{
  "id": 8524497,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: WILLIAM VANCE STALLINGS, Juvenile",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Stallings",
  "decision_date": "1985-10-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 8514DC257",
  "first_page": "592",
  "last_page": "594",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "77 N.C. App. 592"
    }
  ],
  "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": "237 S.E. 2d 539",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 N.C. 257",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563208,
        8563308,
        8563245,
        8563181,
        8563278
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/293/0257-02",
        "/nc/293/0257-05",
        "/nc/293/0257-03",
        "/nc/293/0257-01",
        "/nc/293/0257-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "235 S.E. 2d 94",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 N.C. App. 284",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549311
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/33/0284-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "388 U.S. 293",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6168284
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/388/0293-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "388 U.S. 218",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6168076
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "234"
        },
        {
          "page": "1936"
        },
        {
          "page": "1161"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/388/0218-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 352,
    "char_count": 4387,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.775,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.5294506237465965e-07,
      "percentile": 0.812329213015894
    },
    "sha256": "f8b4e0f896ec6b28f00faf263e8f625883e0b98422a5397e4118338191bf8689",
    "simhash": "1:636871532b1f1365",
    "word_count": 701
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:01.691260+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges BECTON and PARKER concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF: WILLIAM VANCE STALLINGS, Juvenile"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge.\nPetitioner\u2019s three assignments of error all arise from the denial of his motion to suppress testimony concerning Mrs. Knott\u2019s identification of him as the perpetrator of the offense on the day of the crime. He contends that the presentation of him to Mrs. Knott for her identification, commonly known as a \u201cshow-up,\u201d was carried out without a court order, thus violating statutory guidelines.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 7A-596 in pertinent part provides:\nNontestimonial identification procedures shall not be conducted on any juvenile without a court order issued pursuant to this Article unless the juvenile has been transferred to superior court for trial as an adult. ... As used in this Article, \u201cnontestimonial identification\u201d means identification by fingerprints, palm prints, footprints, measurements, blood specimens, urine specimens, saliva samples, hair samples, or other reasonable physical examination, handwriting exemplars, voice samples, photographs, and lineups or similar identification procedures requiring the presence of a juvenile.\n(Emphasis added.) The statute does not specify \u201cshow-ups\u201d as one of the identification procedures requiring court authorization, but it does specify \u201clineups or similar identification procedures requiring the presence of a juvenile.\u201d\nWe hold that a showup and a lineup are similar enough in purpose, practice, and effect so as to bring a showup within the contemplation of the statute. Indeed, a showup is inherently more susceptible to suggestive or improper use than a lineup and thus more in need of statutory protection. See U.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 234, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1936, 18 L.Ed. 2d 1149, 1161 (1967). We wish to emphasize, however, that our holding applies only to showups involving juveniles. Showups of adults do not require a court order and are admissible if due process requirements are met. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed. 2d 1199 (1967); State v. Sanders, 33 N.C. App. 284, 235 S.E. 2d 94, disc. rev. denied, 293 N.C. 257, 237 S.E. 2d 539 (1977).\nThe court erred in denying petitioner\u2019s motion to suppress. Since all the evidence tending to identify petitioner as the perpetrator of the offense charged was based on evidence stemming from the improper showup, there is no evidence remaining to support the guilty verdict, and the judgment must be reversed.\nReversed.\nJudges BECTON and PARKER concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Robert E. Cansler, for the State.",
      "Susan K. Seahom for juvenile, petitioner."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: WILLIAM VANCE STALLINGS, Juvenile\nNo. 8514DC257\n(Filed 29 October 1985)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 66.10; Infants \u00a7 17\u2014 showup without court order \u2014 inadmissible\nThe pretrial identification of a juvenile should have been suppressed where the identification was made in a showup without a court order in violation of G.S. 7A-596.\nAPPEAL by juvenile from LaBarre, Judge. Adjudication order entered 15 November 1984 in District Court, DURHAM County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 October 1985.\nPetitioner was charged in a juvenile petition with the offense of felony breaking and entering. The transcript of the adjudicatory hearing discloses the following pertinent facts. On the morning of 5 October 1984 complainant Mrs. Knott went to her neighbor\u2019s house for a cup of coffee. After having coffee she and the neighbor stood at the rear of the neighbor\u2019s house, approximately 90 feet from Mrs. Knott\u2019s house, and observed two young white males leaving the Knott house from the side door. Mrs. Knott immediately yelled at the boys and gave chase, but lost them. She returned to her house, called the police, and gave them a description of the two boys. Detective Crabtree of the Durham County Sheriffs Department responded to the call, spoke briefly with Mrs. Knott and her neighbor, and then searched the neighborhood. He then proceeded about half a mile to a Seven Eleven Market where he found two young white males matching the description given by Mrs. Knott. Detective Crabtree placed the young men in the rear of his car, returned to Mrs. Knott\u2019s house, and asked Mrs. Knott \u201cif they were the ones she saw coming out of her house.\u201d She responded affirmatively, and the boys were taken into custody.\nAt the adjudicatory hearing, the boys were found guilty and from judgment entered on that finding, petitioner appealed.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Robert E. Cansler, for the State.\nSusan K. Seahom for juvenile, petitioner."
  },
  "file_name": "0592-01",
  "first_page_order": 624,
  "last_page_order": 626
}
