{
  "id": 8525642,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ELSIE M. ANTHONY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Anthony",
  "decision_date": "1985-05-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 843SC710",
  "first_page": "590",
  "last_page": "593",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "74 N.C. App. 590"
    }
  ],
  "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": "295 S.E. 2d 485",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 N.C. 749",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574662,
        8574633,
        8574706,
        8574619,
        8574687
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/306/0749-03",
        "/nc/306/0749-02",
        "/nc/306/0749-05",
        "/nc/306/0749-01",
        "/nc/306/0749-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 S.E. 2d 226",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 N.C. App. 43",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523093
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/58/0043-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "384 U.S. 436",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        12046400
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/384/0436-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 S.E. 2d 877",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 N.C. App. 531",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550324
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/35/0531-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "302 S.E. 2d 779",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 N.C. 502",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4705675
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/308/0502-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 363,
    "char_count": 7603,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.809,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20555619265833644
    },
    "sha256": "b5145ebc85693700f34095b01b9ea14efbbffd53ba71775d083412622172a9bb",
    "simhash": "1:c982bb107107b6b8",
    "word_count": 1278
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:43:43.207286+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Phillips and Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ELSIE M. ANTHONY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WEBB, Judge.\nThe defendant argues under her first assignment of error that the four indictments on which she was tried are defective. She says this is so because each of the indictments fails to allege that the defendant\u2019s representations deceived School Plans, Inc. or that the merchandise was obtained as a direct result of the misrepresentation of the identity of the defendant. The indictments allege the property was obtained \u201cby means of a false pretense which was calculated to deceive and did deceive\u201d and \u201c[t]he false pretense consisted of the following: the defendant received and accepted delivery ... by representing herself as \u2018Mrs. A. Johnson.\u2019 \u201d We hold that these allegations sufficiently allege that the defendant\u2019s misrepresentations deceived School Plans, Inc. and the property was obtained as a result of the misrepresentation.\nThe defendant next assigns error to the Court\u2019s failure to grant her motion to dismiss at the close of all the evidence. She bases this contention on what she says is the failure of proof that the victim relied on the false representation of her name to part with the property. She argues that a man representing himself as Mr. Johnson ordered the candy and told Mr. Hill that Mrs. Johnson would sign the receipt for it. Mr. Hill would have left the candy with whomever the person the putative Mr. Johnson told him would receive it. The defendant argues that for this reason Mr. Hill did not deliver the candy to the defendant in reliance on her misrepresentation of her name.\nWe believe the jury could find from the evidence that Mr. Hill would want to know the correct name of a person to whom he sold candy on credit. This is so because he would need the correct name to find the person in the event there was difficulty in collecting the account. For this reason the jury could find he relied on the name given him in delivering the candy. He would not have delivered it had he known the defendant had given him a fictitious name. The jury could find that this was a false representation on which Mr. Hill relied in delivering the candy. See State v. Freeman, 308 N.C. 502, 302 S.E. 2d 779 (1983) and State v. Tesenair, 35 N.C. App. 531, 241 S.E. 2d 877 (1978).\nThe defendant next argues that the testimony of Captain Warren should have been excluded because of a violation of the defendant\u2019s constitutional rights as defined in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966). Prior to reading her constitutional rights to the defendant, Captain Warren recorded her personal history, including her name, age, and address. The defendant\u2019s name is an important part of the evidence against her and the defendant argues Captain Warren\u2019s testimony as to it should have been excluded. Pursuant to State v. Sellers, 58 N.C. App. 43, 293 S.E. 2d 226, cert. denied, 306 N.C. 749, 295 S.E. 2d 485 (1982) we overrule this assignment of error.\nThe defendant\u2019s last assignment of error is to the Court\u2019s charging on acting in concert. The defendant contends there was not sufficient evidence to support this charge. Captain Warren testified that the defendant told him that a man named Franklin Frisby had ordered candy from Mr. Hill under the name of Barry Johnson. She told him Mr. Frisby had instructed her to receive the candy at 422 Holiday City using the name A. Johnson, which she did. This is evidence from which the jury could conclude the defendant was acting in concert with Franklin Frisby to obtain property by a false pretense.\nNo error.\nJudges Phillips and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WEBB, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney T. Byron Smith, for the State.",
      "Voerman and Ward, P.A., by William F. Ward, III, for the defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ELSIE M. ANTHONY\nNo. 843SC710\n(Filed 7 May 1985)\n1. False Pretense 8 2\u2014 indictments \u2014 allegations that defendant\u2019s misrepresentations deceived \u2014 sufficient\nIndictments which alleged that defendant obtained property by a false pretense which was intended to deceive and which did deceive in that she received and accepted delivery of candy by misrepresenting her identity sufficiently alleged that defendant\u2019s misrepresentations deceived the vendor of the candy and that the property was obtained as a result of the misrepresentation.\n2. False Pretense 8 3.1\u2014 obtaining candy by false pretense \u2014evidence sufficient\nIn a prosecution for obtaining candy by false pretense, the court did not err by denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss at the close of all the evidence where the jury could have found that defendant\u2019s fictitious name was a false representation on which the candy vendor relied in delivering the candy because the vendor would want to know the correct name of a person to whom he sold candy on credit.\n3. Criminal Law 8 75.7\u2014 obtaining property by misrepresenting identity \u2014 officer\u2019s routine identification question \u2014 no Miranda warning \u2014 admissible\nIn a prosecution for obtaining candy by false pretense in which defendant\u2019s name was an important part of the evidence against her, there was no error in admitting the testimony of an officer who had recorded defendant\u2019s name prior to reading defendant her constitutional rights.\n4. False Pretense 8 3.2\u2014 acting in concert \u2014 evidence sufficient\nThere was sufficient evidence to support the court\u2019s instruction on acting in concert where an officer testified that defendant had told him that a man named Franklin Frisby had ordered candy from the vendor under the name of Barry Johnson, and that Mr. Frisby had instructed defendant to receive the candy using the name A. Johnson, which she did.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Small, Judge. Judgment entered 22 February 1984 in Superior Court, CRAVEN County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 February 1985.\nThe defendant was tried on four charges of obtaining property by false pretenses. The State\u2019s evidence showed that in June 1983 a man calling himself Barry Johnson called by telephone Maurice Hill, Jr., who sold candy for School Plan, Inc. and ordered peanut brittle and chocolate candy in the amount of $1,357.20. The man who called himself Barry Johnson represented to Mr. Hill that the candy would be used for charity fund raising. The man requested that Mr. Hill deliver the candy to 422 Holiday City and said his wife would accept the delivery. Mr. Hill delivered the candy to that address where the defendant Elsie M. Anthony identified herself as \u201cMrs. A. Johnson\u201d and signed for the delivery of the candy. At this time Mr. Hill explained to the defendant that weekly payments would be required.\nThe defendant acknowledged receipt of three more orders of candy by the man who called himself Barry Johnson. Each order was delivered to 422 Holiday City and the defendant signed for each order with the name \u201cMrs. A. Johnson.\u201d Mr. Hill delivered candy worth a total of $3,996.72. The defendant paid $1,050.00 for the candy. On 11 July 1983 Mr. Hill made his last delivery to the defendant and told her he could deliver no more candy until the bills for the candy were paid. After the last delivery was made Mr. Hill could not find the defendant or the man calling himself Barry Johnson in spite of telephone calls and visits to 422 Holiday City.\nCaptain Michael Warren of the Craven County Sheriff\u2019s Department testified that he questioned the defendant and she told him a man named Franklin Frisby told her he had ordered candy from Mr. Hill, using the name Barry Johnson. He instructed her to receive the candy using the name Mrs. A. Johnson, which she did. The defendant was convicted of all charges and received a prison sentence. She appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney T. Byron Smith, for the State.\nVoerman and Ward, P.A., by William F. Ward, III, for the defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0590-01",
  "first_page_order": 622,
  "last_page_order": 625
}
