{ "id": 8523635, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLARENCE CORNELL SHAW", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Shaw", "decision_date": "1981-09-15", "docket_number": "No. 8118SC162", "first_page": "772", "last_page": "776", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "53 N.C. App. 772" } ], "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": "79 S.E. 2d 778", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "239 N.C. 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626244 ], "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/239/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "245 S.E. 2d 779", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "295 N.C. 262", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562691, 8562664, 8562644, 8562743, 8562718 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/295/0262-03", "/nc/295/0262-02", "/nc/295/0262-01", "/nc/295/0262-05", "/nc/295/0262-04" ] }, { "cite": "242 S.E. 2d 187", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "35 N.C. App. 597", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550929 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/35/0597-01" ] }, { "cite": "242 S.E. 2d 814", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "294 N.C. 623", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574161 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/294/0623-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S.Ct. 1936", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "16 L.Ed. 2d 1044", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "384 U.S. 1020", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12095046, 12094727, 12094696, 12094666, 12094635, 12094927, 12094770, 12094866, 12094999, 12094651, 12094815 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/1020-11", "/us/384/1020-05", "/us/384/1020-04", "/us/384/1020-03", "/us/384/1020-01", "/us/384/1020-09", "/us/384/1020-06", "/us/384/1020-08", "/us/384/1020-10", "/us/384/1020-02", "/us/384/1020-07" ] }, { "cite": "141 S.E. 2d 506", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "264 N.C. 277", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572632 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/264/0277-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 504, "char_count": 9633, "ocr_confidence": 0.792, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.1875709749073527e-07, "percentile": 0.7734047429019993 }, "sha256": "6ba2185c60f2e6619f70c2ff364550ced1c008cc7a78288f3319efea2d49b291", "simhash": "1:c619c7490ce459fd", "word_count": 1555 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:33:41.579477+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge MORRIS and Judge WELLS concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLARENCE CORNELL SHAW" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "CLARK, Judge.\nDefendant presents over 100 exceptions to admitted evidence at trial which he argues was irrelevant and prejudicial. We group these assignments of error into evidence offered by State\u2019s witnesses, by defendant upon cross-examination, and by character witnesses in rebuttal by the State.\nThe exceptions to the evidence offered by the State raise the following question: Does the questioned evidence tend to prove any of the elements of the three offenses charged? Evidence is relevant if it has any logical tendency, however slight, to prove a fact in issue in the case. 1 Stansbury\u2019s, N.C. Evidence \u00a7 77 (Bran-dis Rev. 1973). In criminal cases, every circumstance calculated to throw any light on the crime charged is admissible. The weight to be given such evidence is for the jury to determine. State v. Hamilton, 264 N.C. 277, 141 S.E. 2d 506 (1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1020, 16 L.Ed. 2d 1044, 86 S.Ct. 1936 (1966).\nDefendant\u2019s objections relate primarily to Ledbetter\u2019s testimony about his past drug experiences, his drug dealings with others, and past dealings with defendant. The crimes of conspiracy to sell drugs and sale of drugs necessarily involve the relationship between two or more persons, the conspirators and the buyer and seller. And the charge of possession with intent to sell involves guilty knowledge, which in drug cases ordinarily must be shown by circumstantial evidence indicating involvement in drug traffic. In light of these charges against the defendant we find it relevant for the State to offer evidence of Ledbetter\u2019s drug habit and his need to support that habit by dealing in drugs with defendant, of the relationship between Ledbetter and defendant within a reasonable time before the date of the crimes charged, and their modus operandi in drug dealing.\nDefendant\u2019s argument of prejudicial error in the State\u2019s cross-examination of him relates chiefly to questions concerning defendant\u2019s connection with and use of other drug dealers, the presence of plastic bags in the car when defendant was arrested, and the proximity of schools to defendant\u2019s store. The scope of cross-examination of a criminal defendant is broad, may concern any subject which is relevant to the issues in the case; and, for impeachment purposes, specific bad acts may be brought out on cross-examination to show defendant\u2019s character, provided the questions are asked in good faith and are based on information. This wide scope of cross-examination is subject to the witness\u2019s privilege against self-incrimination and the discretion of the trial judge. The witness\u2019s answer is conclusive and cannot be contradicted by other testimony. State v. McLean, 294 N.C. 623, 242 S.E. 2d 814 (1978); 1 Stansbury\u2019s N.C. Evidence \u00a7 111 (Brandis Rev. 1973). The questions to which defendant objected concerned facts previously testified to by State\u2019s witnesses. Therefore, these questions were based upon sufficient information and asked in good faith.\nDefendant also assigns as error the reputation testimony given by Officer Williams in rebuttal. Although Williams was asked about defendant\u2019s general reputation in the community, he responded that defendant had a reputation as a supplier of drugs. The record does not reveal that after the objection was overruled, defendant made either a motion to strike or a request for an instruction to the jury to disregard the testimony. In the absence of such motion or request, defendant is not entitled to be heard to complain of error in the admission of testimony. State v. Huggins, 35 N.C. App. 597, 242 S.E. 2d 187, cert. denied, 295 N.C. 262, 245 S.E. 2d 779 (1978); Highway Comm. v. Black, 239 N.C. 198, 79 S.E. 2d 778 (1954).\nIn his final argument defendant contends that there was a fatal variance between the indictments and the State\u2019s proof concerning the date the offense occurred. The sufficiency of the indictments is not challenged. Defendant\u2019s argument is without merit since Officers Samuels, Baulding, and Williams testified that the $100 drug transaction occurred on 30 August 1979, the date charged in the indictments; and both Samuels and Ledbetter testified that the $50.00 and $100.00 buys occurred on the same day. Under the circumstances Ledbetter\u2019s uncertainty about the exact date did not constitute a variance between allegata and pro-bata.\nWe conclude that the defendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error, there being no \u201creasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached. . . .\u201d G.S. 15A-1443.\nNo error.\nChief Judge MORRIS and Judge WELLS concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "CLARK, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten by Special Deputy Attorney General T. Buie Cos ten for the State.", "E. L. Alston, Jr., for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLARENCE CORNELL SHAW\nNo. 8118SC162\n(Filed 15 September 1981)\n1. Narcotics \u00a7 3.1\u2014 witnesses\u2019 testimony of past drug experiences \u2014 relevancy\nIn light of charges against defendant of (1) possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, (2) sale of cocaine, and (3) conspiracy to sell or deliver cocaine, it was relevant for the State to offer evidence of a State witness\u2019s drug habit and his need to support that habit by dealing in drugs with defendant, of the relationship between the State\u2019s witness and defendant within a reasonable time before the date of the crimes charged, and of their modus operandi in drug dealing.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 88\u2014 cross-examination of defendant \u2014 permissible questions\nQuestions by the State on cross-examination concerning defendant\u2019s connection with and use of other drug dealers, the presence of plastic bags in the car when defendant was arrested, and the proximity of schools to defendant\u2019s store were relevant to the issues in the case, were based upon sufficient information and were asked in good faith; therefore, objections to the questions were properly overruled.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 162\u2014 necessity for motion to strike or request for instruction\nIn the absence of a motion to strike or a request for an instruction to the jury to disregard certain testimony, defendant is not entitled to be heard to complain of error in the admission of the testimony.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 107.2; Narcotics \u00a7 4\u2014 State\u2019s proof concerning date of offense \u2014 no variance\nWhere three officers testified as to the date of certain drug transactions and the date corresponded with the date on the indictment, another witness\u2019s uncertainty about the exact date did not constitute a variance between allegata and probata.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Wood, Judge. Judgments entered 12 June 1980 in Superior Court, GUILFORD County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 31 August 1981.\nDefendant was convicted, as charged, of (1) possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, (2) sale of cocaine, and (3) conspiracy to sell or deliver cocaine all on 30 August 1979. Defendant appeals from judgments imposing concurrent prison terms of not less than 5 nor more than 10 years.\nState\u2019s Evidence\nLarry Ledbetter testified for the State and admitted having a drug habit at the time in question. He obtained drugs from defendant and also, to support his habit, beginning in July 1979, sold and tested drugs for defendant. According to Ledbetter, several other individuals also sold drugs for the defendant. In August, he met undercover agent Timothy Samuels at Shaw\u2019s Curb Market and sold to him cocaine, which he had bought from defendant, for $50.00. Several hours later Samuels returned and wanted to buy more cocaine. He gave $100.00 to Ledbetter, who went inside the market operated by defendant, paid him the $100.00, got the cocaine, and gave it to Samuels.\nAgent Samuels testified that on 30 August 1979, at about 5:00 p.m. he met Ledbetter near Shaw\u2019s Curb Market and gave him $50.00. Several hours later he again met Ledbetter at the market and gave him $100.00 for cocaine. He saw Ledbetter then go into defendant\u2019s convenience store and hand the money to the defendant. Shortly thereafter, Ledbetter and the defendant came out of the store, and Ledbetter gave Samuels a package later identified as cocaine. Police detectives Baulding and Williams also personally observed portions of the transaction described by Samuels.\nIn January of 1980, defendant was arrested, and a large number of small plastic bags were found inside his car. Several larger plastic bags also found in the car contained white powder residue, later identified as cocaine.\nDEFENDANT\u2019S EVIDENCE\nDefendant testified in his own behalf that he was aware of dealings in controlled substances taking place outside his curb market. Defendant acknowledged that he knew Ledbetter, but denied any involvement in illicit drugs or in any drug dealings with Ledbetter. He did not sell cocaine to Ledbetter on 30 August 1979, or at any other time.\nOn cross-examination, defendant admitted knowing Dennis Alexander, from whom Ledbetter had testified he had bought drugs, but defendant denied that Alexander sold drugs for him. Defendant stated that he did not know whether Alexander had lived in a house owned by defendant. He admitted there were small plastic bags in his car when he was arrested, but denied there were larger bags containing white residue. Defendant stated that there were several schools near his market and that students from those schools were regular customers at his market, but he did not know if any students participated in illegal transactions occurring at his curb market.\nOn rebuttal, the State presented evidence that tended to show that defendant\u2019s general reputation in the community in which he did business was that of a supplier of drugs.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Special Deputy Attorney General T. Buie Cos ten for the State.\nE. L. Alston, Jr., for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0772-01", "first_page_order": 800, "last_page_order": 804 }