{ "id": 8552006, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ELIJAH FREEMAN and LEO FREEMAN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Freeman", "decision_date": "1970-04-01", "docket_number": "No. 7013SC154", "first_page": "571", "last_page": "572", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "7 N.C. App. 571" } ], "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": "276 N.C. 86", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560195, 8560213, 8560254 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/276/0086-01", "/nc/276/0086-02", "/nc/276/0086-03" ] }, { "cite": "10 A.L.R. 3d 974", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "384 U.S. 436", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12046400 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0436-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 265, "char_count": 3870, "ocr_confidence": 0.567, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20593111799182115 }, "sha256": "0d894bff101e3d8dc25dfe3077009e688be40f459b9a3d530c1ccd6053832847", "simhash": "1:76af241637c74859", "word_count": 608 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:45:53.911218+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "BROCK and Graham, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ELIJAH FREEMAN and LEO FREEMAN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Beitt, J.\nDefendant assigns as error the denial of his motion, to suppress the testimony of Deputy Sheriff Horace Long with respect to conversations Mr. Long had with defendant.\nSince the rendition by the Supreme Court of the United States of its decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 10 A.L.R. 3d 974, numerous opinions have been written by various courts, state and federal, on the question of admissibility into evidence of in-custody statements made by defendants. The Supreme Court of North Carolina \"in the recent case of State v. Catrett, 276 N.C. 86, in an opinion written by Bobbitt, C.J., reviewed many of the decisions and then clearly and succinctly declared the test of admissibility as follows:\n\u201cWe are of the opinion, and so hold, that , in-custody statements attributed to a defendant, when offered by the State and objected to by the defendant, are inadmissible for any purpose unless, after a voir dire hearing in the absence of the jury, the court, based upon sufficient evidence, makes factual findings that such statements were voluntarily and understandingly made by the defendant, after he had been fully advised as to his constitutional rights. * * *\u201d\nIn the instant case the record discloses that when defendant\u2019s counsel objected to Deputy Sheriff Long\u2019s testimony regarding alleged statements made by defendant, the trial judge excused the jury and proceeded to conduct a voir dire hearing relative to the proffered evidence. Following an examination of Mr. Long by the solicitor and cross-examination by defense' counsel, defendant having offered no evidence on the voir dire, the trial judge found and concluded that defendant\u2019s statements were voluntarily and understandingly made after defendant had been fully advised of his constitutional rights. The findings\u2019 and conclusions were fully supported by the evidence presented at the hearing. We hold that the test declared in Catrett was met in this case.\nDefendant contends that the evidence was not sufficient to survive his motions of nonsuit. We deem it unnecessary to recapitulate the evidence here but hold that the evidence was sufficient to withstand the motions.\nFinally, defendant contends that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury. We have carefully considered the charge, with particular reference to the portions referred to in \u25a0 defendant\u2019s brief, but find that it was free from prejudicial error.\nThe defendant received a fair trial and the sentence imposed was within the limits prescribed by statute.\nNo error.\nBROCK and Graham, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Beitt, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Staff Attorney Carlos W. Murray, Jr., for the State. \u25a0 ,", "R. H. Bums, Jr., for defendant appellant, Elijah Freeman." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ELIJAH FREEMAN and LEO FREEMAN\nNo. 7013SC154\n(Filed 1 April 1970)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 76\u2014 in-custody statements \u2014 determination of admissibility\nIn a prosecution for felonious larceny and storebreaking, defendant's in-custody statements to an officer were properly admitted in evidence, where the trial court, upon objection by defendant, conducted a voir dire hearing in the absence of the jury to determine the voluntariness of the statements, and the court found and concluded that defendant\u2019s statements were voluntarily and understandingly made after defendant had been advised of his constitutional rights.\nAppeal by defendant Elijah Freeman from Canaday, J., September 1969 Criminal Session of Columbus Superior Court.\nIn an indictment proper in form, defendant and his co-defendant were charged with (1) storebreaking and (2) larceny of personal property of the value of more than $200.00. The appealing defendant, Elijah Freeman, pleaded not guilty, was found guilty as charged by a jury and, from judgment imposing active prison sentence of not less than six years nor more than eight years, he appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Staff Attorney Carlos W. Murray, Jr., for the State. \u25a0 ,\nR. H. Bums, Jr., for defendant appellant, Elijah Freeman." }, "file_name": "0571-01", "first_page_order": 593, "last_page_order": 594 }