{
  "id": 8548327,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT BARNETT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Barnett",
  "decision_date": "1979-05-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 7927SC13",
  "first_page": "171",
  "last_page": "174",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "41 N.C. App. 171"
    }
  ],
  "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": "213 S.E. 2d 335",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "287 N.C. 37",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560972
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/287/0037-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 S.E. 2d 632",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 N.C. App. 455",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548891
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/6/0455-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 S.E. 2d 694",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 N.C. App. 588",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551422
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/14/0588-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 S.E. 2d 358",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.C. 761",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8577000,
        8576941,
        8576974,
        8577013,
        8576957
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/281/0761-04",
        "/nc/281/0761-01",
        "/nc/281/0761-03",
        "/nc/281/0761-05",
        "/nc/281/0761-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 S.E. 2d 798",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 N.C. App. 265",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549687
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/15/0265-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 610",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 108",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571146
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0108-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 446,
    "char_count": 7321,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.802,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5150966656375198e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6682518942224045
    },
    "sha256": "cc879d45413cb16908c33ad0edae0de87dc0e38b664b17be80482dfff9539887",
    "simhash": "1:77ee6d420072bc3d",
    "word_count": 1230
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:02:40.540741+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges MITCHELL and MARTIN (Harry C.), concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT BARNETT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nDefendant first assigns error to the court\u2019s overruling his objection to the district attorney\u2019s question directed to the State\u2019s witness, James Stewart, as to whether it was Stewart\u2019s \u201cusual practice to go about locking the house\u201d before going to bed. Defendant contends this was error because the witness had just previously testified that he had no recollection concerning locking his house before going to bed on the night of 24 May 1978. Defendant argues that in view of this testimony, whatever Stewart\u2019s \u201cusual practice\u201d may have been, it could not have been relevant in this case. We find no prejudicial error. Although evidence concerning the witness\u2019s usual practice with respect to locking his home may not have been relevant in this case, its admission could hardly have been prejudicial. Defendant was charged with a violation of G.S. 14-54(a) which provides that \u201c[a]ny person who breaks or enters any building with intent to commit any felony or larceny therein is guilty of a felony.\u201d (Emphasis added.) To convict of violating the statute, it is sufficient if the State\u2019s evidence shows either a breaking or an entering; it need not show both. State v. Jones, 272 N.C. 108, 157 S.E. 2d 610 (1967); State v. Lassiter, 15 N.C. App. 265, 189 S.E. 2d 798 cert. denied 281 N.C. 761, 191 S.E. 2d 358 (1972); State v. Pittman, 14 N.C. App. 588, 188 S.E. 2d 694 (1972). In view of the uncontradicted evidence that defendant entered the Stewart dwelling without permission, the admission of evidence as to the \u201cusual practice\u201d of James Stewart with regard to locking his home at night, even if not relevant, was certainly not prejudicial to the defendant. Defendant\u2019s first assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s second assignment of error is directed to the court\u2019s action in overruling his objection to an answer given by the same witness, James Stewart, on direct examination. After the witness testified he had known the defendant for \u201cprobably several years,\u201d the district attorney asked,\nQ. And what did you know his name to be?\nto which the witness replied:\nA. All they call them (sic) was \u201cSpook.\u201d That\u2019s all I knowed for a long time.\nAt that point defense counsel interposed an objection, which was overruled. Exception to this ruling is the basis of defendant\u2019s second assignment of error. He contends that the witness\u2019s answer was objectionable both because it was hearsay and because it tended to impeach defendant\u2019s character when his character was not at issue. We find no error.\nAt the outset we note that defendant made- no motion to strike the witness\u2019s answer. Where, as here, inadmissibility is not indicated by the question but only becomes apparent by some feature of the answer, \u201cthe objection should be made as soon as the inadmissibility becomes known, and should be in the form of a motion to strike out the answer or the objectionable part of it.\u201d 1 Stansbury\u2019s N.C. Evidence (Brandis Revision) \u00a7 27, p. 70. Although defendant here failed to make his objection in the proper form, for purposes of this appeal we will treat it as having been a motion to strike. So treated, we find no error in the court\u2019s ruling. The testimony to which defendant objected was not hearsay. The name a person is called is a fact, and in this case the witness was testifying to such a fact within his own knowledge.\nNor was the testimony inadmissible on the grounds that it showed defendant\u2019s bad character when his character was not at issue. If it be granted that the nickname \u201cSpook\u201d may, under certain circumstances, be not altogether complimentary, nevertheless the testimony was admissible since it was relevant to show the witness\u2019s acquaintance and familiarity with the defendant. Where evidence is relevant for some purpose other than proving character, it is not inadmissible because it incidentally reflects upon character. State v. Penley, 6 N.C. App. 455, 170 S.E. 2d 632 (1969); 1 Stansbury\u2019s N.C. Evidence (Brandis Revision) \u00a7\u00a7 79, 80, 91, 104.\nWe have carefully examined all of defendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error which have been brought forward in defendant\u2019s brief and find no error. There was ample evidence to require submission of the case to the jury; such discrepancies as existed in the State\u2019s evidence were for the jury to resolve; and the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss was properly denied. Defendant\u2019s motion to set the verdict aside was addressed to the discretion of the trial court, State v. Vick, 287 N.C. 37, 213 S.E. 2d 335 (1975), and no abuse of discretion has been shown.\nNo error.\nJudges MITCHELL and MARTIN (Harry C.), concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney T. Michael Todd for the State.",
      "Richard B. Schultz, Assistant Public Defender, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT BARNETT\nNo. 7927SC13\n(Filed 1 May 1979)\n1. Burglary and Unlawful Breakings \u00a7 4\u2014 usual practice of locking doors \u2014 relevancy of evidence \u2014 no prejudice\nIn view of the uneontradicted evidence in a felonious breaking or entering case that defendant entered the victim\u2019s dwelling without permission, the admission of evidence as to the \u201cusual practice\u201d of the victim with regard to locking his home at night, even if not relevant, was certainly not prejudicial to defendant.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 73.2, 85\u2014 defendant\u2019s nickname \u2014 no hearsay \u2014no improper character evidence\nIn a prosecution for felonious breaking or entering, testimony by a victim that he knew defendant by the nickname, Spook, was not inadmissible because it was hearsay or because it tended to impeach defendant\u2019s character when his character was not at issue, since the name a person is called is a fact, not hearsay, and since the testimony was relevant to show the witness\u2019s acquaintance and familiarity with defendant and was therefore not inadmissible even if it did incidentally reflect upon character.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Gaines, Judge. Judgment entered 14 September 1978 in Superior Court, GASTON County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 April 1979.\nDefendant was tried on his plea of not guilty to the charge contained in a bill of indictment, proper in form, that he feloniously broke and entered the dwelling of James Clyde Stewart with the intent to commit the felony of larceny therein. The State presented evidence to show that at approximately 6:30 a.m. on 25 May 1978 James Stewart was awakened by a noise in his bedroom. His pants were lying on a table beside his bed, and he heard the change in them rattle. On turning on the light he saw the defendant, with whom he was already acquainted, standing in his room. A fight ensued, in the course of which Stewart forced defendant out of his house. Both James Stewart and his brother, Clyde Stewart, the only occupants of the house, testified that defendant had not been given permission to come into their home. There was evidence that the back screen door had been cut and that a piece of plywood approximately two feet wide and four feet high, which had been nailed to the rear door over the place where the window was broken out, had been pushed off.\nThe defendant did not introduce evidence. The jury found him guilty of felonious breaking or entering. From judgment on the verdict sentencing defendant to prison for a term of not less than three nor more than five years, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney T. Michael Todd for the State.\nRichard B. Schultz, Assistant Public Defender, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0171-01",
  "first_page_order": 199,
  "last_page_order": 202
}
