{
  "id": 8549829,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: REGINALD JEROME THOMAS",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Thomas",
  "decision_date": "1980-03-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 799DC804",
  "first_page": "525",
  "last_page": "527",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "45 N.C. App. 525"
    }
  ],
  "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": "190 S.E. 2d 471",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.C. 622",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575810,
        8575850,
        8575823,
        8575802,
        8575837
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/281/0622-02",
        "/nc/281/0622-05",
        "/nc/281/0622-03",
        "/nc/281/0622-01",
        "/nc/281/0622-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 S.E. 2d 643",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 N.C. App. 387",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549680
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/14/0387-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "218 S.E. 2d 869",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 227",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552166
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/27/0227-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 S.E. 2d 614",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "617"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 N.C. 640",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558867
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "644"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/291/0640-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 S.E. 2d 591",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 N.C. 640",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573829
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/298/0640-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "397 U.S. 358",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        12054393
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/397/0358-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "403 U.S. 528",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        12027325
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/403/0528-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "387 U.S. 1",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11333627
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/387/0001-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 342,
    "char_count": 5006,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.823,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3793570590408939
    },
    "sha256": "eada5192934572dce8cef9baa59120c6a475a0453adcd2d211cfac112f5dfe5f",
    "simhash": "1:0debf434c0d50dd6",
    "word_count": 827
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:38.339487+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF: REGINALD JEROME THOMAS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CLARK, Judge.\nIn a petition under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-281 (repealed, effective 1 January 1980, but see N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-560), respondent juvenile was charged with breaking and entering a coin-operated machine on 20 April 1979 and larceny of $60.00 therefrom.\nAt the hearing on 7 May 1979 respondent was represented by counsel. The State was not represented by the District Attorney or other counsel. The State offered three witnesses, all of whom were examined by the trial judge and cross-examined by respondent\u2019s counsel. Respondent offered no evidence.\nRespondent appeals from the order and commitment to the North Carolina Board of Youth Development.\nRespondent argues that his due process rights were violated in that the trial judge examined the witnesses for the State because of the absence of the District Attorney or other counsel to represent the State. The argument has merit.\nThe record on appeal reveals that the trial judge examined all three witnesses. The record does not reveal that he asked leading questions or was otherwise unfair during the course of the hearing. However, the judge, at least technically, assumed the role of prosecuting attorney in examining the State\u2019s witnesses.\nIn re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 18 L.Ed. 2d 527, 87 S.Ct. 1428 (1967), focused on the various rights that make up \u201cdue process\u201d in juvenile proceedings that could lead to detention. The court commented that a juvenile court was not a social agency and that unbridled discretion, however benevolently motivated, was frequently a poor substitute for principle and procedure. The court ruled that the due process rights which must be afforded a juvenile included sufficient notice to prepare a defense, and to be advised of the right to counsel, the right to remain silent, and the right of confrontation and cross examination. See McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 29 L.Ed. 2d 647, 91 S.Ct. 1976 (1971); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 25 L.Ed. 2d 368, 90 S.Ct. 1068 (1970). See also, In re Vinson, 298 N.C. 640, 260 S.E. 2d 591 (1979) for a discussion on the new North Carolina Juvenile Code, effective 1 January 1980.\nJustice Exum, for the court, in In re Arthur, 291 N.C. 640, 644, 231 S.E. 2d 614, 617 (1976), stated:\n\u201cWhile not all the provisions of the Bill of Rights are applicable to juvenile proceedings through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, supra; In re Gault, supra, we doubt the validity of the proposition that any applicable provision might nevertheless be given less force or vigor in juvenile proceedings than in adult criminal prosecutions. . . .\u201d\nThe decision reversed the Court of Appeals decision, 27 N.C. App. 227, 218 S.E. 2d 869, and held as inadmissible in evidence the written report of an S.B.I. laboratory analysis in a juvenile hearing.\nApplying this pronouncement to the circumstances of the case sub judice, we doubt the validity of the proposition that the presiding judge in a juvenile proceeding that could lead to detention should assume the role of prosecuting attorney where the juvenile is represented by counsel and the hearing is adversary in nature. Such procedure would clearly violate due process in adult criminal prosecutions. Nor does a dual role of judge and prosecutor measure up to the essentials of due process and fair treatment in juvenile proceedings where detention could result.\nThe State relies on In re Potts, 14 N.C. App. 387, 188 S.E. 2d 643, cert. denied, 281 N.C. 622, 190 S.E. 2d 471 (1972), but we find this case to be distinguished by the fact that, though the District Attorney was not present to represent the State, someone other than the judge examined the State\u2019s witnesses.\nIt is noted that the trial court made no findings of fact. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-285 provides that the Court order shall contain \u201cappropriate findings of fact.\u201d The conclusion that respondent was an undisciplined child should have been supported by findings of fact relative to the charges of breaking and entering and larceny.\nThe order and commitment are\nReversed and the cause is remanded.\nJudges Vaughn and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CLARK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General R. W. Newsom III for the State.",
      "Jackson & Hicks by Alan S. Hicks for respondent appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: REGINALD JEROME THOMAS\nNo. 799DC804\n(Filed 4 March 1980)\nInfants \u00a7 16\u2014 juvenile delinquency hearing \u2014 trial judge\u2019s assumption of role of prosecuting attorney \u2014 due process\nThe respondent in a juvenile delinquency hearing who was represented by counsel was denied due process by the trial judge\u2019s examination of the witnesses for the State because of the absence of the district attorney or other counsel for the State, since the hearing was adversary in nature and the trial judge in effect assumed the role of the prosecuting attorney.\nAPPEAL by respondent juvenile from Allen (C. WJ, Jr., Judge. Order and Commitment entered 7 May 1979 in District Court, PERSON County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 January 1980.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General R. W. Newsom III for the State.\nJackson & Hicks by Alan S. Hicks for respondent appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0525-01",
  "first_page_order": 553,
  "last_page_order": 555
}