designed to disclose any bad faith on the part of the af-fiant, we hold that the trial judge properly sustained the State\u2019s objections. The court\u2019s conclusion that the police officer acted in good faith in obtaining the warrant is supported by the evidence adduced at the hearing.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Vaughn and Clark concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Donald W. Stephens, for the State.",
      "Morrow, Fraser, and Reavis, by Larry G. Reavis, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA V. JAMES ROBERT WINFREY\nNo. 7821SC1042\n(Filed 6 March 1979)\nSearches and Seizures \u00a7 47\u2014 validity of warrant \u2014 truthfulness of testimony showing probable cause \u2014effect of statute\nThe statute permitting a defendant to contest the validity of a search warrant and the admissibility of evidence obtained thereunder \u201cby contesting the truthfulness of the testimony showing probable cause for its issuance,\u201d 6.S. 15A-978(a), permits a defendant to challenge only whether the affiant acted in good faith in the use of information employed to establish probable cause and not to attack the factual accuracy of the information supplied by an informant to the affiant. Therefore, the trial court in a hearing on a motion to suppress properly excluded questions by defense counsel which were designed to show that the supporting affidavit contained false statements and not to show bad faith on the part of the affiant.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Rousseau, Judge. Judgment entered 13 July 1978 in Superior Court, FORSYTH County. Heard in the Court of Appeals on 8 February 1979.\nDefendant was charged in separate bills of indictment, proper in form, with felonious possession of marijuana and hashish. Prior to pleading, defendant moved to suppress the evidence on the grounds that it was obtained as a result of an unconstitutional search of his residence, and filed affidavits in support of his motion. A hearing was held on the motion in which defendant attempted to show that the affidavit on which the warrant was based contained false information that was crucial for the probable cause determination. At the end of the hearing, the court concluded \u201cthat the officer had probable cause to believe that the informer was telling the truth and that the officer acted in good faith in obtaining the search warrant\u201d and denied defendant\u2019s motion to suppress. Defendant pleaded guilty to the charges and received a six to twelve month sentence on the marijuana charge and a three to five year sentence on the hashish charge. Both of these sentences were suspended and defendant was placed on probation for a period of five years. Defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Donald W. Stephens, for the State.\nMorrow, Fraser, and Reavis, by Larry G. Reavis, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0266-01",
  "first_page_order": 294,
  "last_page_order": 297
}