{ "id": 2673312, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAY MELVIN QUINERLY", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Quinerly", "decision_date": "1981-02-03", "docket_number": "No. 803SC846", "first_page": "563", "last_page": "564", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "50 N.C. App. 563" } ], "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": [], "analysis": { "cardinality": 304, "char_count": 4430, "ocr_confidence": 0.784, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.1266542374778147e-07, "percentile": 0.7652803310154376 }, "sha256": "6bc67d2303e2c102f36d0058242ec8cc674f0f3f6114a68fadffb1f47d25240c", "simhash": "1:99252094a3fc1af0", "word_count": 747 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:39:05.008611+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges MARTIN (Robert M.) and Clark concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAY MELVIN QUINERLY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nWe note at the outset that defendant has failed to follow many of the Rules of Appellate Procedure with respect to the preparation of the record on appeal and the appellant\u2019s brief. Counsel apparently has confused \u201cassignments of error\u201d with \u201cexceptions.\u201d Nowhere in the record has defendant noted an exception, although in the record where an exception would ordinarily be noted, counsel has caused an \u201cassignment of error\u201d to be placed. Although defendant purports to set out in the record ten \u201cassignments of error,\u201d he has undertaken to bring forward and argue only eight. Only six of the assignments of error brought forward and argued in the brief are supported by an \u201cassignment of error.\u201d\nDefendant argues, apparently based upon \u201cAssignments of Error Nos. 21 and 22,\u201d that the court erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss. The State offered evidence tending to show the following: At approximately 7:45 p.m. on 1 October 1979, Glen Hale, owner and manager of a Piggly Wiggly grocery store in New Bern, North Carolina, and his wife were leaving the store after closing when a black male wearing a stocking mask over his face, a blue \u201cjogging type sweater\u201d with a hood, brown pants, and brown work gloves, ran toward them. The man had a gun pointed at Hale. Hale, who was carrying a .32 automatic pistol, turned and fired six times at the man, who fled. Approximately one hour later, police went to an apartment at 02310 Craven Terrace, about six blocks from the store, where they found defendant lying on the floor in the living room, bleeding from gunshot wounds. The apartment was the residence of defendant\u2019s aunt. On the living room couch, officers found a damp, dark blue hooded sweatshirt with a hole in it and a \u201cbrowning red stain\u201d on it. Defendant was taken to the hospital emergency room for treatment, where clothes he was wearing, including a pair of brown trousers, a pair'of tennis shoes, and the sweatshirt were taken into custody by police. The tread pattern on the bottom of the tennis shoes was found to be similar to a footprint found near a mud puddle behind the store and to other footprints in the area. No other shootings were reported that evening, according to a police investigator. We hold that this evidence is clearly sufficient to require submission of the case to the jury and to support its verdict.\nWe have carefully examined defendant\u2019s remaining arguments which are supported by \u201cAssignments of Error Nos. 1,2,3,4, 5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 and 20,\u201d and we find all to be without merit.\nWe hold that defendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges MARTIN (Robert M.) and Clark concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HEDRICK, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General Isham B. Hudson, Jr., for the State.", "Ward and Smith, by Susan Henri Johnson, for the defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAY MELVIN QUINERLY\nNo. 803SC846\n(Filed 3 February 1981)\nRobbery \u00a7 4.3\u2014 armed robbery of grocery store manager \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nEvidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury in a prosecution for armed robbery where it tended to show that a black male wearing a stocking mask over his face ran toward the manager of a grocery store who was leaving the store after closing; the man had a gun pointed at the manager; the manager, who was carrying an automatic pistol, turned and fired six times at the man who then fled; approximately an hour later police went to an apartment about six blocks from the store where they found defendant lying on the floor bleeding from gunshot wounds; the apartment was the residence of defendant\u2019s aunt; defendant was taken to the hospital where clothes he was wearing, including trousers and tennis shoes, were taken into custody by police; the tread pattern on the bottom of the tennis shoes was found to be similar to a footprint found near a mud puddle behind the store and to other footprints in the area; and no other shootings were reported that evening.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Strickland, Judge. Judgment entered 23 April 1980 in Superior Court, CRAVEN County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 January 1981.\nDefendant was charged with attempted armed robbery in violation of G.S. \u00a7 14-87(a) and following a plea of not guilty, the jury found defendant guilty as charged. From a judgment imposing a prison sentence of \u201cfifteen (15) years minimum, twenty (20) years maximum,\u201d defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General Isham B. Hudson, Jr., for the State.\nWard and Smith, by Susan Henri Johnson, for the defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0563-01", "first_page_order": 589, "last_page_order": 590 }