{ "id": 8525293, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARVIN CARSON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Carson", "decision_date": "1986-05-20", "docket_number": "No. 8526SC987", "first_page": "620", "last_page": "629", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "80 N.C. App. 620" } ], "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": "309 S.E. 2d 695", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "697" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 N.C. App. 684", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525573 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "687" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/65/0684-01" ] }, { "cite": "306 S.E. 2d 779", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "309 N.C. 451", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4763838 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/309/0451-01" ] }, { "cite": "300 S.E. 2d 420", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "429" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "61 N.C. App. 23", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8519317 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "39" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/61/0023-01" ] }, { "cite": "284 S.E. 2d 326", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "329-30" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 N.C. App. 576", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524172 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "581" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/54/0576-01" ] }, { "cite": "288 S.E. 2d 803", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 N.C. 730", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572099, 8572003, 8572131, 8572038, 8572072 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/304/0730-04", "/nc/304/0730-01", "/nc/304/0730-05", "/nc/304/0730-02", "/nc/304/0730-03" ] }, { "cite": "282 S.E. 2d 560", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "563" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 N.C. App. 208", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521278 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "213" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/54/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "300 S.E. 2d 473", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "476" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "61 N.C. App. 316", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520837 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "319" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/61/0316-01" ] }, { "cite": "300 S.E. 2d 403", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "409" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "61 N.C. App. 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8519363 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "61" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/61/0052-01" ] }, { "cite": "316 S.E. 2d 118", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "121" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "68 N.C. App. 615", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527718 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "618" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/68/0615-01" ] }, { "cite": "275 S.E. 2d 450", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "472" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "302 N.C. 223", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565360 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "252" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/302/0223-01" ] }, { "cite": "296 S.E. 2d 261", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "266" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 79", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560661 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "86" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0079-01" ] }, { "cite": "229 S.E. 2d 163", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "174" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "291 N.C. 37", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8557269 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "54" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/291/0037-01" ] }, { "cite": "316 S.E. 2d 73", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "75" }, { "parenthetical": "Trial court's instruction was adequate in substance on the facts of the case." } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 287", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4683614 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "290" }, { "parenthetical": "Trial court's instruction was adequate in substance on the facts of the case." } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0287-01" ] }, { "cite": "317 S.E. 2d 84", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "91" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "69 N.C. App. 392", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526350 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "402" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/69/0392-01" ] }, { "cite": "254 S.E. 2d 579", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "585" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 N.C. 227", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568468 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "235" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/297/0227-01" ] }, { "cite": "309 S.E. 2d 510", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 N.C. App. 359", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523931 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/65/0359-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 S.E. 2d 364", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 171", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8596105 ], "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0171-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 174", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 663", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571959 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0663-01" ] }, { "cite": "337 S.E. 2d 154", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "157" }, { "page": "157" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "78 N.C. App. 493", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522281 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "496" }, { "page": "496" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/78/0493-01" ] }, { "cite": "300 S.E. 2d 361", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "363" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 662", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565448 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "666" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0662-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 862, "char_count": 19023, "ocr_confidence": 0.812, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.151274521387733e-07, "percentile": 0.5814837081235238 }, "sha256": "784df15ad4f83580603a9c2c91de776a279dee9d294d8a68b44a7b2f88dfb4d5", "simhash": "1:0a75f46b6e2f9557", "word_count": 3159 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:01:08.586003+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges JOHNSON and Martin concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARVIN CARSON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BECTON, Judge.\nFrom a judgment imposing a twenty-five-year sentence for robbery with a dangerous weapon, defendant Marvin Carson appeals. We find no prejudicial error.\nI\nPamela Hill and Larry Pierce were working at the International House of Pancakes (IHOP) in Charlotte, North Carolina, on 4 November 1984. After closing the restaurant, Ms. Hill unlocked the door so that Mr. Pierce could go to a nearby hotel for change. When Mr. Pierce came back into the IHOP, two men followed him. The taller of the two men, later identified as the defendant, pointed a shotgun at Ms. Hill, and the shorter man demanded the orange bag containing the money from the cash register. When Ms. Hill informed them that it was in the safe, the shorter man rummaged through the cash register.\nMr. Pierce peered out from the kitchen and heard Ms. Hill say they were being robbed. One of the robbers ordered Mr. Pierce to come out front, but he refused and went upstairs to hide in the air conditioning room. Apparently believing that Mr. Pierce had gone to call the police, the taller man urged the shorter man to leave. The shorter man continued looking for the money, then grabbed Ms. Hill\u2019s purse, took the wallet, turned and ran out after the taller man.\nMs. Hill testified that she observed both men at a distance of approximately three feet for at least six to eight minutes. She also testified that the area in which the robbery occurred was well lit and that she remembered what the men were wearing. She described the taller man as 6'2\" to 6'7\" with big, soft eyes and the shorter man as 5T\" to 5'2\" with a \u201clittle pumpkin head,\u201d \u201csquared off chin\u201d and \u201ccrazy eyes.\u201d Ms. Hill testified that she later recognized the taller man in a television news broadcast on 9 November 1984. Unbeknownst to Ms. Hill, defendant was being arrested on an unrelated charge. She had picked the shorter man out of a photographic array a few days before. She did not notify the police department that she had recognized the taller man on the news broadcast until 29 November 1984 when she went to the police station to give a written statement. She first made a corporeal identification of the defendant at his probable cause hearing, when he was the only black man seated at the defendant\u2019s table.\nDefendant offered evidence of an alibi. Dawn Franklin testified that she and defendant traveled to Morganton, North Carolina on 3 November 1984 and did not return to Charlotte until 5 November 1984. This was corroborated by the testimony of Belinda Bass, who said that the defendant and Dawn Franklin had stayed with her at her house in Morganton. The defendant also introduced Ms. Franklin\u2019s work records, which revealed that she was off that weekend.\nThe defendant has brought forward eleven exceptions, contained in three assignments of error. The thrust of the defendant\u2019s argument is that the State\u2019s identification evidence was extremely weak and that the State failed in its attempt to bolster its case with certain pre-trial line-up evidence because that evidence was never linked to the defendant. Consequently, defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence for substantive purposes, testimony that the eyewitness recognized defendant on a television broadcast being arrested for an unrelated offense, and further erred by failing to instruct the jury on the perils of a single eyewitness identification.\nDefendant, whose defense was alibi, asserts that the State would not have met its substantial burden of proving identity if not for the erroneous admission of the tainted testimony and the omission of a proper jury instruction.\nII\nWe agree that the testimony by the two IHOP employees and the investigating officer as to scheduled line-ups which never took place was irrelevant and inadmissible; however, the admission of this irrelevant evidence did not so infect the total evidentiary picture as to require a reversal. Indeed, defendant failed to object to two of the several attempts by the State to show that no line-up occurred. Consequently, under State v. Hammonds, 307 N.C. 662, 666, 300 S.E. 2d 361, 363 (1983), we could also find that defendant waived his right to challenge this evidence. Because the State never offered evidence that defendant was identified at a line-up, we are convinced that there is no reasonable possibility that this error contributed to the verdict. See State v. Knox, 78 N.C. App. 493, 496, 337 S.E. 2d 154, 157 (1985).\nIII\nDefendant also assigns as error the trial court\u2019s failure to suppress references to the circumstances surrounding the defendant\u2019s apprehension and arrest on an unrelated charge. Defendant correctly states the general rule that evidence of mere accusations of wrongdoing, without a resulting criminal conviction, is not admissible either as substantive or impeaching evidence. State v. Williams, 279 N.C. 663, 185 S.E. 2d 174 (1971); State v. McClain, 240 N.C. 171, 81 S.E. 2d 364 (1954). This rule is an application of the principle that the evidence must be confined to the point in issue in the case on trial. Id.\nThe trial court made an effort to limit the testimony about defendant\u2019s arrest on another charge to that necessary to elicit evidence about Ms. Hill\u2019s identification of him from the television broadcast. Officer Alsbrook was allowed to testify that the arrest broadcast on television, from which Ms. Hill made her identification, was in no way related to the present case.\nWe do not agree with the defendant\u2019s contention that the only purpose of this testimony was to prejudice the jurors against the defendant and to encourage them to convict the defendant because he had been accused of other, unrelated, criminal acts. We conclude that the admission of this testimony does not require a reversal.\nDirecting us to the following excerpts from the transcript, the defendant insists that the district attorney made \u201cnumerous references to defendant\u2019s arrest on the unrelated charge and the circumstances surrounding it.\u201d\nQ. And were you involved in any way in that newscast?\nA. Uh, yes, I was.\nQ. Did you participate in that arrest?\nA. Uh, yes, I did.\nQ. Where did that arrest take place?\nA. The arrest took place at the Coliseum Mart, uh, Hotel on Independence Boulevard. It\u2019s about a block or two within the, uh, International House of Pancakes on Independence Boulevard. The, uh, incident took, uh, made quite a stir and, uh\nMr. Bender: Objection Your Honor.\nThe Court: Sustained.\nQ. Do you recall what date that, uh, arrest at the Coliseum Hotel, or the Coliseum Mart Hotel took place?\nA. Yes. It was on the 11th of November.\nQ. The 11th of November?\nA. I mean, I [sic] sorry, the 9th of November.\nQ. Now, was that arrest made on November 9th at the Coliseum Mart Hotel in any way related to the, to this case?\nMr. Bender: Objection.\nThe Court: Overruled. Answer that question.\nA. No, it was not.\nMr. Bender: Your Honor, MOVE TO STRIKE.\nThe Court: Motion Denied.\nQ. Do you see the person here in the courtroom that you arrested on the 9th of November\u2014\nA. \u2014 uh, yes \u2014\nQ. \u2014at the Coliseum Mart?\nA. Yes, I do.\nQ. Now, when Ms. Hill came down to see you at the Law Enforcement Center on either the 29th or 30th of November, had you charged Marvin Carson with armed robbery in this particular case at that point?\nMr. Bender. Objection, Your Honor.\nThe Court: Overruled.\nAt this point, defense counsel requested a bench conference. The trial court stated that the questioning had not violated its earlier ruling on defendant\u2019s motion in limine, which prohibited the State from asking questions about the incidents underlying defendant\u2019s arrest on the unrelated charge. The trial court felt, and we agree, that Ms. Hill\u2019s identification of the defendant from the television broadcast was relevant. In addition, Ms. Hill had already testified without objection about how she had first identified the defendant. The only additional information elicited during Officer Alsbrook\u2019s testimony was that the arrest on 9 November 1984 was not related to the case being tried.\nWe hold that this additional evidence was not so prejudicial as to require a new trial. The testimony about the defendant\u2019s arrest was admitted for the limited purpose of explaining Ms. Hill\u2019s initial identification of the defendant.\n1 \u2014 4