{
  "id": 8656194,
  "name": "STATE v. SAM BURNO",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Burno",
  "decision_date": "1912-04-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "632",
  "last_page": "634",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "158 N.C. 632"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "138 N. C., 600",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N. C., 599",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8697748
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/91/0599-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 300,
    "char_count": 5605,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.45,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.378631306375088e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4421190192941751
    },
    "sha256": "5723cc5c89a4f96ddd40813c13255b50b54bff4003cc7e9e15b00e4944530789",
    "simhash": "1:68b0f48c3e12e85e",
    "word_count": 999
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:45:05.014249+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. SAM BURNO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "AlleN, J.\nNo objection is taken to tbe bill of indictment, and there is no contention that the evidence was not sufficient to justify the verdict.\nAll of the evidence introduced at the trial is not sent up as a part of the case on appeal, but it appears that C. B. Wright was the principal witness for the State, and he testified, among other things, as follows: \u201cI saw Burno give the McKeithan woman a package, and saw her give him some money and he gave her back change; I was looking through the window; that after the woman had come from out of the house, I arrested her and found on her person a package of cocaine \u2014 the same kind of package I saw Burno deliver to her. I saw him put in small papers, preparing it on atable. She had in the package when arrested the same kind of package tvhich I now hold in my hand, and I took off the table the cloth (exhibiting same) and it has on it the same kind of material which is in these packages. The woman put the change and little papers containing what she go't from Burno in a handkerchief, and as soon as she came out I took fropi her the handkerchief and it contained the money and little paper packages.\u201d\nThis witness was then asked, \u201cWhere did she (Cora McKei-than) say she got the package ?\u201d and he answered, \u201cShe said that she got it upstairs, and then said afterwards she got it from Burno,\u201d and the defendant excepted:\nThis evidence was offered after Cora McKeithan had testified, and while it does not clearly appear from the record, the only reasonable inference is that she was a witness in behalf of the defendant, and the evidence was admitted for the purpose of contradiction, for which it was competent. S. v. Williams, 91 N. C., 599; S. v. Exum, 138 N. C., 600.\nThe State introduced Dr. N. C. Hunter, who was admitted to be an expert, and the solicitor exhibited to the witness the package which the witness Wright said that he got from the person of Cora McKeithan, and asked the witness what the package contained, and be answered: \u201cI have no way of making chemical test as to wbat the package contains, and can only give an opinion, and my opinion is that it is cocaine, after tasting it.\u201d He described the effects of cocaine, and pronounced it cocaine, and said: \u201cIn my opinion, it is cocaine.\u201d\nThe defendant excepted.\nOn cross-examination by defendant he said, without objection: \u201cI cannot tell the difference between cocaine and epsom salts, except by making actual test, but in my opinion, it is cocaine.\u201d He had previously described fully the effects of cocaine, and the effect of what he tasted out of one of the little paper packages. He also stated that he was a pharmacist as well as a doctor.\nThe defendant excepted to this evidence on two grounds:\n1. That the court erred in allowing the witness to testify as to an opinion, when his opinion was not fully satisfactory to his mind.\n2. That the court erred in allowing the solicitor for the State to .exhibit in the presence of the jury the package taken off the McKeithan woman by the witness O. B. 'Wright, and said to contain cocaine, the package having been taken from the woman in the absence of the defendant, and not having been identified as the package received by the McKeithan woman from the defendant.\nWe have no means of ascertaining whether the opinion of the doctor was satisfactory to him or not. We only know that he expressed his opinion under oath and did not say it was unsatisfactory, and in answer to the second objection, it is sufficient to say that it was not necessary for the defendant to be present when the package was seized, to make it competent evidence, and the witness Wright said, in answer to a question by the defendant, that he was satisfied that the package he found on Cora McKeithan was the same package he saw the defendant give her.\nThese are all the exceptions appearing in the record, and upon an examination of them, we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "AlleN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Bickett and Assistant Attorney-General Calvert for the State.",
      "John P\u201e Oamerpn and Lorenzo Medlin for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. SAM BURNO.\n(Filed 3 April, 1912.)\n1. Cocaine \u2014 Unlawful Sale \u2014 Evidence.\nUpon trial for unlawfully selling cocaine, it is competent, after the one to whom the drug is alleged to have been sold has testified, to impeach her evidence on behalf of the prisoner by showing, by another witness, she had made conflicting statements as to where and from whom she had purchased it.\n2. Same \u2014 Expert\u2014Satisfactory Opinion.\nUpon trial for the unlawful sale of cocaine, the testimony of a witness who has qualified as an expert physician and druggist, that in his opinion a certain dru& exhibited to him, and which was identified as that sold, was cocaine, is competent, though he said on cross-examination that he could not tell the difference between cocaine and epsom salts except by actual test, which was not made by him in this instance, but in his opinion the drug exhibited to him was cocaine.\n3. Cocaine \u2014 Unlawful Sale \u2014 Taken from Vendee \u2014 Absence of Defendant \u2014 Evidence.\nUpon a trial for the unlawful sale of cocaine, evidence is competent to show that cocaine was taken off the person to whom it is alleged to have been sold, in the absence of the defendant, when sufficiently identified as the article alleged to have been sold on the occasion specified.\nAppeal from Whcdbee, Jat January Term, 1912, of Rich-MOND.\nTbe defendant was convicted upon tbe charge of unlawfully selling cocaine to Cora McKeithan, and appealed from tbe judgment pronounced upon tbe verdict.\nTbe facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of tbe Court by Mr. Justice All&n.\nAttorney-General Bickett and Assistant Attorney-General Calvert for the State.\nJohn P\u201e Oamerpn and Lorenzo Medlin for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0632-01",
  "first_page_order": 676,
  "last_page_order": 678
}