{
  "id": 8357937,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BOBBY MITCHELL ADAMS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Adams",
  "decision_date": "1987-12-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 872SC632",
  "first_page": "139",
  "last_page": "143",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "88 N.C. App. 139"
    }
  ],
  "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": "452 F. Supp. 912",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        4014883
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "916"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/452/0912-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 464,
    "char_count": 9047,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.797,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20293770022885504
    },
    "sha256": "1a83ae03a070c570aa892169cb71f77bdfbe9cd1aae7e7723777888d94a981cc",
    "simhash": "1:4ffe90f19e3192e0",
    "word_count": 1473
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:20:42.285314+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Eagles and Greene concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BOBBY MITCHELL ADAMS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge.\nDefendant argues the trial court committed error in denying his motion to dismiss the misdemeanor charge of willfully refusing to produce and exhibit his driver\u2019s license to George Stokes, a uniformed law enforcement officer. Defendant contends that since he struck the Toyota \u201con Dr. Manning\u2019s off-street parking lot, which is a public vehicular area,\u201d he did not have to produce his driver\u2019s license to the officers. In support of this contention, defendant cites Keziah v. Bostic, 452 F. Supp. 912 (W.D.N.C. 1978). In that case a highway patrolman driving along a public highway observed the petitioner driving out of a private driveway. The patrolman followed the petitioner into another private driveway. Both the petitioner and the patrolman got out of their cars and approached each other. The patrolman asked the petitioner to produce his driver\u2019s license, and the petitioner refused, stating that he did not have to show his license on his own property. The patrolman informed the petitioner he was under arrest for, failing to display his license, and a scuffle ensued. The court found that \u201cwhile petitioner would have had a meritorious defense to any prosecution based on failure to display his license, he was not entitled to invoke self-help against what was, at the time, an arguably lawful arrest.\u201d Id. at 916.\nDefendant in the present case has no such meritorious defense. Unlike the patrolman in Keziah, who had no reason to stop the petitioner or be suspicious of him, the policemen here were called to investigate an accident. The uniformed officers were legitimately on the parking lot premises to perform a duty of their office. Defendant was requested several times to display his driver\u2019s license to facilitate the investigation. When he refused, defendant clearly violated G.S. 20-29 which states:\nAny person operating or in charge of a motor vehicle, when requested by an officer in uniform . . . who shall refuse, on demand of such officer ... to produce his license and exhibit same to such officer . . . for the purpose of examination . . . shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished as provided in this Article.\nThese assignments of error have no merit.\nDefendant next contends the trial court erred in denying defendant\u2019s motions to dismiss the charges of felonious assault with a deadly weapon on George Stokes and Adolphus Fonville, the two law enforcement officers who were investigating the accident. Defendant argues that Stokes and Fonville were not at the scene performing a duty of their office because G.S. 20466.1(e) only requires law enforcement departments to investigate collisions resulting in injury to or death of any person or total property damage to an apparent extent of five hundred dollars or more. Although the damage to the Toyota was estimated by Stokes to be under five hundred dollars, the officers present were legitimately at the scene. The police were called to the parking lot to investigate an accident. Stokes testified that it was not unusual to be called to investigate minor traffic accidents and that an acci-\ndent report is usually filed. The statute may not have required an investigation in this case, but it certainly did not forbid one.\nDefendant\u2019s argument borders on the frivolous.\nDefendant further argues that since Stokes and Fonville testified that defendant was \u201ccleaning his fingernails\u201d when he had the pocketknife out, \u201cit is difficult to imagine how that could constitute an assault.\u201d We agree with defendant that cleaning one\u2019s fingernails should hardly be considered an assault, but here defendant was doing much more. The officers testified that defendant, after threatening their lives, withdrew the knife and shook it at them while continuing to threaten the policemen. Under the circumstances shown by the State in this case, there is plenary evidence that all the requirements of G.S. 14-34.2 were met. Defendant made an overt act with force and violence to do some immediate physical injury to the uniformed officers who were investigating the accident, and his show of force or menace of violence was sufficient to cause the officers a reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.\nDefendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Eagles and Greene concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Mabel Y. Bullock, for the State.",
      "Frazier T. Woolard for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BOBBY MITCHELL ADAMS\nNo. 872SC632\n(Filed 15 December 1987)\n1. Automobiles and Other Vehicles \u00a7 4\u2014 accident in parking lot \u2014 refusal to exhibit driver\u2019s license\nDefendant could properly be convicted of willfully refusing to exhibit his driver\u2019s license to a uniformed law officer in violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-29 where the evidence showed that defendant\u2019s vehicle struck a car in an off-street parking lot at a dentist\u2019s office; uniformed officers came to the parking lot to investigate the accident; and defendant refused several requests by the officers to display his driver\u2019s license to facilitate the investigation.\n2. Assault and Battery \u00a7 14.6\u2014 investigation of parking lot accident \u2014 performance of duties as law officers\nLaw officers who were investigating an accident in an off-street parking lot at a dentist\u2019s office involving damage under $500 and not resulting in personal injury or death were performing a duty of their office so as to support defendant\u2019s conviction of feloniously assaulting the officers in the performance of their duties even though N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20466.1(e) may not have required an investigation in this case.\n3. Assault and Battery \u00a7 14.6\u2014 assault on law officers \u2014 sufficient evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient to support defendant\u2019s conviction of assaulting two law officers with a deadly weapon in violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-34.2 where it tended to show that defendant threatened to kill the officers if either one tried to touch him, removed a pocketknife from his pocket, shook it at the officers, began cleaning his fingernails with the knife, told officers that it would take the whole county sheriffs department to take him down, and finally folded the knife and put it back in his pocket after being asked repeatedly to put it away.\nAppeal by defendant from Llewellyn, Judge. Judgments entered 1 April 1987 in Superior Court, Beaufort County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 December 1987.\nDefendant was charged in proper bills of indictment with two counts of feloniously assaulting a law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon in violation of G.S. 14-34.2, refusing to produce and exhibit his driver\u2019s license to George Stokes, a uniformed law enforcement officer, in violation of G.S. 20-29 and assaulting a law enforcement officer in violation of G.S. 14-33(b)(4).\nThe evidence at trial tends to show the following: On 17 November 1986, defendant took his son to a dentist\u2019s office and parked his vehicle, a wrecker, in the dentist\u2019s parking lot. After his son\u2019s appointment, as defendant was leaving the lot, he backed into a gray 1976 Toyota that was parked in the lot. Defendant sent his son into the dentist\u2019s office to find the Toyota\u2019s owner. Defendant\u2019s son found the driver, and the driver\u2019s mother reported the accident to the police. Two police officers, Sergeant George Stokes and Adolphus Fonville, came to the scene to investigate the accident. Stokes asked defendant several times to produce his driver\u2019s license, and he refused. Stokes informed defendant that he would be arrested if he did not produce and exhibit his driver\u2019s license. Defendant told the officers present that if either one tried to touch him he would try his best to kill them. Defendant removed a pocketknife from his pocket, shook it at the officers, and then began cleaning his fingernails. Defendant told the officers that it was going to take the whole Beaufort County Sheriffs Department and the whole police department to take him down. Sergeant Stokes pulled his service revolver from his holster and held it pointed towards the sky in the ready position when defendant pulled out the knife. Stokes told defendant if he made a move toward the officers or tried to stab either one he would shoot him. Stokes also called for a backup on his hand-held walkie-talkie and Officer J. W. Pollard came to the scene. Defendant finally folded the knife and put it back in his pocket after being asked repeatedly to put it away. As the officers tried to effectuate the arrest defendant reached in his wrecker for an iron pipe and a struggle ensued. During the struggle defendant bit Officer J. W. Pollard\u2019s ring finger on his right hand and the middle finger on his left hand.\nFrom judgments imposing five years for assault with a deadly weapon on George Stokes, a law enforcement officer, two years for assault with a deadly weapon on Adolphus Fonville, a law enforcement officer, and not less than twelve months nor more than fifteen months for refusing to produce his driver\u2019s license, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Mabel Y. Bullock, for the State.\nFrazier T. Woolard for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0139-01",
  "first_page_order": 167,
  "last_page_order": 171
}