{
  "id": 8522617,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONALD RALPH MOUL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Moul",
  "decision_date": "1989-09-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 889SC1323",
  "first_page": "644",
  "last_page": "646",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "95 N.C. App. 644"
    }
  ],
  "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": "358 S.E.2d 58",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "320 N.C. 172",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4726601,
        4731024,
        4726903,
        4730779,
        4730591
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/320/0172-05",
        "/nc/320/0172-01",
        "/nc/320/0172-02",
        "/nc/320/0172-04",
        "/nc/320/0172-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "354 S.E.2d 344",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.C. App. 145",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12169678
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/85/0145-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "338 S.E.2d 882",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "315 N.C. 393",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4719370,
        4715770,
        4718701,
        4719994,
        4718878
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/315/0393-05",
        "/nc/315/0393-04",
        "/nc/315/0393-01",
        "/nc/315/0393-03",
        "/nc/315/0393-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "334 S.E.2d 783",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 N.C. App. 192",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521163
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/77/0192-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "342 S.E.2d 904",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 N.C. 384",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4703105,
        4694539,
        4696367,
        4704373,
        4705269
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/316/0384-02",
        "/nc/316/0384-04",
        "/nc/316/0384-03",
        "/nc/316/0384-05",
        "/nc/316/0384-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "336 S.E.2d 424",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "426"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 N.C. App. 778",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525364
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "781"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/77/0778-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 S.E.2d 618",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "619"
        },
        {
          "page": "620"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 N.C. 132",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567694
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "134"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/306/0132-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 360,
    "char_count": 5891,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.733,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.607334123077605e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5266289656269535
    },
    "sha256": "9006d9ba5df821f062d931cedd59eca2da58de63e6a1ce9177711a24faaf9254",
    "simhash": "1:4aeff12c00760d42",
    "word_count": 965
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:25:49.576177+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. DONALD RALPH MOUL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "LEWIS, Judge.\nThe State\u2019s sole assignment of error is to the lower court\u2019s suppression of defendant\u2019s prior conviction. It argues that the trial court made inadequate findings to support total suppression of the evidence and that G.S. 8C-1, Rule 609 allows introduction of the conviction to impeach the defendant should he testify.\nIt should be noted at the outset that our scope of review of an order such as this is strictly limited to determining whether the trial judge\u2019s underlying findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, in which event they are conclusively binding on appeal, and whether those factual findings in turn support the judge\u2019s ultimate conclusion of law. State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 134, 291 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1982). \u201cIndeed, an appellate court accords great deference to the trial court in this respect because it is entrusted with the duty to hear testimony, weigh and resolve any conflicts in the evidence, find the facts, and, then based upon those findings, render a legal decision. . . .\u201d Id. at 134, 291 S.E.2d at 620.\nWe find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the admission of defendant\u2019s 1973 conviction at trial. As a general rule, after a hearing on a motion to suppress the evidence, the trial court must make written findings of fact and conclusions of law. G.S. 15-977(f); State v. Parks, 77 N.C. App. 778, 781, 336 S.E.2d 424, 426 (1985), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 316 N.C. 384, 342 S.E.2d 904 (1986). When making its findings, G.S. 8C-1, Rule 609(b) requires that the court make findings as to the specific facts and circumstances which demonstrate that the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect. State v. Hensley, 77 N.C. App. 192, 334 S.E.2d 783 (1985), cert. denied, 315 N.C. 393, 338 S.E.2d 882 (1986).\nIn the present case, all the trial judge found was that the conviction was over fourteen years old and that the probative value was outweighed by the prejudicial effect. These conclusory findings do not satisfy the \u201cspecific facts and circumstances\u201d requirement of Rule 609(b). Id. However, the trial court\u2019s failure to make appropriate findings is not reversible error. Where there is no material conflict in the evidence, findings and conclusions are not necessary. State v. Edwards, 85 N.C. App. 145, 354 S.E.2d 344, cert. denied, 320 N.C. 172, 358 S.E.2d 58 (1987).\nIn the present case, the State failed to make any objections, file an answer, or offer any evidence at the suppression hearing. Since the State offered no evidence or rebutted defendant\u2019s affidavits and allegations, there was no material conflict in the evidence before the trial court, and suppression was permissible.\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge HEDRICK and Judge ORR concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "LEWIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General G. Lawrence Reeves, Jr., for the State.",
      "J. Thomas Burnette for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONALD RALPH MOUL\nNo. 889SC1323\n(Filed 19 September 1989)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 86.4\u2014 indecent liberties \u2014 prior conviction \u2014 suppressed \u2014 insufficient findings \u2014 no prejudicial error\nThere was no prejudicial error in a prosecution for taking indecent liberties with a child in suppressing a prior conviction in Nebraska in 1973 for contributing to the need for special supervision of a minor where the State offered no evidence or rebuttal to defendant\u2019s affidavits and allegations and there was no material conflict in the evidence before the trial court. Although the trial judge\u2019s conclusory findings do not satisfy the specific facts and circumstances requirement of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 609(b), findings and conclusions are not necessary where there is no material conflict in the evidence.\nAppeal by the State of North Carolina from Right (Henry W., Jr.), Judge. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 August 1989.\nDefendant, an employee of Oxford Orphanage, was indicted for seven counts of taking indecent liberties with a child in violation of G.S. 14-202.1. The alleged incidents for which he was charged occurred in September, October and December of 1987. Prior to trial, the D.A. filed a \u201cMotion to Allow Evidence of a Prior Conviction on Misconduct.\u201d The prior conviction was for \u201cContributing to the Need for Special Supervision of a Minor\u201d and occurred in Nebraska in 1973. Defendant filed a response requesting a denial of the State\u2019s motion. The trial court denied the State\u2019s motion, ruling that the evidence did not satisfy G.S. 8C-1, Rule 404(b). The judge did not rule on the evidence\u2019s admissibility under G.S. 8C-1, Rule 609 but determined that the State had met Rule 609\u2019s notice requirement.\nOn 10 August 1988, defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress pursuant to G.S. 15A-972 requesting 1) suppression of all evidence of defendant\u2019s prior conviction; 2) suppression of all references to the conviction; and 3) instruction by the D.A. to each State witness not to mention the conviction. The trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion after a hearing in which he made findings of fact and conclusions of law, including the following:\n19. That the defendant was convicted on the 1st day of October, 1973 of contributing to the need for special supervision of a minor and was fined $50.00 plus costs.\n20. That Entry of Judgment in that matter was entered over fourteen (14) years ago and is barred by Rule 609 of Chapter 8C of the General Statutes of North Carolina from being introduced for the purpose of attacking the credibility of the defendant, Donald Ralph Moul.\n21. That although the State of North Carolina has given sufficient advance notice of the intention to use the evidence of the defendant\u2019s 1973 conviction, this Court finds that the probative value of such conviction is not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.\nThe State\u2019s subsequent motion to vacate the order was also denied. The State appeals and we affirm.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General G. Lawrence Reeves, Jr., for the State.\nJ. Thomas Burnette for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0644-01",
  "first_page_order": 672,
  "last_page_order": 674
}
