{
  "id": 8547528,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JACK McGINNIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. McGinnis",
  "decision_date": "1970-07-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 7029SC370",
  "first_page": "8",
  "last_page": "11",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 8"
    }
  ],
  "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": "152 S.E. 2d 341",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 N.C. 81",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561869
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/269/0081-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 380,
    "char_count": 6230,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.555,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2058407652338032
    },
    "sha256": "9413efe7e1010d624ace93dc665f9a44bb8bdf5bd77498ae6386cdfe99546295",
    "simhash": "1:178fa5a23b8b5532",
    "word_count": 1065
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:50:15.842675+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Parker and Vaughn, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JACK McGINNIS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Campbell, J.\nWe have with some difficulty attempted to review the contentions of the defendant in this case. No proper exceptions have been brought forward to assist us in our search through the record of this case. Rules 21 and 28, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina.\nThe defendant complains of the following passages in the testimony of Scruggs, the accomplice:\n\u201c(C) Q. Now Mr. Scruggs, did you later talk to the sheriff of Rutherford County, Sheriff Damon Huskey?\nA. Yes sir.\nQ. Where did you talk to Sheriff Huskey and what did you talk to him about?\nMr. Walden: Objection.\nCourt: Overruled, exception.\nA. Here at the courthouse.\nQ. Did you come to the courthouse to see him?\nA. Myself and my attorney.\nQ. Who was your attorney at that time?\nA. George Morrow.\nQ. Now, on the advice of your attorney and in the presence of your attorney, did you tell Sheriff Huskey what had occurred relative to Mr. Doggett\u2019s Store ?\nMr. Walden: Objection.\nCourt: Overruled, Exception. . . .\nQ. Did you relate substantially the same set of facts to Sheriff Huskey as you have related to the jury here in this case?\nMr. Walden: Objection.\nCourt: Overruled, Exception.\nA. Yes sir.\nQ. Now, did you also accompany Deputy Sheriff Low-rance and Ben Humphries anywhere?\nA. Yes.\nQ. Where did you go with these officers?\nA. I took them to where I thought the suits were \u2014\nMr. Walden: Objection.\nCourt: Overruled, Exception.\nQ. What city did you go to with these two officers?\nCourt: Wait a minute, Mr. Solicitor, what are you talking about \u2018they were?\u2019\nA. The suits they were stealing. (C)\u201d\nThis assignment is patently without merit in that the testimony refers to statements that the witness himself made.\nThe defendant makes the following broadside exception to the testimony concerning two belts, (State\u2019s Exhibits 2 and 3), one found outside the store and another found in South Carolina:\n\u201cThe defendant excepts to and assigns as error all of the evidence admitted relating to any of the State\u2019s Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 and most particularly as to the similarity between State\u2019s Exhibits 2 and three (3) after the defendant\u2019s motion to suppress the evidence (Exhibit 2) had been allowed as appears in the record (p. 21) in that such extended examination thereafter by the solicitor and allowed by the court greatly prejudiced the defendant in the eyes and minds of the jury. This is the defendant\u2019s Exception and Assignment of Error No. 4.\u201d\nThe evidence concerning the belts was admitted without any objection by the defendant, and as such he waived such proper objection as he may have made earlier. State v. McKethan, 269 N.C. 81, 152 S.E. 2d 341 (1967).\nWe have reviewed the entire record and we find no error which is prejudicial to the defendant.\nNo Error.\nParker and Vaughn, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Campbell, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgcm by Assistant Attorney General Bernard A. Harrell for the State.",
      "Carroll W. Walden, Jr., for the defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JACK McGINNIS\nNo. 7029SC370\n(Filed 15 July 1970)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 73, 79\u2014 testimony as to statements made by the witness \u2014 hearsay\nTestimony by an accomplice as to statements he had made to the sheriff were not inadmissible as hearsay.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 162\u2014 failure to object to testimony\nThe trial court did not err in the admission of evidence of the comparison of a belt which had earlier been denied admission into evidence with another belt where defendant failed to. object to such evidence.\nOn certiomri to review trial of defendant before McLean, /., 22 May 1969 Session of Rutherford County General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division.\nThis criminal prosecution arises from the larceny of some 54 suits and 57 pairs of pants from the premises of Jim Dog-gett\u2019s Dry Cleaners and Men\u2019s Wear of Henrietta, North Carolina. This business consists of a dry cleaning establishment on one side and a men\u2019s clothing store on the other side. The two have interconnecting doors. The case was brought to trial upon a proper bill of indictment charging felonious breaking and entering, and felonious larceny. Upon a jury verdict of guilty of both counts as charged and judgment based thereon, the defendant petitioned for and procured a writ of certiorari from this court.\nThe owner of the premises involved testified as to the type and quantity of clothes missing and to a breaking into the premises. Frank Scruggs (Scruggs), was placed on the stand by the State. Scruggs testified, in substance, as follows: He and Donald Morgan and the defendant, Jack McGinnis (McGinnis), had gone to Doggett\u2019s on the morning of 13 November 1968 so that McGinnis and Morgan could have some clothes dry cleaned. In the early morning hours of 14 November 1968, the three of them returned to the premises in Scruggs\u2019 white Ford Torino. They had been drinking all day. Morgan and McGinnis entered the Doggett building several times and each time they returned with a quantity of clothes and men\u2019s suits. They then proceeded to Spartanburg, South Carolina, where McGinnis got out at his home and remained. Scruggs and Morgan took the car and the clothing on, and Morgan took the clothing \u201cto several places in Spartanburg,\u201d presumably to dispose of it.\nOther witnesses tended to corroborate this testimony. Jim Doggett was recalled to the stand and was shown a belt which had been found outside the store after the break-in and larceny. This Exhibit 3 was said by Doggett to be similar to a belt which he had seen in South Carolina on 5 December 1968. Wheeler Lowrance, a Rutherford County detective, stated that he had seen State\u2019s Exhibit 1, a suit, which Mr. Doggett had said was stolen from his store, in Gaffney, South Carolina, about 12-14 miles from McGinnis\u2019 home on 5 December 1968. Peggy Owens and Agnus Splawn stated that they had seen a white Ford Torino or a white car near the cleaners in the early morning of 14 November 1968. The defendant did not offer any evidence at the trial.\nDefendant assigns as error the admission of hearsay evidence at his trial, the comparison of a belt which had been denied admission into evidence with another belt found in South Carolina, and the alleged misstatement by the trial judge of the contentions of the defendant.\nAttorney General Robert Morgcm by Assistant Attorney General Bernard A. Harrell for the State.\nCarroll W. Walden, Jr., for the defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0008-01",
  "first_page_order": 32,
  "last_page_order": 35
}
