{
  "id": 8522838,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLIFTON RUDOLPH TAYLOR",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Taylor",
  "decision_date": "1983-04-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 8210SC1022",
  "first_page": "589",
  "last_page": "592",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "61 N.C. App. 589"
    }
  ],
  "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": "274 S.E. 2d 353",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "355-56"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 N.C. App. 531",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2673749
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "535"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/50/0531-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "220 S.E. 2d 213",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "variance in an indictment"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 203",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547681
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "variance in an indictment"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/28/0203-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 S.E. 2d 374",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "305 N.C. 391",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570055
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/305/0391-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 S.E. 2d 812",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 N.C. App. 366",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522553
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/54/0366-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 L.Ed. 2d 795",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 S.Ct. 2164",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "446 U.S. 941",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6277664,
        6275708,
        6276260,
        6274984,
        6278350,
        6275343,
        6278644,
        6279286,
        6278967,
        6277367,
        6276539,
        6275996,
        6278014
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/446/0941-08",
        "/us/446/0941-03",
        "/us/446/0941-05",
        "/us/446/0941-01",
        "/us/446/0941-10",
        "/us/446/0941-02",
        "/us/446/0941-11",
        "/us/446/0941-13",
        "/us/446/0941-12",
        "/us/446/0941-07",
        "/us/446/0941-06",
        "/us/446/0941-04",
        "/us/446/0941-09"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 S.E. 2d 843",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 N.C. 380",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572489
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/298/0380-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 365,
    "char_count": 6722,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.807,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.518461695170957e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28329528092178347
    },
    "sha256": "c5eb2f78da564e93b311ff2b0b75b9cdac80db3f55be07c901c2f1f19b37fe84",
    "simhash": "1:02b99fc026045cd9",
    "word_count": 1111
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:13:54.976609+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Wells and Johnson concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLIFTON RUDOLPH TAYLOR"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HILL, Judge.\nDefendant initially contends that Judge Preston made insufficient findings of fact in his order denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress statements made by him to police officers. Defendant contends that, since his evidence on voir dire conflicted with evidence given by the police officers regarding whether he requested an attorney before making the statements and whether he stated that he did not wish to make a statement, the trial judge was required to make more specific findings of fact resolving the conflicts in testimony. The order entered by the trial judge states as follows:\n1. Defendant was arrested in Alexandria, Virginia on November 8, 1980;\n2. On or about November 10, 1980 an attorney in Alexandria was appointed to represent defendant;\n3. On November 18, 1980 defendant was interviewed by Detective Williams; before the interview defendant was fully advised of his Miranda rights and waived all such rights, including right to have counsel present, both orally and in writing;\n4. On January 28, 1981, defendant was interviewed by Detective Mack; before the interview defendant was fully advised of his Miranda rights and waived all such rights, including right to have counsel present, both orally and in writing;\n5. On both November 10, 1980 and January 28, 1981, defendant was in full possession of his mental faculties and fully understood his rights.\nBased upon the foregoing, the Court concludes as a matter of law that prior to both interviews defendant was fully and properly advised of his rights, that defendant fully understood his rights, that his oral and written waiver of rights were free, voluntary and understanding; and the Motion to Suppress is, therefore, denied.\nWe find no error. The trial judge made the essential finding that defendant waived his Miranda rights both orally and in writing. State v. Reynolds, 298 N.C. 380, 259 S.E. 2d 843 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 941, 100 S.Ct. 2164, 64 L.Ed. 2d 795 (1980). The order sufficiently resolves the basic question of whether defendant was fully and properly advised of his rights and made a waiver of those rights freely, voluntarily and with understanding.\nDefendant next argues that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that was the fruit of an unlawful arrest made pursuant to a warrant which failed to properly identify him. The evidence at the hearing on defendant\u2019s motion to suppress showed that when the arrest, warrant was sworn out in North Carolina on 7 November 1980, the real name of the defendant was not known and the warrant was issued for the arrest of a man named \u201cBlood.\u201d This was a nickname of the defendant given to police officers by one of his associates, Cornelius Douglas. Defendant\u2019s correct Virginia address was noted on the warrant. Douglas accompanied the North Carolina police officers to Virginia and identified defendant as \u201cBlood.\u201d The defendant was properly identified as \u201cClifton R. Taylor\u201d in the Virginia arrest warrant issued 8 November 1980 upon information received from the North Carolina officers. The defendant\u2019s address on the North Carolina and the Virginia warrants was identical.\nWe agree with the defendant that a warrant must be as accurate and complete as possible in identifying a person charged with a crime. However, in certain instances, such as in the case at hand where defendant\u2019s true name was unknown, exactitude cannot be accomplished; and the description of an accused in a warrant by his alias, if done in good faith, will be considered proper. See State v. Young, 54 N.C. App. 366, 283 S.E. 2d 812 (1981), aff\u2019d, 305 N.C. 391, 289 S.E. 2d 374 (1982). Where reference is made to a defendant in a warrant by the name by which he is commonly known, generally a variance with his true name will be deemed immaterial. Cf. State v. Spooner, 28 N.C. App. 203, 220 S.E. 2d 213 (1975) (variance in an indictment). Under the circumstances of this case, we find no error in the denial of defendant\u2019s motion to suppress upon this ground.\nBy his final assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial judge expressed an opinion in his summation of evidence to the jury. Inasmuch as defendant has failed to set out the entire charge to the jury in the record on appeal, we do not reach his argument. Rule 9(b)(3)(vi), N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure. \u201cA reviewing court will not consider alleged errors in selected portions of a charge when the entire charge is not before it.\u201d State v. Harrell, 50 N.C. App. 531, 535, 274 S.E. 2d 353, 355-56 (1981). This assignment of error is overruled.\nWe hold that defendant had a trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Wells and Johnson concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HILL, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General James E. Magner, Jr., for the State.",
      "Appellate Defender Adam Stein, by Assistant Appellate Defender Marc D. Towler, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLIFTON RUDOLPH TAYLOR\nNo. 8210SC1022\n(Filed 5 April 1983)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 76.6\u2014 in-custody statements \u2014 sufficiency of court\u2019s findings\nThe trial court\u2019s findings of fact in its order denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress in-custody statements were sufficient to resolve conflicts in the voir dire evidence where the court made the essential findings that defendant was fully and properly advised of his rights and that defendant waived his Miranda rights both orally and in writing.\n2. Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 10\u2014 arrest under warrant using defendant\u2019s nickname\nDefendant\u2019s arrest in Virginia pursuant to a warrant issued in North Carolina for the arrest of a man named \u201cBlood\u201d was lawful where the real name of defendant was not known; \u201cBlood\u201d was a nickname of defendant given to police officers by one of his associates; defendant\u2019s correct Virginia address was noted on the warrant; and the associate accompanied North Carolina officers to Virginia and identified defendant as \u201cBlood.\u201d Therefore, the trial court properly denied defendant\u2019s motion to suppress evidence on the ground that it was the fruit of an unlawful arrest.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 163\u2014 alleged expression of opinion in charge \u2014absence of entire charge from record\nThe appellate court will not consider defendant\u2019s contention that the trial judge expressed an opinion in his summation of the evidence where defendant failed to set out the entire charge in the record on appeal. App. R. 9(b)(3)(vi).\nAppeal by defendant from Preston, Judge. Judgment entered 4 March 1982 by Battle, Judge, in Superior Court, WAKE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 March 1983.\nDefendant was charged in a proper bill of indictment with armed robbery. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Defendant appeals from the judgment entered against him.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General James E. Magner, Jr., for the State.\nAppellate Defender Adam Stein, by Assistant Appellate Defender Marc D. Towler, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0589-01",
  "first_page_order": 621,
  "last_page_order": 624
}