{
  "id": 8358618,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BELYNDA MAE MORRIS, JULIA HICKS and RUSSELL WAYNE IRVING",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Morris",
  "decision_date": "1987-11-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 874SC341",
  "first_page": "499",
  "last_page": "502",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "87 N.C. App. 499"
    }
  ],
  "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": "307 S.E. 2d 304",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "309 N.C. 326",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4760257
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/309/0326-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 S.E. 2d 204",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 N.C. 236",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565526
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/296/0236-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 S.E. 2d 822",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 N.C. 321",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564024
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/293/0321-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 S.E. 2d 837",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "312 N.C. 162",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4759556
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/312/0162-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 351,
    "char_count": 5650,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.815,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20295835780387197
    },
    "sha256": "29c1612bcbfc80875ff6ab3095876ed60f09ae350ab0170164ead50673758ad4",
    "simhash": "1:9257c01aefad87e7",
    "word_count": 948
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:10:55.356094+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Hedrick and Judge Orr concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BELYNDA MAE MORRIS, JULIA HICKS and RUSSELL WAYNE IRVING"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendants first contend that the evidence presented by the State was insufficient as a matter of law to be submitted to the jury. We disagree.\nBefore the issue of a defendant\u2019s guilt may be submitted to the jury, the trial court must be satisfied that substantial evidence has been introduced tending to prove that defendant committed each essential element of the crime charged. State v. Hamlet, 312 N.C. 162, 321 S.E. 2d 837 (1984). All of the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the State, leaving any contradiction or discrepancies in the evidence to be resolved by the jury. State v. Witherspoon, 293 N.C. 321, 237 S.E. 2d 822 (1977). The question for the trial court is ^whether a reasonable inference of the defendant\u2019s guilt may be drawn from the evidence. State v. Thomas, 296 N.C. 236, 250 S.E. 2d 204 (1978).\nG.S. 14490.18(a) states \u201c[a] person commits the offense of Promoting prostitution of a minor if he knowingly: (1) Entices, forces, encourages, or otherwise facilitates a minor to participate in prostitution.\u201d It is clear after careful review of the present case that there was ample evidence of defendants\u2019 guilt to submit to the jury.\nThe State presented the following evidence: Defendant Irving had given a fifteen-year-old girl his phone number and told her to call him. After she telephoned Irving, he invited her to spend the night at his house, which she did. While there, Irving introduced the minor to defendants Belynda Mae Morris and Julia Hicks. Irving and Morris initiated a conversation with the fifteen-year-old in which Morris and Hicks \u201ctold her the ropes\u201d about prostitution. They told her not to quote prices and to use a false name if she was arrested. She was taught that customers could be found at the bus station on Court Street and that she could take her customers to a house on Poplar Street. She was also informed that she was to give Morris, Hicks or Irving the money that she made and that Irving would save the money and buy her nice things.\nDefendants argue that since there is no evidence that the minor actually engaged in acts of prostitution that they cannot be convicted under G.S. 14490.18(a). This argument is totally without merit.\nThe purpose of G.S. 14490.18(a) is the protection of minors. Violation of the statute occurs when a party knowingly, \u201c[e]ntices, forces, encourages, or otherwise facilitates\u201d a minor to engage in acts of prostitution. It is the attempt to corrupt a minor with which this statute is concerned. The statute never states or implies that actual acts of prostitution must be committed by the minor. The evidence presented by the State in the case sub judice more than sufficiently permits the question of defendants\u2019 guilt to be submitted to the jury.\nDefendants also contend that the trial court committed prejudicial error in failing to charge the jury that defendants must have acted \u201cknowingly.\u201d\nImmediately following the charge to the jury, the trial court asked counsel for defendants, \u201c[d]o you have any corrections or additions to this charge?\u201d Counsel for defendants responded, \u201c[n]one for the defendant, Your Honor.\u201d\nDefendants did not object to the jury charge at trial and have waived the opportunity to make such an exception on appeal unless such an omission by the trial judge constitutes \u201cplain error.\u201d App. R. 10(b)(2). State v. Oliver, 309 N.C. 326, 307 S.E. 2d 304 (1983).\nWhere no action was taken by counsel at trial, the burden is on the party alleging error to establish its right to review by asserting in its brief how the exception is preserved by rule or law or, when applicable, how such error constitutes \u201cplain error.\u201d Id. Since defendants made no objection at trial and do not assert that the trial court\u2019s omission of the term \u201cknowingly\u201d from the jury instruction constituted \u201cplain error,\u201d they have failed to properly raise the issue before this Court. Id.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Hedrick and Judge Orr concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Special Deputy Attorney General Robert G. Webb, for the State.",
      "Bailey & Raynor, by Edward G. Bailey, for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BELYNDA MAE MORRIS, JULIA HICKS and RUSSELL WAYNE IRVING\nNo. 874SC341\n(Filed 3 November 1987)\n1. Prostitution 8 3\u2014 promoting prostitution of minor \u2014 sufficient evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient to support defendants\u2019 conviction of promoting prostitution of a minor in violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-190.18 where it tended to show that defendants told a fifteen-year-old girl \u201cthe ropes\u201d about prostitution by advising her not to quote prices, to use a false name if arrested, where to find and take her customers, and to give money she made to one of the defendants so that the male defendant could save it and buy her nice things. Evidence of actual acts of prostitution by the minor was not required to support such a conviction.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 163\u2014 omission from instructions \u2014 issue not presented on appeal\nDefendants failed properly to raise on appeal the issue of the court\u2019s failure to instruct the jury that defendants must have acted \u201cknowingly\u201d where they made no objection at the trial and do not assert that such omission constituted \u201cplain error.\u201d\nAPPEAL by defendants from Barefoot, Judge. Judgments entered 10 December 1986 in Superior Court, Onslow County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 September 1987.\nDefendants were indicted on 4 November 1986 and charged with violating G.S. 14-190.18, promoting prostitution of a minor. Defendants were tried and convicted and each was sentenced to a term of six years in prison. From these judgments, defendants appeal.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Special Deputy Attorney General Robert G. Webb, for the State.\nBailey & Raynor, by Edward G. Bailey, for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0499-01",
  "first_page_order": 527,
  "last_page_order": 530
}
