{
  "id": 12170630,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. VINCENT THOMPSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Thompson",
  "decision_date": "1981-06-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 8014SC1154",
  "first_page": "629",
  "last_page": "631",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "52 N.C. App. 629"
    }
  ],
  "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": 237,
    "char_count": 3843,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.838,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31921976918345435
    },
    "sha256": "0d8308fb7bce6975384d07e6493b2a77befee67665195f0c7450a596f7b38eb8",
    "simhash": "1:f0ff67f33f6e9ccc",
    "word_count": 604
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T23:00:28.379499+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge MORRIS and Judge MARTIN (Harry C.) concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. VINCENT THOMPSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HILL, Judge.\nDefendant has raised two questions in his brief. The first question, which brings forward assignments of error numbers 1 through 6, raises the issue of whether the trial court erroneously failed to suppress defendant\u2019s inculpatory statements.\nPrior to the first trial in this matter, defendant filed a motion to suppress inculpatory statements made by him on the day of his arrest. He alleged therein that the statements were not made following a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights. At the voir dire hearing on this motion, Investigator Charles Britt of the Durham Police Department was the sole witness. The State also presented into evidence two Waiver of Rights forms and a written confession signed by defendant. After considering this evidence, Judge Godwin ordered that the motion to suppress defendant\u2019s confession be denied. This order was based upon findings of fact and conclusions of law. After a mistrial was declared, defendant\u2019s counsel filed a motion suggesting incapacity to proceed. This motion was granted, and defendant was sent to Dorothea Dix Hospital for observation. At the second trial of this matter, defendant again moved to suppress his confession on the basis of the alleged discovery of additional facts pertinent to the issue of whether he made a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights. Judge Brewer held a voir dire hearing to consider this matter. After considering testimony from Investigator Britt and the psychiatrist who examined defendant, Judge Brewer denied the motion to suppress. He noted that no additional information had been presented which demanded a reconsideration of Judge Godwin\u2019s prior order.\nWe have examined the evidence in the case offered on both voir dire hearings and conclude that the facts found by Judge Godwin are supported by the evidence and amply support the order denying the motion to suppress. At the second trial, after hearing the evidence of Dr. Royal, the psychiatrist who examined defendant at Dorothea Dix Hospital, Judge Brewer entered an order finding that the testimony contained no additional evidence which required reconsideration of Judge Godwin\u2019s order. Our examination of the testimony offered by defendant leads us to the conclusion that Judge Brewer\u2019s order was entirely correct. This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s remaining assignment of error is to the imposition of judgment. Defendant correctly concedes that it is obvious that this assignment of error is answered by the answer to the question above. This assignment of error is also overruled.\nNo Error.\nChief Judge MORRIS and Judge MARTIN (Harry C.) concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HILL, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Daniel F. McLawhorn, for the State.",
      "Gary K. Berman for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. VINCENT THOMPSON\nNo. 8014SC1154\n(Filed 16 June 1981)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 76.7\u2014 admissibility of inculpatory statements \u2014 reliance on determination made at prior trial\nThe evidence on voir dire and the trial court\u2019s findings at defendant\u2019s first trial supported the court\u2019s order denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress in-culpatory in-custody statements, and the trial court at defendant\u2019s second trial did not err in finding that the testimony presented on voir dire at the second trial contained no additional evidence which required reconsideration of the order entered at the first trial.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Brewer, Judge and Godwin, Judge. Judgment entered 25 July 1980 Superior Court, DURHAM County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 April 1981.\nDefendant was charged in a proper bill of indictment with armed robbery. The first trial of this case resulted in mistrial. At the conclusion of the second trial defendant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to a term of eight years minimum, twenty years maximum.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Daniel F. McLawhorn, for the State.\nGary K. Berman for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0629-01",
  "first_page_order": 657,
  "last_page_order": 659
}
