{
  "id": 8525050,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RODNEY MICHAEL McGEE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. McGee",
  "decision_date": "1984-02-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 8327SC437",
  "first_page": "369",
  "last_page": "371",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "66 N.C. App. 369"
    }
  ],
  "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": "265 S.E. 2d 164",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "169"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 N.C. 71",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559773
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "78"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/300/0071-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 S.E. 2d 614",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 N.C. 640",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558867
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/291/0640-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "218 S.E. 2d 869",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 227",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552166
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/27/0227-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 280,
    "char_count": 4186,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.775,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41398900090314145
    },
    "sha256": "e3b7e6a7918955e3c826baf5fa176590b4ac64e8a71092b595f8a9ddbbe5996f",
    "simhash": "1:b97a0f6cb5b31064",
    "word_count": 689
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:15:19.573584+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Johnson and Phillips concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RODNEY MICHAEL McGEE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendant first contends that the court erred in admitting into evidence the magistrate\u2019s order finding him in contempt of court because the document was not identified by a witness and no foundation was laid to establish its authenticity. We reject this contention. It is generally accepted that \u201c[a] court will notice earlier proceedings in the same cause ...\u201d 1 Brandis on North Carolina Evidence, \u00a7 13 (2d Rev. Ed. 1982). In addition, certain documentary evidence is admissible without authentication if it is inherently reliable. See In re Arthur, 27 N.C. App. 227, 218 S.E. 2d 869 (1975), reversed on other grounds, 291 N.C. 640, 231 S.E. 2d 614 (1977). Furthermore, G.S. 8-34 provides that \u201c[c]opies of . . . documents, recorded or filed as records in any court\u201d can be considered as competent evidence. The order of the magistrate was properly admitted to determine whether he had the authority to hold defendant in contempt.\nDefendant next contends that the court erred in failing to grant his motion to dismiss at the close of all the evidence. He argues that even if the magistrate\u2019s order of contempt was properly admitted into evidence that document, standing alone, did not constitute sufficient evidence to find him in contempt. We agree, and find that defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss was improperly denied.\nIn ruling on a motion to dismiss in a criminal action, \u201call of the evidence, whether competent or incompetent, must be considered in the light most favorable to the state, and the state is entitled to every reasonable inference therefrom.\u201d State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 78, 265 S.E. 2d 164, 169 (1980). The only evidence offered at the de novo trial (G.S. 5A-17), however, was the magistrate\u2019s order, which was received in accordance with the court\u2019s finding that \u201cthe matter in issue is the judgment itself . . . the validity of that judgment.\u201d This evidence alone does not provide a sufficient basis to uphold the magistrate\u2019s finding of contempt. The document merely indicates that defendant told the magistrate, \u201cShut up fellow, I don\u2019t have to hear this\u201d and that he called the magistrate\u2019s office on 4 January and 5 January. There is no independent evidence to show contempt by defendant. The order of the trial court holding defendant in contempt must be\nReversed.\nJudges Johnson and Phillips concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General John R. B. Matthis and Assistant Attorney General John F. Maddrey, for the State.",
      "Frederick R. Stann for plaintiff appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RODNEY MICHAEL McGEE\nNo. 8327SC437\n(Filed 7 February 1984)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 80\u2014 magistrate\u2019s order properly admitted into evidence\nThe trial court properly admitted into evidence a magistrate\u2019s order finding defendant in contempt of court even though the order was not identified by a witness and no foundation was laid to establish its authenticity since G.S. 8-34 provides that \u201c[c]opies of . . . documents, recorded or filed as records in any court\u201d can be considered as competent evidence.\n2. Contempt of Court \u00a7 6.2\u2014 insufficiency of evidence\nThe superior court erred in failing to grant defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss a contempt charge at the close of all the evidence where the magistrate\u2019s order of contempt was the only evidence offered at the de novo trial, and standing alone, it did not constitute sufficient evidence to find him in contempt.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Lane, Judge. Judgment entered 13 January 1983 in Superior Court, GASTON County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 December 1983.\nOn 5 January 1983, defendant was arrested on charges of obstructing and delaying a Bessemer City police officer by refusing to get out of his van when ordered to do so. Defendant was found to be in contempt and was sentenced to 30 days in jail by the magistrate, L. D. Adams, for making a disrespectful statement to Adams and for calling the magistrate\u2019s office on 4 January and 5 January to repeatedly harass him. Defendant\u2019s appeal of the contempt charge was heard in Superior Court on 13 January 1983. After the court found defendant in contempt and ordered him into custody, defendant gave notice of appeal.\nAttorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General John R. B. Matthis and Assistant Attorney General John F. Maddrey, for the State.\nFrederick R. Stann for plaintiff appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0369-01",
  "first_page_order": 401,
  "last_page_order": 403
}