{
  "id": 8548376,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM TIMOTHY LAIL, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lail",
  "decision_date": "1979-05-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 7827SC1167",
  "first_page": "178",
  "last_page": "182",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "41 N.C. App. 178"
    }
  ],
  "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": "177 S.E. 2d 724",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 N.C. App. 105",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551215
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/10/0105-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "391 U.S. 216",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1767417
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/391/0216-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 S.E. 2d 179",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "182",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis in original"
        },
        {
          "page": "183"
        },
        {
          "page": "183"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.C. 397",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575256
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "403",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis in original"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/281/0397-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 410,
    "char_count": 7133,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.822,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.51728655158365e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3446492440292851
    },
    "sha256": "63b2608c8446a90491b6189963e34af6bf773824267e1622984e5e0795b6f15c",
    "simhash": "1:106d22c6d74675fa",
    "word_count": 1218
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:02:40.540741+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge MORRIS and Judge CLARK concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM TIMOTHY LAIL, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s argument that hearsay testimony was admitted is without merit. None of the testimony which defendant challenges under this assignment of error falls within the definition of hearsay, that is, an assertion of a person other than the witness which is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. 1 Stansbury\u2019s N.C. Evidence \u00a7 138 (Brandis rev. 1973). Two of the challenged statements are testimony as to what the witness told the defendant, the third is not an assertion, and the fourth is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted but merely to prove that a statement was made.\nDefendant contends that the court improperly admitted into evidence testimony about the search of defendant\u2019s vehicle which revealed the pistol. He would have us find that the warrantless search was unreasonable. However, our Supreme Court has indicated that \u201c[i]n recognition of the mobility of automobiles, a search of an automobile without a warrant is constitutionally permissible if there is probable cause to make the search.\u201d State v. Ratliff, 281 N.C. 397, 403, 189 S.E. 2d 179, 182 (1972) (emphasis in original). And there is ample evidentiary support here for the trial court\u2019s conclusion that probable cause existed. Jones told OF ficer Sprott that he took part in the break-in, and that he gave the pistol he stole to defendant, who put it in his trousers. A pat-down of defendant revealed no weapon, but in response to Sprott\u2019s question defendant pointed out his vehicle \"fifteen to twenty feet from where he was at that point.\u201d These facts are sufficient to give the officers probable cause to believe that their search of the vehicle would reveal \u201c \u2018the instrumentality of a crime or evidence pertaining to a crime.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 403, 189 S.E. 2d at 183, quoting Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U.S. 216, 20 L.Ed. 2d 538, 88 S.Ct. 1472 (1968).\nNor does the fact that a number of officers were on the scene and, as defendant argues, \u201cone or more of the officers could . . . have remained with the defendant\u2019s vehicle while one or more of the officers left the scene to secure a search warrant\u201d affect this result. \u201cIf there is probable cause to search an automobile, the officer may either seize and hold the vehicle before presenting the probable cause issue to a magistrate, or he may carry out an immediate search without a warrant.\u201d State v. Ratliff, supra at 403, 189 S.E. 2d at 183.\nDavid Jones was allowed to testify about the statement he gave Officer Sprott after he was taken into custody, and the jury was instructed that the statement was offered only as corroboration of Jones\u2019 other testimony. Defendant argues that it was improper to admit corroborative testimony, since the witness had not been impeached. However, in North Carolina the scope of impeachment as a prerequisite to corroboration is extremely broad, see 1 Stansbury\u2019s N.C. Evidence \u00a7 50 (Brandis rev. 1973), and recent cases ignore the requirement of impeachment altogether. E.g. State v. Fields, 10 N.C. App. 105, 177 S.E. 2d 724 (1970).\nMoreover, we find no prejudice to defendant from the admission of the challenged testimony. Only one of the witness\u2019s answers referred to defendant (\u201cI told him that I sold [the pistol] to [defendant]\u201d), and this evidence had already been admitted. Asked \u201c[A]nd did you tell him anything about what if anything you all told [defendant] about where the gun came from?\u201d Jones answered only, \u201cI don\u2019t believe so \u2014 not at the time.\u201d We find no prejudicial error in the admission of the corroboration.\nWe have considered defendant\u2019s other assignments of error, and we find that they are without merit.\nNo error.\nChief Judge MORRIS and Judge CLARK concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General James Wallace, Jr., for the State.",
      "Robert H. Forbes for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM TIMOTHY LAIL, JR.\nNo. 7827SC1167\n(Filed 1 May 1979)\n1. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 11\u2014 warrantless search of vehicle \u2014probable cause\nOfficers had probable cause to believe that a search of defendant\u2019s vehicle would reveal a pistol which had been taken during a break-in and a war-rantless search of the vehicle was not unreasonable where a person told an officer that he took part in the break-in; that he gave the pistol he stole to defendant who put it in his trousers; a pat-down of defendant revealed no weapon; and in response to the officer\u2019s question as to whether he had a vehicle, defendant pointed out his van which was fifteen or twenty feet from defendant.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 89.2\u2014 witness not impeached \u2014 corroborative testimony admissible\nThe trial court did not err in admitting corroborative testimony though the witness had not been impeached.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Gaines, Judge. Judgment entered 9 August 1978 in Superior Court, GASTON County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 March 1979.\nDefendant was indicted for feloniously receiving stolen goods, a .38 caliber Colt pistol and holster. The State presented evidence that on 6 April 1978 the residence of Jack Black was broken into, and some old money, a Seiko watch, and a .38 caliber Colt pistol were stolen. At trial Black identified State\u2019s Exhibit No. 1 as his pistol.\nDavid Guy Jones testified that on 6 April he and defendant\u2019s son, Troy, broke into two houses, and from the second house he took some old money, a Seiko watch, and a .38 caliber pistol. He put the money and watch in his pocket and the gun in his pants. He then went to a gas station, where he sold the gun to defendant. Over objection, Jones testified that he and Troy told defendant that the gun was stolen before he bought it from them. State\u2019s Exhibit No. 1 appeared to be the same gun and holster that he sold to defendant.\nOfficer Sprott of the Gastonia Police took Jones into custody at the gas station and advised him of his rights. Jones then told Sprott \u201cthat he was in fact one of the persons involved in the break-in. ... I asked Mr. Jones if he could tell me where [the] pistol was. He stated that it was given to [defendant] while they were at the station before I arrived.\u201d Defendant was standing nearby. Sprott patted him down and found no gun on him, so he asked defendant if he had a vehicle and defendant pointed out a red van fifteen to twenty feet away. Sprott asked Officer Self to search the vehicle for the weapon. Sprott identified State\u2019s Exhibit No. 1 as the weapon later given to him by Officer Self. Having received the weapon, Sprott placed defendant under arrest.\nOfficer Self of the Gastonia Police testified that he searched the red van defendant indicated as his vehicle and found a pistol in a holster under the driver\u2019s seat. He gave this pistol to Officer Sprott. The trial court found facts and concluded that there was probable cause for the search, that a warrantless search was justified due to the mobility of the vehicle and the information Sprott had obtained from Jones, and that the pistol was admissible into evidence.\nDefendant presented no evidence. He was found guilty of feloniously receiving stolen goods and sentenced to five to seven years. Defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General James Wallace, Jr., for the State.\nRobert H. Forbes for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0178-01",
  "first_page_order": 206,
  "last_page_order": 210
}