{
  "id": 8549444,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES HUFFMAN and RODGER SPARGO",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Huffman",
  "decision_date": "1970-05-06",
  "docket_number": "Nos. 7026SC226 and 7026SC237",
  "first_page": "85",
  "last_page": "87",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "8 N.C. App. 85"
    }
  ],
  "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": "32 S.E. 2d 651",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 N.C. 848",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616363
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/224/0848-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 306,
    "char_count": 5544,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.603,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530541355885999
    },
    "sha256": "967e575a432177c456fb3f54605e8e600bcf8f30f7bc6380be5a927e8842c102",
    "simhash": "1:96d75b0e22ba5ae5",
    "word_count": 954
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:14.673474+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Bbock and Geaham, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES HUFFMAN and RODGER SPARGO"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, J.\nDefendants assign as error the following portions of the trial judge\u2019s instructions to the jury:\n\u201cNow, members of the jury, if you find from the evidence in this case and beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants broke or entered the establishment known as Hazel\u2019s Place with the felonious intent to commit the crime of larceny therein, then it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty as charged in the bill of indictment.\nIf the State has failed to so satisfy you, it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty. Or, if upon a fair and impartial consideration of all the facts and circumstances in the case, you have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of either or both of these defendants, then it would be your duty to give each of the defendants a benefit of such doubt and to acquit either or both of them.\n* #\nTo summarize, you may find the defendant James Huffman guilty as charged in the bill of indictment or you may find him not guilty. You may find the defendant Rodger Spargo guilty as charged in the bill of indictment or you may find him not guilty.\u201d\nThe assignment of error is sustained. The defendants were jointly charged in one bill of indictment but with two separate offenses: (1) felonious breaking and entering and (2) felonious larceny. Following conviction by the jury as charged, each defendant was given a substantial sentence on each offense. Upon his plea of not guilty to the bill of indictment, each defendant was presumed to be innocent of each offense and the burden was on the State to satisfy the jury by competent evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of each defendant of each offense with which he stood charged. 2 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, \u00a7 32, pp. 528, 529. Where there is no admission by a defendant and no presumption against him is raised, his plea of not guilty challenges the credibility of the evidence, even if uncontradicted. State v. Stone, 224 N.C. 848, 32 S.E. 2d 651.\nBy their pleas of not guilty to the bill of indictment, each defendant was entitled to have the jury say if he was guilty or not guilty of felonious breaking and entering, and if he was guilty or not guilty of felonious larceny. For failure of the court to instruct the jury with respect to these options, there must be a new trial. We do not discuss the other questions raised in defendants\u2019 briefs as they' probably will not arise upon a retrial.\nWe note that although defendants were charged in the s\u00e1me bill of indictment and were tried together, their counsel caused separate records on appeal to be prepared, filed and printed at State expense. We disapprove of this unnecessary waste of public funds. Under our Rule 19(b), one record would have been sufficient.\nNew trial.\nBbock and Geaham, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Staff Attorney\u25a0 Mrs. Christine Y. Denson for the State.",
      "William D. McNaull, Jr., for defendant appellant Huffman.",
      "Wallace C. Tyser, Jr., for defendant appellant Spargo."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES HUFFMAN and RODGER SPARGO\nNos. 7026SC226 and 7026SC237\n(Filed 6 May 1970)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 113\u2014 joint trial of defendants \u2014 multiple offenses \u2014 instructions on guilt\nIn a trial of two defendants jointly charged with the offenses of (1) felonious breaking and entering and (2) felonious larceny, each defendant, upon his plea of not guilty, was entitled to an instruction on his guilt or innocence of each offense charged in the indictment; and the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury with respect to these options entitles the defendants to a new trial.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 32\u2014 plea of not guilty \u2014 presumption of innocence \u2014 burden of proof\nA defendant\u2019s plea of not guilty raises the presumption of his innocence of each offense charged in the bill of indictment, and the burden is on the State to satisfy the jury by competent evidence and beyond a reasonable dqubt of defendant\u2019s guilt of each offense charged.\nS. Criminal Law \u00a7 32\u2014 plea of not guilty \u2014 credibility of evidence\nWhere there is no admission by defendant and no presumption against him is raised, his plea of not guilty challenges the credibility of the evidence, even if uncontradieted.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 154\u2014 appeals from joint trial \u2014 one record on appeal\nWhere defendants are charged in the same bill of indictment and are tried together, one record on appeal will suffice. Rule of Practice in the Court of Appeals No. 19(b).\nAppeal by defendants from Falls, J., 20 October 1969 Session of MecKLENBUrg Superior Court.\nIn an indictment proper in form, defendants were charged with (1) breaking and entering a store building on 25 July 1969 with intent to steal property therefrom and (2) the larceny of fourteen cases of beer valued at $84.00 fr'\u00f3m said building after breaking and entering the same.\n\u25a0 Upon arraignment defendants pleaded not guilty. The State\u2019s primary evidence was provided by the owner of the premises alleged to have been burglarized and by one Sharon Stanton, a purported accomplice. Defendants did not testify but offered evidence tending to show alibi and to contradict testimony provided by Sharon Stanton.\nThe jury found each defendant guilty of breaking and entering and larceny as charged in the bill of indictment. From an active prison sentence of 8-10 years on the breaking and entering count and a 10 years\u2019 prison sentence on the larceny count to begin at expiration of sentence on the breaking and entering count but suspended on certain conditions, imposed on each defendant, both defendants appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Staff Attorney\u25a0 Mrs. Christine Y. Denson for the State.\nWilliam D. McNaull, Jr., for defendant appellant Huffman.\nWallace C. Tyser, Jr., for defendant appellant Spargo."
  },
  "file_name": "0085-01",
  "first_page_order": 109,
  "last_page_order": 111
}
