{
  "id": 8553776,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEVEN ANTHONY PUCKETT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Puckett",
  "decision_date": "1979-11-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 7921SC381",
  "first_page": "596",
  "last_page": "600",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "43 N.C. App. 596"
    }
  ],
  "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": "179 S.E. 2d 453",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.C. 105",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559776,
        8559790,
        8559765,
        8559806
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/278/0105-02",
        "/nc/278/0105-03",
        "/nc/278/0105-01",
        "/nc/278/0105-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 S.E. 2d 22",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 N.C. App. 75",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550926
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/10/0075-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 459",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 N.C. App. 287",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552821
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/13/0287-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 S.E. 2d 898",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1946,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.C. 295",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8618216
      ],
      "year": 1946,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0295-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 A.L.R. 3d 798",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 S.E. 2d 456",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1943,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 N.C. 79",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8599098
      ],
      "year": 1943,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/223/0079-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "164 S.E. 2d 86",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 N.C. App. 55",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552804
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "58"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/3/0055-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 S.E. 2d 315",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 N.C. 773",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573051
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/263/0773-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 539,
    "char_count": 10008,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.789,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47319148722570314
    },
    "sha256": "21ef4491cba0f835d15beb29363cc651c0eb1e8e93c460b1f4b7d3032afa8c67",
    "simhash": "1:0cc2df76c06fa0ee",
    "word_count": 1673
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:43:38.047576+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges MARTIN (Robert M.) and WEBB concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEVEN ANTHONY PUCKETT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CLARK, Judge.\nWe elect to consider first the defendant\u2019s contention that the felony charge should have been dismissed because the acetylene torch and ladder were not \u201cimplements of housebreaking\u201d possessed in violation of G.S. 14-55.\nThis statute, in pertinent part, provides: \u201cIf any person . . . shall be found having in his possession, without lawful excuse, any picklock, key, bit, or other implement of housebreaking . . . such person shall be guilty of a felony . . . .\u201d G.S. 14-55 (1979) (prior to amendment concerning sentencing, 1979 N.C. Sess. Laws, c. 760, sec. 5).\nSince neither an acetylene torch nor a ladder is enumerated in the statute, the question is whether the torch or ladder, singly or in combination, are implements of housebreaking within the meaning of G.S. 14-55.\nThe stepladder was two and one-half to three feet long. The acetylene torch was \u201ca big torch with big tanks on a stand,\u201d as described by Deputy Sheriff Young. The indictment alleged that the torch was \u201cmounted on a wheeled stand.\u201d The fact that the ladder and torch were possessed and used by the defendant in breaking open a window in a building is not determinative of the question. The use to which a tool or instrument is put is not necessarily controlling in determining whether it is within the intent of the phrase \u201cor other implement of housebreaking\u201d as contained in G.S. 14-55. State v. Garrett, 263 N.C. 773, 140 S.E. 2d 315 (1965); State v. Godwin, 3 N.C. App. 55, 58, 164 S.E. 2d 86 (1968).\nThe defendant contends that the term \u201cother implements of housebreaking\u201d in G.S. 14-55 is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court of North Carolina has established that \u201cother implements of housebreaking\u201d include those made and designed for housebreaking purposes, or those commonly used for housebreaking, or those reasonably adapted for use in housebreaking. State v. Boyd, 223 N.C. 79, 25 S.E. 2d 456 (1943). See generally, Annot. Validity, Construction, and Application of Statutes Relating to Burglars\u2019 Tools, 33 A.L.R. 3d 798 (1970). This interpretation of the somewhat vague statutory language adds little to the certainty of the crime defined in G.S. 14-55. Nor have the appellate courts of the State in applying this law to various tools and implements established a pattern so as to clarify the crime. See, 2 Strong\u2019s N.C. Index 3d Burglary \u00a7 10.3. Some of the apparently conflicting decisions can be reconciled by variances in the evidence relating to possession \u201cwithout just excuse,\u201d another element of the statutory crime. State v. Baldwin, 226 N.C. 295, 37 S.E. 2d 898 (1946); State v. Boyd, supra; State v. Stockton, 13 N.C. App. 287, 185 S.E. 2d 459 (1971); State v. Shore, 10 N.C. App. 75, 178 S.E. 2d 22 (1970), cert. denied, 278 N.C. 105, 179 S.E. 2d 453 (1971). For an analysis and discussion of the above and other cases see the recent opinion, State v. Bagley, No. 7914SC398 (Filed 2 October 1979).\nThe ladder was unusual in that it was only three feet in length. The acetylene torch was not a small portable hand tool; were it small, the torch might well qualify as a tool reasonably adapted for use in cutting and opening safes or metal boxes used for the safekeeping of money, jewelry, and other valuables. But the acetylene torch possessed by the defendant was a large torch with tanks mounted on a wheeled stand. Neither the ladder nor the acetylene torch possessed by the defendant was reasonably adapted for use in housebreaking and they do not qualify as implements of housebreaking within the meaning of G.S. 14-55. Having reached this conclusion, we do not reach the question of unconstitutional vagueness.\nDefendant next assigns as error the failure to dismiss the charge of aiding and abetting Cathy C.\u2019s escape in violation of G.S. 14-256. This statute provides:\n\u201cIf any person shall break any prison, jail or lockup maintained by any county or municipality in North Carolina, being lawfully confined therein, or shall escape from the lawful custody of any superintendent, guard or officer of such prison, jail or lockup, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.\u201d\nThe Forsyth County Youth Detention Center is a regional detention home. See G.S. 134A-37. Clearly it is the public policy of this State, as expressed in the statutes relating to detention or custodial care of juveniles, that juveniles have a special status apart from adults who are either detained in a jail awaiting trial or confined in a jail or prison pursuant to judgment following conviction. G.S. 7A-286(3) allows temporary detention in a \u201clocal jail\u201d only when \u201cno juvenile detention home\u201d is available. G.S. 110-24 makes it unlawful to place a juvenile in \u201cany jail, prison or other penal institution\u201d except a \u201cjail with a holdover facility for juveniles [which has been] approved by the Department of Human Resources.\u201d We note that G.S. 7A-286(3) and G.S. 110-24 have been repealed; similar provisions, however, have been provided in sections 7A-507(1)(16), 7A-536, and 7A-54H2), (3) of the New Unified Juvenile Criminal Code, 1979 N.C. Adv. Legis. Serv. c. 815.\nIt is also significant that there is a separate statute covering the aiding and abetting of a child to escape from such an institution. G.S. 134A-25 provides:\n\u201cIt shall be unlawful for any person to aid, harbor, conceal or assist any child escape from an institution or youth services program. Any person who renders said assistance to a child shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.\u201d\nWe conclude that a juvenile detention home or center is not a \u201cprison, jail, or lockup\u201d within the meaning of G.S. 14-256, as the warrant charges in the case sub judice. The warrant and the evidence fail to support the verdict and judgment on the charge of aiding and abetting Cathy C. to escape in violation of G.S. 14-256. If the defendant had been charged with a violation of G.S. 134A-25 the evidence would have been sufficient to support a conviction of that offense.\nWe have carefully examined defendant\u2019s other assignments of error and find them to be without merit. We find no error relative to the charge of breaking or entering (78CR23393).\nThe judgment imposed for possession of housebreaking implements (78CR23394) is vacated. That part of the consolidated judgment for aiding in escape (78CR16781) is also vacated, but the misdemeanor breaking or entering judgment (78CR23393) is upheld and supports said judgment providing imprisonment for two years. However, that part of the judgment providing that the sentence shall begin to run upon the expiration of the sentence imposed in 78CR23394 is deleted, and it is ordered that the term of imprisonment therein imposed begin to run from the date the consolidated judgment was entered.\nReversed in part; no error in part.\nJudges MARTIN (Robert M.) and WEBB concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CLARK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney David Gordon for the State.",
      "Stephens, Peed & Brown by Herman L. Stephens for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEVEN ANTHONY PUCKETT\nNo. 7921SC381\n(Filed 6 November 1979)\n1. Burglary and Unlawful Breakings \u00a7 9\u2014 stepladder \u2014 acetylene torch \u2014 no housebreaking implements\nA three foot long stepladder and an acetylene torch possessed by defendant were not reasonably adapted for use in housebreaking and did not qualify as implements of housebreaking within the meaning of G.S. 14-55, and the fact that the ladder and torch were possessed and used by defendant in breaking open a window in a building was not determinative of the question.\n2. Escape \u00a7 1\u2014 juvenile detention center not prison, jail or lockup \u2014 aiding in escape \u2014 crime not charged\nA juvenile detention home or center is not a \u201cprison, jail or lockup\u201d within the meaning of G.S. 14-256, which provides that escape from such a place is a misdemeanor; therefore, the warrant and the evidence failed to support the verdict and judgment on the charge of aiding and abetting a juvenile to escape from a detention center in violation of G.S. 14-256.\nAppeal by defendant from Wood, Judge. Judgment entered 30 November 1978 in Superior Court, FORSYTH County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 August 1979.\nDefendant entered pleas of not guilty to: (1) the misdemeanor charge of breaking into the Forsyth County Youth Detention Center; (2) the misdemeanor charge of aiding and abetting escape in violation of G.S. 14-256; and (3) the felony charge of possession of housebreaking implements, to wit: \u201can acetylene torch mounted on a wheeled stand, and a stepladder . . . .\u201d Defendant appeals from judgments imposing imprisonment.\nState\u2019s Evidence\nOn 18 March 1978 Cathy C., under 16 years of age, was being held at the Forsyth County Detention Center under an order of the District Court. At night she was confined in a small room with a single window covered with a one-fourth inch thick metal screen. The window was seven and one-half to eight feet above ground level. The door to the room was locked from the outside.\nDuring the afternoon of 17 March defendant, 24 years of age, came to the Center and talked through the room window to Cathy C. and two other inmates, telling them that he would return that night and help them escape.\nIn the early hours of 18 March defendant came to the window of Cathy C.\u2019s room with \u201ca big torch with big tanks on a stand,\u201d and a ladder about two and one-half or three feet long. The heavy mesh screen was cut with the torch. Cathy C. climbed out of the window and left with defendant in an automobile. About daylight it was discovered that Cathy C. was missing from her room. The torch stand and ladder were found on the ground under her room window.\nDEFENDANT\u2019S EVIDENCE\nDefendant offered numerous alibi witnesses. Their testimony tended to show that defendant was at a party at the time of the escape.\nDefendant was found guilty as charged. He appeals from the judgment in the felony case (78CR23394) imposing a prison term of ten years and from the consolidated judgment in the misdemeanor cases imposing a sentence of two years to run at the expiration of the felony sentence.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney David Gordon for the State.\nStephens, Peed & Brown by Herman L. Stephens for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0596-01",
  "first_page_order": 624,
  "last_page_order": 628
}
