{
  "id": 8525446,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CURTIS S. CROUCH",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Crouch",
  "decision_date": "1985-05-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 8412SC1006",
  "first_page": "565",
  "last_page": "568",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "74 N.C. App. 565"
    }
  ],
  "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": "259 S.E. 2d 805",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 N.C. App. 727",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554408
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/43/0727-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 S.E. 2d 105",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 N.C. App. 558",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522476
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/61/0558-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 S.E. 2d 185",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 N.C. App. 316",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555815
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/21/0316-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 291,
    "char_count": 5018,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.781,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.888387989954311e-07,
      "percentile": 0.844120255659693
    },
    "sha256": "9237de41b55c15d98ce61e53b11fd16e83cc17642be5d29b603f6a18cdf49d43",
    "simhash": "1:e719c422176f9474",
    "word_count": 819
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:43:43.207286+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Hedrick and Judge Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CURTIS S. CROUCH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nBy his single assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred by revoking his probation. He argues that the court failed to make proper findings of facts to support its finding and conclusion that defendant\u2019s failure to comply with the terms of probation was willful or without lawful excuse. We do not agree.\nEssentially, defendant\u2019s argument is to the effect that his evidence tended to establish defendant\u2019s inability to comply with the terms of his probation, and that the trial court\u2019s judgment fails to make the finding necessary to resolve the issue raised by that evidence.\nIn State v. Young, 21 N.C. App. 316, 204 S.E. 2d 185 (1974), this court held that where a defendant has presented competent evidence of his inability to comply with the terms of his probation, he is entitled to have that evidence considered and evaluated before the trial court can properly order revocation. Accord State v. Sellars, 61 N.C. App. 558, 301 S.E. 2d 105 (1983); State v. Smith, 43 N.C. App. 727, 259 S.E. 2d 805 (1979). See also N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1345 (1983). In Young, this court also made it clear that the burden is on the defendant to present competent evidence of his inability to comply; and that otherwise, evidence of defendant\u2019s failure to comply may justify a finding that defendant\u2019s failure to comply was willful or without lawful excuse. It is this requirement that defendant failed to meet in this case.\nDefendant presented no evidence. His position with respect to his inability to comply was related through the statements of his counsel. We hold that counsel\u2019s statements were not competent evidence, and that the trial court was not, therefore, under a duty to make specific findings with respect to defendant\u2019s alleged inability to comply. In reaching this position, we are aware that G.S. \u00a7 15A-1345(c) provides that formal rules of evidence do not apply at revocation hearings. See also N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule of Evidence 1101 (Cum. Supp. 1983). Our review of representative cases discloses no circumstances where statements of counsel have been treated as evidence, while the cases repeatedly state that the findings and conclusions of the trial court in such hearings must be based on competent evidence.\nDefendant having stipulated that the allegation as to his probation violations were true, and having presented no evidence as to his inability to comply with the terms of his probation, the judgment of the trial court must be and is\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge Hedrick and Judge Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WELLS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Thomas H. Davis, Jr., for the State.",
      "K. Douglas Barfield for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CURTIS S. CROUCH\nNo. 8412SC1006\n(Filed 7 May 1985)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 143.7\u2014 probation revocation \u2014 inability to comply with conditions\u2014 counsel\u2019s statements not evidence\nThe trial court was not under a duty to make specific findings with respect to defendant\u2019s alleged inability to comply with the terms of his probation where defendant\u2019s position was related through the statements of his counsel. Counsel\u2019s statements were not competent evidence; the burden is on defendant to present competent evidence of his inability to comply. G.S. 15A-1345(c), G.S. 8C-1, Rule of Evidence 1101 (Cum. Supp. 1983).\nAPPEAL by defendant from Preston, Judge. Judgment entered 24 May 1984 in CUMBERLAND County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 April 1985.\nDefendant was convicted of sale and delivery of a controlled substance. On 12 October 1981, the trial court entered a judgment committing defendant to not less than one nor more than three years imprisonment, suspended the sentence and imposed conditions of probation. The terms of the probation judgment which are relevant to this appeal are:\n(g) Report to the probation officer at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, as directed by the court or the probation officer.\n(n) Monies totalling $336.00 are to be paid into the Office of the Cumberland County Clerk of Superior Court under supervision of Probation at the rate of not less than $25.00 per month with first payment due on or before November 12, 1981 and each month thereafter until paid in full.\nOn 16 June 1983, defendant\u2019s probation officer filed a probation violation report in which he alleged that defendant had not reported to him on a monthly basis and that defendant had failed to make payments to the clerk of court as required.\nA revocation hearing was held on 21 May 1984. Defendant\u2019s counsel stipulated that the allegations in the probation violation report were true, but defendant\u2019s counsel made representations to the court that the defendant had justifiable reasons for failing to comply. The court entered a judgment finding that defendant had willfully and without lawful excuse violated the terms of the probation judgment, revoked defendant\u2019s probation and committed defendant to the three year prison term imposed at defendant\u2019s trial.\nDefendant appealed.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Thomas H. Davis, Jr., for the State.\nK. Douglas Barfield for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0565-01",
  "first_page_order": 597,
  "last_page_order": 600
}
