{
  "id": 8554074,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMMY LEE WINGARD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wingard",
  "decision_date": "1970-11-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 7026SC513",
  "first_page": "719",
  "last_page": "721",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 719"
    }
  ],
  "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": "168 S.E. 2d 465",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 N.C. App. 330",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549968
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/5/0330-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 S.E. 2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 N.C. App. 639",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552796
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/5/0639-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 69",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560152
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0069-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 S.E. 2d 453",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 N.C. 307",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563503
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/269/0307-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 255,
    "char_count": 3837,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.776793342541898e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8963754257487598
    },
    "sha256": "94af1741fa50397d8588c2e85406688840dc110627b5c774974301eed99e0b90",
    "simhash": "1:15efa4f3366e288a",
    "word_count": 650
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:50:15.842675+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Paeker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMMY LEE WINGARD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nThe appellant assigns as error the court\u2019s allowing the in-court identification of the defendant by the State\u2019s only witness, Barbara R. Jones. The appellant contends that the in-court identification of the defendant by the witness was tainted by an out-of-court confrontation. After a voir dire examination of the witness, the court made the following findings of fact and conclusion of law:\n\u201cThat Mrs. Barbara Jones observed the man who hit Robert Gainey for a period of about ten minutes while such man was in the store during the time the robbery occurred; that she told the police that this man was very short, about five feet three or four inches tall, with \u2018African Bush\u2019 hair and protruding teeth; that about two weeks after the robbery a detective showed her photographs of two men and a woman and asked her about identifying them; that she told the detective she could identify the man if she saw him, but not from the photographs shown to her; that one of the photographs was of the defendant; that after the robbery she first saw the man who hit Mr. Gainey in April, 1970 \u2018in this courtroom\u2019 at his trial in another case; that the solicitor called his name and read charges against him; that she didn\u2019t know his name until then; that no one told her that he was in the instant robbery case; that in identifying the defendant she based her opinion on what she saw at the time of the robbery; that when she saw him in the courtroom in April, he was with Mr. Lacy Blue seated at a table; that Mr. Blue is his counsel in the instant case; that from clear and convincing evidence in-court identification of the defendant by the witness Barbara Jones is of independent origin based on what she saw at the robbery and does not result from any out-of-court confrontation or from any pretrial identification procedures suggestive and conducive to mistaken identification.\u201d\nFindings of the trial court upon voir dire are binding on appeal when supported by competent evidence. State v. Childs, 269 N.C. 307, 152 S.E. 2d 453 (1967); State v. Gray, 268 N.C. 69, 150 S.E. 2d 1 (1966). We hold that there was plenary competent evidence to support the court\u2019s findings of fact, and clearly the findings justify the conclusion that the witness\u2019 in-court identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime was of independent origin and not tainted by the out-of-court confrontation. State v. Hughes, 5 N.C. App. 639, 169 S.E. 2d 1 (1969); State v. Keel, 5 N.C. App. 330, 168 S.E. 2d 465 (1969).\nWe have carefully examined the entire record and hold that the defendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Mallard and Judge Paeker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert Morgan, Attorney General, and Howard P. Satislcy, Staff Attorney, for the State.",
      "Lacy W. Blue for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMMY LEE WINGARD\nNo. 7026SC513\n(Filed 18 November 1970)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 66\u2014 validity of in-court identification of defendant \u2014 sufficiency of findings and evidence\nTrial court\u2019s findings and conclusion that the State witness\u2019 in-court identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of a common law robbery was of independent origin and was not tainted by any illegal out-of-court confrontation, held supported by plenary evidence.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 175\u2014 findings on voir dire \u2014 review on appeal\nFindings of the trial court upon voir dire are binding on appeal when supported by competent evidence.\nAppeal by defendant from Anglin, J., 1 June 1970 Schedule \u201cC\u201d Criminal Session, Mecklenburg Superior Court.\nThe defendant was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with common law robbery. Upon a plea of not guilty, the jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. From a judgment imposing a ten-year sentence, the defendant appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.\nRobert Morgan, Attorney General, and Howard P. Satislcy, Staff Attorney, for the State.\nLacy W. Blue for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0719-01",
  "first_page_order": 743,
  "last_page_order": 745
}
