{ "id": 8527031, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. OLLIE BELLAMY, JR. and NATHANIEL BELLAMY", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bellamy", "decision_date": "1983-10-18", "docket_number": "No. 8211SC1109", "first_page": "454", "last_page": "462", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "64 N.C. App. 454" } ], "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": "302 N.C. 399", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566532, 8566566, 8566600, 8566636, 8566489 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/302/0399-02", "/nc/302/0399-03", "/nc/302/0399-04", "/nc/302/0399-05", "/nc/302/0399-01" ] }, { "cite": "272 S.E. 2d 785", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 N.C. App. 173", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 2673169 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/50/0173-01" ] }, { "cite": "260 S.E. 2d 917", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 16", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573192 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0016-01" ] }, { "cite": "291 S.E. 2d 622", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 747", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573188 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0747-01" ] }, { "cite": "223 S.E. 2d 317", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "321" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "289 N.C. 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571115 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "557" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/289/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "264 S.E. 2d 89", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 597", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575659 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0597-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 S.E. 2d 196", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "239 N.C. 11", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625469 ], "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/239/0011-01" ] }, { "cite": "251 S.E. 2d 463", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 547", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568093 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0547-01" ] }, { "cite": "260 S.E. 2d 629", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 N.C. 573", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573777 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/298/0573-01" ] }, { "cite": "220 S.E. 2d 164", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "28 N.C. App. 156", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8547323 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/28/0156-01" ] }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 129", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561064, 8561049, 8561082 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0129-02", "/nc/307/0129-01", "/nc/307/0129-03" ] }, { "cite": "294 S.E. 2d 396", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "58 N.C. App. 654", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525928 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/58/0654-01" ] }, { "cite": "232 S.E. 2d 656", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "292 N.C. 114", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567549 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/292/0114-01" ] }, { "cite": "272 S.E. 2d 852", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 N.C. 695", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570135 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/301/0695-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 677", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 273", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571097 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0273-01" ] }, { "cite": "224 S.E. 2d 551", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "561-62" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "289 N.C. 644", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572613 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "658" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/289/0644-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 701, "char_count": 17094, "ocr_confidence": 0.829, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.404716409293242e-08, "percentile": 0.39634820408448523 }, "sha256": "786a93cf48d1681adbe1a61d26618e42fd8314f7d90aaba588d521e15deb4432", "simhash": "1:df2bc41acde31478", "word_count": 2866 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:03:16.623003+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Whichard and Phillips concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. OLLIE BELLAMY, JR. and NATHANIEL BELLAMY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "VAUGHN, Chief Judge.\nI.\nBoth defendants contend that the trial court erred in granting the State\u2019s motion for a joint trial. This contention is without merit. G.S. 15A-926 provides that charges against two or more defendants may be joined for trial when each of the defendants is charged with accountability for each offense. Both defendants in this case were charged with the same offenses. Furthermore, the State\u2019s evidence against each defendant was the same. \u201cConsolidation of cases for trial is generally proper when the offenses charged are of the same class and are so connected in time and place that evidence at trial upon one indictment would be competent and admissible on the other.\u201d State v. Brower, 289 N.C. 644, 658, 224 S.E. 2d 551, 561-62 (1976).\nPursuant to G.S. 15A-926(c)(2), severance is proper when necessary to promote a fair determination of the guilt or innocence of one or more of the defendants. Severance was not necessary to a fair trial in this case. The decision whether to try defendants separately or jointly was within the discretion of the trial court and absent a showing that the appellants were deprived of a fair trial by consolidation, exercise of such discretion should not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Brower, supra; see also State v. Taylor, 280 N.C. 273, 185 S.E. 2d 677 (1972).\nDefendants also contend that they had antagonistic defenses and that, therefore, joinder was improper. Nathaniel Bellamy offered evidence attempting to establish an alibi, while Ollie Bellamy did not offer any evidence. We do not find these separate defenses to be antagonistic. Neither defendant attempted to incriminate the other. See State v. Smith, 301 N.C. 695, 272 S.E. 2d 852 (1981); State v. Madden, 292 N.C. 114, 232 S.E. 2d 656 (1977); State v. Wilhite; State v. Rankin; State v. Rankin, 58 N.C. App. 654, 294 S.E. 2d 396, cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 307 N.C. 129 (1982).\nDefendant Ollie Bellamy further contends that the State introduced rebuttal testimony against Nathaniel Bellamy that was unfair, prejudicial and inadmissible against himself. We disagree. The State offered rebuttal testimony from two witnesses, Sharon Smith and Ruth Dowdy. Defendant concedes that Ms. Smith\u2019s testimony could have been introduced in the State\u2019s case in chief. G.S. 15A-1226(a) provides in part: \u201cThe judge may permit a party to offer new evidence during rebuttal which could have been offered in the party\u2019s case in chief . . .\u201d We find no error in admitting Sharon Smith\u2019s testimony. Ruth Dowdy testified that Ollie Bellamy told her \u201cto act like I didn\u2019t know what happened\u201d in regard to Nathaniel Bellamy\u2019s alibi. This testimony was admissible as an admission by Ollie Bellamy.\nThe State had ample evidence against both defendants. It did not rely on refuting rebuttal testimony to prove its case. In State v. Lee, 28 N.C. App. 156, 220 S.E. 2d 164 (1975), defendants were jointly tried for armed robbery and kidnapping. The first defendant did not testify. The second defendant testified that he was coerced into committing the crimes by the first defendant\u2019s threats. We held that separate trials were not warranted since the State did not rely on testimony of the defendants, but rather, offered plenary evidence of both defendants\u2019 guilt. The same rationale applies against defendants here.\nSince defendants\u2019 respective positions at trial were not antagonistic and since the State produced ample evidence implicating both defendants in the same offenses, joinder was proper and defendants received a fair trial. See State v. Nelson, 298 N.C. 573, 260 S.E. 2d 629 (1979); State v. Wilhite; State v. Rankin; State v. Rankin, supra.\nII.\nBoth defendants contend that the trial court erred in allowing Sharon Smith to testify for the State on rebuttal. We find no error.\nDefendant Ollie Bellamy contends that since he offered no evidence, Ms. Smith\u2019s rebuttal testimony should have been limited to defendant Nathaniel Bellamy. As discussed in Part I, Ms. Smith could have testified for the State as part of its case in chief. Pursuant to G.S. 15A-1226 (which permits the State to offer new evidence during rebuttal which could have been offered as part of its case in chief), the trial judge was correct in denying Ollie Bellamy\u2019s motions to sever and exclude such testimony.\nBoth defendants contend that Ms. Smith\u2019s testimony, admitted under the theory that it corroborated Ms. Dowdy\u2019s testimony, should have been excluded because it was not corroborative. We think the trial judge was correct in admitting Ms. Smith\u2019s testimony.\nCorroborative testimony is generally allowed in this State when a witness\u2019s veracity has been impugned in any way. 1 Brandis on North Carolina Evidence \u00a7 51 (1982). Application of this liberal rule allows trial judges wide discretion in deciding whether to admit evidence they believe may aid the jury in appraising credibility. 1 Brandis on North Carolina Evidence \u00a7 52 (1982); State v. Henley, 296 N.C. 547, 251 S.E. 2d 463 (1979); Gibson v. Whitton, 239 N.C. 11, 79 S.E. 2d 196 (1953). Cross examination of Ms. Dowdy by both defendants and evidence by defendant Nathaniel Bellamy weakened Ms. Dowdy\u2019s testimony. We find no abuse of discretion in admitting corroborative testimony from Ms. Smith.\nCorroborative testimony is testimony which tends to strengthen, confirm or make more certain the testimony of another witness. State v. Rogers, 299 N.C. 597, 264 S.E. 2d 89 (1980). It may consist of prior consistent statements by the witness or any other proper evidence tending to restore confidence in the witness\u2019s truthfulness and veracity. 1 Brandis on North Carolina Evidence \u00a7 50 (1982) (n. 39 and cases cited therein). Ms. Smith\u2019s testimony regarding a prior statement by Ms. Dowdy confirmed and strengthened Ms. Dowdy\u2019s testimony.\nAlthough there was some variation in the testimonies of Ms. Dowdy and Ms. Smith, such variances do not warrant exclusion of Ms. Smith\u2019s testimony. The testimonies of the two women were generally consistent. Ms. Dowdy testified that during the evening of 7 August or on 8 August: \u201cI know I was talking to my \u2014 my brothers and I was telling them what we done. . . . And I was talking to my friend and I called her, trying not to let Ollie hear me . . .\u201d Ms. Smith, a friend of Ms. Dowdy\u2019s, testified that she called Ms. Dowdy on the evening of 7 August and Ms. Dowdy told her \u201cthat they had robbed a Pantry and she was afraid to tell me . . Inconsistencies exist as to when the phone call occurred and the exact words spoken. The content of Ms. Smith\u2019s testimony, however, was consistent with Ms. Dowdy\u2019s testimony regarding the robbery in general and the phone conversation specifically. \u201c[I]f the testimony offered in corroboration is generally consistent with the witness\u2019s testimony, slight variations will not render it inadmissible. Such variations affect only the credibility of the evidence which is always for the jury.\u201d State v. Warren, 289 N.C. 551, 557, 223 S.E. 2d 317, 321 (1976).\nBefore Ms. Smith was allowed to testify regarding her telephone conversation with Ms. Dowdy, the trial judge instructed the jury: \u201c[T]his conversation is being allowed into evidence on the theory it may corroborate the prior witness that has been on the witness chair, Ruth Dowdy. You will be the final judge as to whether it does or does not corroborate the prior testimony of Ruth Dowdy.\u201d We agree with such instruction. The issue was one of credibility, not admissibility, an issue the jury ultimately decided.\nDefendant Nathaniel Bellamy contends that Ms. Smith\u2019s testimony that Ms. Dowdy told her they had robbed a Pantry referred to a different crime and was, therefore, inadmissible. We find no support in the Record for such contention. We take judicial notice of the fact that people sometimes refer to small roadside stores as \u201cpantries.\u201d In fact, another of the State\u2019s eyewitnesses referred to \u201cShort Stop\u201d as \u201cThe Pantry\u201d:\nWitness: \u201cI saw two men running out of the Pantry.\u201d\nCourt: \u201cThe Pantry, ma\u2019am?\u201d\nWitness: \u201cThe Short Stop.\u201d\nMs. Smith\u2019s testimony as to her personal knowledge was admissible for substantive purposes. Her testimony as to her telephone conversation with Ruth Dowdy was admissible for corroborative purposes.\nIII.\nDefendant Ollie Bellamy contends that the trial court erred in denying defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss all charges at the end of the State\u2019s evidence. Defendant\u2019s contention is without merit.\nThe general rule is that a motion for nonsuit should be overruled if, when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, there is evidence from which a jury could find that the offense charged has been committed and that the defendant committed it. State v. Calloway, 305 N.C. 747, 291 S.E. 2d 622 (1982); State v. Benton, 299 N.C. 16, 260 S.E. 2d 917 (1980). The State\u2019s evidence showed, in pertinent part, the following: At close to 11:00 p.m. on 7 August 1981, Ruth Dowdy drove the defendants to \u201cShort Stop\u201d where they got out of the car. Ms. Dowdy was driving a burgundy Cutlass owned by defendant, Ollie Bellamy. On the same evening, at around 10:45 p.m., Donald Struthers, the clerk at \u201cShort Stop\u201d was closing the store when he was robbed by two males wearing white masks. As these same men were running out of the store, they fired at another vehicle occupied by Cindy Gunter and Donald Cox. Ms. Gunter and Mr. Cox saw these men, still wearing masks, run from \u201cShort Stop\u201d to a burgundy car similar to the one owned by defendant. Ruth Dowdy testified that Ollie Bellamy owned two white masks like the ones worn during the robbery and that he had told he;r he was planning to use them for a robbery.\nWe think that the State produced substantial evidence from which a jury could find that the offenses were committed and that defendants were the perpetrators.\nIV.\nDefendant, Nathaniel Bellamy, contends that it was reversible error for the trial judge to deny his motion for a mistrial at the close of the State\u2019s evidence or at the close of all the evidence. He contends that the trial judge committed error resulting in substantial and irreparable prejudice to defendant\u2019s case by granting the State\u2019s motion to consolidate the cases against Nathaniel and Ollie Bellamy for trial. The general rule is that the decision as to whether substantial and irreparable prejudice has occurred lies within the court\u2019s discretion and, absent a showing of abuse of that discretion, the decision of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Allen, 50 N.C. App. 173, 272 S.E. 2d 785 (1980), appeal dismissed, 302 N.C. 399 (1981). We find no abuse of discretion by the trial judge. Defendant received a fair trial.\nNo error.\nJudges Whichard and Phillips concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "VAUGHN, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Tiare B. Smiley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "Gregory Davis, for defendant appellant Nathaniel Bellamy; and Edward L. Bullard, Jr., for defendant appellant Ollie Bellamy, Jr." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. OLLIE BELLAMY, JR. and NATHANIEL BELLAMY\nNo. 8211SC1109\n(Filed 18 October 1983)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 92.1\u2014 joint trial of defendants proper\nIn a prosecution for robbery with a firearm and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, the trial court properly granted the State\u2019s motion for a joint trial pursuant to G.S. 15A-926 since defendants\u2019 respective positions at trial were not antagonistic and since the State produced ample evidence implicating both defendants in the same offenses.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 97.1\u2014 rebuttal testimony \u2014admissible against codefendant\nThe trial court properly allowed the State to offer rebuttal testimony from two witnesses where one witness\u2019s testimony could have been introduced in the State\u2019s case in chief pursuant to G.S. 15A-1226(a), and where the other testimony was admissible as an admission by the codefendant.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 89.5\u2014 corroborating testimony \u2014 slight variance \u2014properly admitted\nThe trial court properly allowed a witness to offer corroborating testimony regarding a telephone conversation with an earlier witness where the witness\u2019s testimony was consistent with the earlier witness\u2019s testimony regarding the robbery for which defendants were being tried and the existence of the phone conversation, but where there were inconsistencies as to when the phone call occurred and the exact words spoken.\n4. Assault and Battery 8 14.4; Robbery 8 4.3\u2014 assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and armed robbery \u2014sufficiency of evidence\nIn a prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and robbery with a firearm, the trial court properly denied defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss all charges at the end of the State\u2019s evidence where the evidence tended to show that a witness drove defendants to \u201cShort Stop\u201d where they got out of a car, a burgundy Cutlass owned by defendant Bellamy; at around the same time that evening the clerk at \u201cShort Stop\u201d was closing the store when he was robbed by two males wearing white masks; as the same, men were running out of the store, they fired at another vehicle occupied by two people who saw these men still wearing masks run from \u201cShort Stop\u201d to a burgundy car similar to the one owned by defendant Bellamy; and where a witness testified that defendant Bellamy owned two white masks like ones worn during the robbery and that he had told her he was planning to use them for a robbery.\nAPPEAL by defendants from Britt, Samuel E., Judge. Judgment entered 19 May 1982 in Superior Court, Lee County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 August 1983.\nDefendants Ollie and Nathaniel Bellamy were charged in separate indictments with the same offenses, to wit, robbery with a firearm and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. Prior to trial, the Court granted the State\u2019s motion, pursuant to G.S. 15A-926 to join the cases against each defendant for trial. The jury found defendants guilty of both offenses and active sentences were imposed. Both defendants appeal.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show:\nAt around 10:45 p.m. on 7 August 1981, Donald Strother, a clerk at \u201cShort Stop,\u201d a store on Carbonton Road in Sanford, North Carolina, was closing the store when two males, wearing white masks, robbed him at gunpoint.\nCindy Gunter and Donald Cox were driving past \u201cShort Stop\u201d at around 10:45 p.m. on 7 August 1981 when they saw two men, wearing white masks, run out of the store and head toward a burgundy Monte Carlo or Cutlass automobile. Ms. Gunter noticed that one of the men was carrying something. Mr. Cox saw one of the men raise a gun and fire in their direction. Mr. Cox and Ms. Gunter ducked to the floorboard of their car and heard the gun fire about five shots, one shot hitting their car.\nRuth Dowdy testified that at around 10:45 p.m., on 7 August 1981, she drove both defendants to \u201cShort Stop\u201d on Carbonton Road in Sanford. She drove Ollie Bellamy\u2019s car, a burgundy Cutlass. In the car, they discussed good places to rob. The defendants got out of the car at \u201cShort Stop.\u201d A short time thereafter, she saw two people with white masks enter the store. Ten minutes later, the defendants came running toward the car. She drove the defendants to her home where they then sorted money. Sometime later, Ms. Dowdy spoke with a friend on the telephone.\nPrior to 7 August, Ms. Dowdy had seen masks similar to the ones worn in the robbery on her dresser at home. Ollie Bellamy had been staying with Ms. Dowdy. Ollie had told her that Nathaniel had had them made and that they were planning to \u201cdo a robbery.\u201d After the robbery, Ms. Dowdy noticed that Ollie had a gun.\nThree weeks after the robbery, Ms. Dowdy was taken into police custody where she waived her Miranda rights and gave a statement to a Sanford police detective that substantially corroborated her testimony at trial. On that same day she was arrested and jailed. Ms. Dowdy testified pursuant to a plea bargain with the State.\nThe evidence for defendant, Nathaniel Bellamy, tended to show:\nDarlene Hayes, Nathaniel\u2019s girlfriend, testified that Nathaniel was with her in Burgaw, North Carolina, during the evening of the robbery on 7 August.\nFormer Deputy Sheriff George Wright testified that when he picked up defendant, Nathaniel Bellamy, Darlene Hayes asked why he was being picked up when he had been with her.\nMattie Bellamy, Nathaniel\u2019s mother, testified that Nathaniel left her house in Burgaw, North Carolina at about ten to seven on the evening of 7 August to go to his girlfriend\u2019s house and that she saw him again at around midnight when he arrived home.\nOn rebuttal, the State\u2019s evidence tended to show:\nSharon Smith, a friend of Ms. Dowdy\u2019s, testified that at around 8:00 p.m. on the night of the robbery, Ms. Dowdy and both defendants stopped at her home in Sanford, where they discussed possible places to rob. Later that night, Ms. Smith talked to Ms. Dowdy on the telephone and Ms. Dowdy told Ms. Smith that they had robbed a \u201cpantry.\u201d\nMs. Dowdy was placed in jail on 28 August 1981. While in jail, she overheard Nathaniel tell Ollie that he was going to get his girlfriend to say he was in Burgaw on 7 August.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Tiare B. Smiley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nGregory Davis, for defendant appellant Nathaniel Bellamy; and Edward L. Bullard, Jr., for defendant appellant Ollie Bellamy, Jr." }, "file_name": "0454-01", "first_page_order": 486, "last_page_order": 494 }