{
  "id": 8526776,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MIGUEL SANTOS PEREZ a/k/a MIGUEL SOTO",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Perez",
  "decision_date": "1981-12-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 813SC592",
  "first_page": "92",
  "last_page": "94",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "55 N.C. App. 92"
    }
  ],
  "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": "212 S.E. 2d 213",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "216"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 732",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554668
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "735"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/24/0732-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 S.E. 2d 93",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1950,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "95"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 N.C. 377",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8601946
      ],
      "year": 1950,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "378"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/232/0377-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "239 S.E. 2d 835",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 N.C. 242",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572494
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/294/0242-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 296,
    "char_count": 4152,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.812,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2798751381618972e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7850309033461024
    },
    "sha256": "3ab99f0c20757272f4c8e22788ab016e0c82cde7a6fc67de7e3ac7a8111337fb",
    "simhash": "1:9f0fe4ff37a3bc78",
    "word_count": 695
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:47.759339+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Webb and Hill concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MIGUEL SANTOS PEREZ a/k/a MIGUEL SOTO"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nDefendant argues the judgments against him should be vacated because the verdict form fails to specify with what offense defendant was charged in each count. The verdicts, however, can be given proper interpretation by reference to the indictment, the evidence and the court\u2019s instructions. State v. Hampton, 294 N.C. 242, 239 S.E. 2d 835 (1978). Defendant\u2019s assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.\nDefendant contends that the judge committed prejudicial error in that he failed to instruct the jury that it must find that defendant knowingly possessed and sold the controlled substance in order to find him guilty. On the facts of this case, the argument is without merit. It is the duty of the judge to declare and explain the law arising on the evidence in the case then being tried. Here the State\u2019s evidence discloses that, after the agent\u2019s request for heroin and payment of $100.00, the defendant went into a duplex, came out shortly thereafter and handed the agent five bags of heroin. Defendant\u2019s evidence did not raise a question as to whether he knew the heroin he sold was in his possession. He denied selling or possessing anything.\n\u201cA person is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act. [Citations omitted.] Hence, ordinarily, where a specific intent is not an element of the crime, proof of the commission of the unlawful act is sufficient to support a verdict. [Citation omitted.] ....\nNothing else appearing, it would not be necessary for the court, in the absence of a prayer, to make reference in its charge to guilty knowledge or intent. Scienter is presumed.\nState v. Elliott, 232 N.C. 377, 378, 61 S.E. 2d 93, 95 (1950).\nWhere, however, a question of guilty knowledge is raised, it then becomes an essential element of the crime which the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It is only then that the \u201cdue process\u201d arguments advanced by defendant would be relevant. Here, as in State v. Gleason, 24 N.C. App. 732, 212 S.E. 2d 213 (1975),\n\u201cthe issue of guilty knowledge is not presented by the evidence, and there was no prayer for instructions. Under these circumstances we do not find error in the failure of the trial court to give instructions on guilty knowledge, either of the fact of \u2018possession\u2019 or of the fact of \u2018narcotic character.\u2019 \u201d\n24 N.C. App. at 735, 212 S.E. 2d at 216.\nNo error.\nJudges Webb and Hill concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General Isham B. Hudson, Jr., for the State.",
      "Appellate Defender Project for North Carolina, by Adam Stein and James H. Gold, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MIGUEL SANTOS PEREZ a/k/a MIGUEL SOTO\nNo. 813SC592\n(Filed 1 December 1981)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 124\u2014 sufficiency of verdicts\nJudgments against defendant were not invalid because the verdict form failed to specify with what offense defendant was charged in each count since the verdicts can be given proper interpretation by reference to the indictment, the evidence and the court\u2019s instructions.\n2. Narcotics \u00a7 4.5\u2014 instructions \u2014knowledge of possession and sale\nThe trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury that it must find that defendant knowingly possessed and sold heroin in order to find him guilty of felonious possession of heroin with intent to sell and felonious sale of heroin where the issue of guilty knowledge was not presented by the evidence and there was no prayer for instructions.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Fountain, Judge. Judgment entered 30 October 1979 in Superior Court, PITT County. Writ of Certiorari issued by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on 20 April 1981. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 November 1981.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that defendant sold and delivered five bindles of heroin to an S.B.I. agent for $100.00. Defendant\u2019s evidence was to the effect that he had never sold anything to the agent and was not even in the area where the drugs were alleged to have been sold.\nDefendant was convicted of felonious possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell and of felonious sale of such controlled substance. Judgments imposing prison sentences were entered.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General Isham B. Hudson, Jr., for the State.\nAppellate Defender Project for North Carolina, by Adam Stein and James H. Gold, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0092-01",
  "first_page_order": 124,
  "last_page_order": 126
}