{
  "id": 8524576,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIS WAYNE REYNOLDS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Reynolds",
  "decision_date": "1988-08-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 8721SC1186",
  "first_page": "103",
  "last_page": "107",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "91 N.C. App. 103"
    }
  ],
  "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": "349 S.E. 2d 566",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "573"
        },
        {
          "page": "573-74"
        },
        {
          "page": "574",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis supplied and footnote omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 N.C. 457",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4732391
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "469"
        },
        {
          "page": "469"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/318/0457-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "348 S.E. 2d 777",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 N.C. 370",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4733537
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/318/0370-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 S.E. 2d 384",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "388"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 N.C. 224",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561315
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "231"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/307/0224-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "324 S.E. 2d 834",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "840"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "312 N.C. 760",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4752702
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "768-69"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/312/0760-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "340 S.E. 2d 75",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "77-78"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 N.C. 152",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4696516
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "156-57"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/316/0152-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 483,
    "char_count": 8588,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.83,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3566852739290978
    },
    "sha256": "33b5ab80d4c085b7e1e7cf23bc7e0c799d24c3de611c8b228aee57f3a17e8278",
    "simhash": "1:1a00f9b744134a6c",
    "word_count": 1413
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:33:36.579827+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Arnold and Greene concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIS WAYNE REYNOLDS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORR, Judge.\nAt trial the State presented the testimony of John Timothy Mull\u00eds to establish defendant\u2019s guilt of conspiring to rob the Mayflower Restaurant.\nMull\u00eds and another man, Adam Smith, confessed to committing the actual robbery of the Mayflower Seafood Restaurant on 20 January 1987. After confessing, Mull\u00eds, in return for a plea bargain sentencing arrangement, agreed to testify against defendant and his codefendant Alfred Hemric on the conspiracy charges.\nAt trial Mull\u00eds testified that on the afternoon of the Mayflower robbery he stopped by defendant\u2019s home to visit. After a short time, he and defendant went \u201criding\u201d and met Adam Smith, who joined them. The three men returned to defendant\u2019s home and spent the next hour or so getting high. At approximately 6:00 to 6:30 p.m. that evening, Hemric joined defendant, Smith, and Mull\u00eds at defendant\u2019s home.\nMull\u00eds said a discussion began among the men as to whether or not they should rob a local appliance store. At which point, Hemric recommended they instead rob the Mayflower Restaurant for a \u201ccash lick.\u201d Hemric told Mull\u00eds and Smith where the cash receipts were kept in the Mayflower Restaurant and admonished the two men not to kill anybody.\nMull\u00eds testified that after the conversation ended he, Smith, and Hemric left defendant at his home and went to Hemric\u2019s home to begin preparing for the robbery. After Smith and Mull\u00eds robbed the Mayflower Restaurant they returned to Hemric\u2019s, where Hemric divided the money giving $1,100 each to Mull\u00eds and Smith and keeping the remaining $3,500.\nMull\u00eds testified at trial that all conversation concerning robbing the Mayflower took place in defendant\u2019s home and in his presence. However, when asked on two occasions at trial if defendant had participated in the conversation concerning the robbing of the Mayflower, Mull\u00eds said, \u201cI\u2019m not sure. It was conversation involved but I don\u2019t know if he was talking about the Mayflower with us or not\u201d; \u201cI don\u2019t remember.\u201d\nTo corroborate Mullis\u2019s trial testimony the State introduced a statement made by Mull\u00eds on 29 January 1987, which said:\nSPILLMAN: Tim, if you will, go ahead and tell us exactly, exactly how, how the uh, robbery took place, whose idea it was, how much money was got, and who, who, in fact was behind the whole situation. Scoot in a little closer here.\nMULLIS: All right. Uh, I just went up to Willis\u2019s and he told me about the rob, told me about the setup and him and A1 hyped it up and got, we were all getting high over at Willis\u2019s house and just, they just got me hyped up about it and . . .\nSPILLMAN: Got you hyped up about what?\nMULLIS: About pulling, pulling off the robbery.\nSPILLMAN: The robbery at; where at?\nMULLIS: Mayflower.\nSPILLMAN: All right.\nMULLIS: Said that, uh, they had somebody on the inside and that, uh, they knew the situation and it was one, two, three, that easy. It were as easy as one, two, three and all I, all I had to do was get in and get out and, uh, said that there was a lady there, and she wasn\u2019t gonna give me no problem about giving me the money and, uh, just . . .\nSPILLMAN: All right. So you all talked about it and then, uh, who left with you to go do it?\nMULLIS: Adam.\nSPILLMAN: Adam who?\nMULLIS: Smith.\nSPILLMAN: All right. You and Adam Smith left; was it Willis\u2019s house?\nMULLIS: Uh-huh.\nSPILLMAN: And then you all went where?\nMULLIS: Over the Al\u2019s house.\nSPILLMAN: And then what did you do there at Al\u2019s house?\nMULLIS: Uh, got high, smoked another joint. He rolled us a couple for the road and, uh, said that\u2019s for your nerves. You\u2019ll need it. Come back [unintelligible], handed me the shotgun, come straight back here when you finished and, uh, I\u2019ll count out the money and give everybody their share.\nOn appeal defendant assigns error to the admission of part of Mullis\u2019s 29 January 1987 statement at trial.\nDefendant argues that Mull\u00eds, in his trial testimony, could not remember whether defendant took part in the discussions concerning robbing the Mayflower Restaurant. Yet, in his 29 January statement Mull\u00eds said specifically that defendant, acting in concert with Hemric, persuaded him to commit the robbery. The discrepancy between these two versions of events, defendant contends, prevents the evidence in the prior statement from being admitted to corroborate Mullis\u2019s trial testimony.\nIn order to be corroborative and therefore properly admissible, the prior statement of the witness need not merely relate to specific facts brought out in the witness\u2019s testimony at trial, so long as the prior statement in fact tends to add weight or credibility to such testimony. State v. Riddle, 316 N.C. 152, 156-57, 340 S.E. 2d 75, 77-78 (1986); State v. Higg[i]nbottom, 312 N.C. 760, 768-69, 324 S.E. 2d 834, 840 (1985); State v. Burns, 307 N.C. 224, 231, 297 S.E. 2d 384, 388 (1982). See State v. Ollis, 318 N.C. 370, 348 S.E. 2d 777 (1986).\nState v. Ramey, 318 N.C. 457, 469, 349 S.E. 2d 566, 573 (1986).\nAdditional or \u201cnew\u201d information contained in the witness\u2019s prior statement may also be admitted as corroborative if it adds weight or credibility to the witness\u2019s trial testimony. Id. at 469, 349 S.E. 2d at 573-74.\nHowever, the witness\u2019s prior statements as to facts not referred to in his trial testimony and not tending to add weight or credibility to it are not admissible as corroborative evidence. Additionally, the witness\u2019s prior contradictory statements may not be admitted under the guise of corroborating his testimony.\nState v. Ramey, 318 N.C. at 469, 349 S.E. 2d at 574 (emphasis supplied and footnote omitted).\nMullis\u2019s prior statement that defendant was very active in persuading him to commit the Mayflower robbery adds neither weight nor credibility to his trial testimony that he was unable to remember if defendant even participated in the discussions concerning the robbing of the Mayflower Restaurant. Accordingly, we find the portion of Mullis\u2019s prior statement, pertaining to this question, was improperly admitted at trial.\nFurthermore, because the evidence in the 29 January 1987 statement is the only evidence clearly identifying defendant as part of the conspiracy, its admission at trial was prejudicial error.\nWe conclude, therefore, defendant is entitled to a new trial.\nDefendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error relate to matters unlikely to arise at a second trial and do not warrant discussion here.\nNew trial.\nJudges Arnold and Greene concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ORR, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Mabel Y. Bullock, for the State.",
      "Pfefferkorn, Pishko & Elliot, P.A., by Robert M. Elliot, for defendant-appe llant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIS WAYNE REYNOLDS\nNo. 8721SC1186\n(Filed 2 August 1988)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 89.3\u2014 statement of co-conspirator \u2014 no weight or credibility added to trial testimony \u2014statement inadmissible for corroboration\nThe trial court erred in admitting for corroborative purposes the prior statement of an alleged co-conspirator that defendant was very active in persuading him to commit a robbery, since the statement added neither weight nor credibility to his trial testimony that he was unable to remember if defendant even participated in the discussions concerning the robbery; furthermore, admission of the statement was prejudicial error, since it was the only evidence clearly identifying defendant as part of the conspiracy.\nAppeal by defendant from Cornelius, Judge. Judgment entered 9 July 1987 and order entered 11 December 1987 in Superi- or Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 May 1988.\nDefendant was indicted and tried for conspiracy to commit armed robbery of the Mayflower Seafood Restaurant and for felony armed robbery of a Food Lion store. A jury found defendant guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced defendant to terms of ten years for the conspiracy conviction and fourteen years for the armed robbery conviction.\nThereafter, on the basis of newly discovered evidence, defendant filed a motion for appropriate relief requesting the trial court to set aside his convictions for conspiracy and armed robbery. The trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion in part by ordering a new trial on the charge of armed robbery. However, the trial court denied defendant\u2019s motion to set aside the conspiracy conviction. Subsequently, the State voluntarily dismissed the robbery charge based on evidence that another person had in fact committed the crime.\nDefendant appeals from the judgment entering the conspiracy conviction and from the order denying his motion for appropriate relief.\nFacts relevant to the issues on appeal will be included herein.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Mabel Y. Bullock, for the State.\nPfefferkorn, Pishko & Elliot, P.A., by Robert M. Elliot, for defendant-appe llant."
  },
  "file_name": "0103-01",
  "first_page_order": 131,
  "last_page_order": 135
}
