{ "id": 8571793, "name": "STATE v. CHARLES ROBERT VINES", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Vines", "decision_date": "1964-11-11", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "747", "last_page": "749", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "262 N.C. 747" } ], "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": "112 S.E. 2d 61", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "251 N.C. 465", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626273 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "478" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/251/0465-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 S.E. 2d 426", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "250 N.C. 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622412 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "273" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/250/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 S.E. 2d 612", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "232 N.C. 575", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8610513 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/232/0575-01" ] }, { "cite": "41 S.E. 2d 201", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "227 N.C. 132", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621957 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/227/0132-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 348, "char_count": 5318, "ocr_confidence": 0.61, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.7923953131123058e-07, "percentile": 0.7151760585269643 }, "sha256": "46afaafe4b37946310c06fb5e23ea1e4f9e5d9608a1035cedc0d6dd51f915faf", "simhash": "1:9ee5f6714cbd9654", "word_count": 908 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:57:24.361559+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. CHARLES ROBERT VINES." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam.\nAccording to the State\u2019s evidence, the arresting officer found Vines in Arnold\u2019s Store on Monday, April 13, 1964, at 3:25 a.m., with \u201csome groceries in his arms\u201d; and shortly before he found Vines, the arresting officer saw Kittrell \u201ccoming from the window\u201d with groceries \u201cin his arms.\u201d\nVines testified that he was in Arnold\u2019s Store when apprehended. His explanation was that he had noticed an open window and a light shining outside; that he was a friend of Mr. Arnold and was concerned for his health; and that he entered the store to see if Mr. Arnold was there and was all right. It is noted that Mr. Arnold testified that he closed his business and locked the doors and windows about 7:30 p.m. \u201con the Friday before the 13th day of April, 1964,\u201d and did not return to the store \u201cuntil about 3:00 A.M. on April 13, 1964,\u201d after he had received a call from officers.\nAppellant assigns as error this excerpt from the charge: \u201cYou will notice, Members of the Jury, that the Statute does not say breaking and entering, it says breaking or entering with felonious intent. The court instructs you that if you find that on the 13th day of April in the early morning hours of 1964 these defendants or either of them went into W. H. Arnold\u2019s store here in the City of Raleigh with the intent to commit a felony, to wit, larceny and did, in fact, go in the building whether they broke in the building or someone else had broken in it before then, or, if they entered the building without a breaking with the intent to commit the crime of larceny, the felonious crime of larceny then in that event, if the State has satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt they would be guilty as charged of breaking or entering.\u201d\nThe court had read G.S. 14-54, the statute on which the first count in the bill of indictment is based; and the quoted excerpt related the provisions of this statute to the facts in evidence. Here, there was ample evidence to support a finding as to breaking and entering. However, as the court stated correctly, the crime defined in G.S. 14-54 is complete, all other elements being present, if there was an entry with felonious intent. S. v. Mumford, 227 N.C. 132, 41 S.E. 2d 201; S. v. Best, 232 N.C. 575, 61 S.E. 2d 612.\nAppellant assigns as error designated excerpts from the court\u2019s charge bearing upon the second (larceny) count. While certain of these instructions were inexact, it seems improbable that they confused the jury or otherwise prejudiced Vines with reference to the second (larceny) count. Be that as it may, the sentence imposed on the second (larceny) count is less than that imposed on the first (breaking and entering) count. Since the two sentences run concurrently, error, if any, with reference to the second (larceny) count was not prejudicial to Vines. S. v. Booker, 250 N.C. 272, 273, 108 S.E. 2d 426; S. v. Walker, 251 N.C. 465, 478, 112 S.E. 2d 61.\nEach of appellant\u2019s remaining assignments of error has received full consideration. However, none discloses prejudicial error or merits discussion in detail.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Bruton and Deputy Attorney General McGalliard for the State.", "E. E. Hollowell for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. CHARLES ROBERT VINES.\n(Filed 11 November, 1964.)\n1. Burglary \u00a7 2\u2014\nBreaking is not an essential element of tbe offense of entering a building with tbe felonious intent to commit tbe crime of larceny. G.S. 14-54.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 164\u2014\nWhere concurrent sentences are imposed on two separate counts of tbe indictment, error relating to tbe count on which tbe lesser sentence is imposed cannot be prejudicial in tbe absence of error affecting tbe other count. .\nAppeal by defendant Charles Robert Vines from Walker, Special Judge, April 27, 1964, Assigned Criminal Session of Ware.\nCharles Robert Vines and Robert Lee Kittrell were indicted in a bill containing three counts, to wit: First, feloniously breaking and entering H. W. Arnold\u2019s store; second, larceny of merchandise of the value of $50.00; and third, receiving stolen property with felonious intent.\nThe court, in accordance with G.S. 15-4.1, appointed counsel for each defendant; and at .trial, each defendant was represented by his court-appointed counsel. As to each defendant, the jury .returned verdicts of guilty as charged in the first and second counts of the bill of indictment.\nAs to appellant, the court pronounced judgments as follows: (1) Based on his conviction of breaking and entering as charged in the first count, the court pronounced judgment that Vines \u201cbe imprisoned in the State\u2019s Prison for a term of NOT LESS THAN FIVE YEARS NOR MORE THAN SEVEN YEARS.\u201d (2) Based on his conviction of larceny as charged in the second count, the court pronounced judgment that Vines \u201cbe imprisoned in the State\u2019s Prison for a term of NOT LESS THAN FOUR YEARS NOR MORE THAN SIX YEARS.\u201d\nVines, in open court, gave notice of appeal.\nLater, court-appointed trial counsel for Vines was permitted to withdraw and was relieved of further duties; and orders were entered in which the court appointed new counsel to perfect Vines\u2019 appeal and represent him in connection therewith and ordered that Wake County pay all necessary expenses incident to such appeal. The appeal has been perfected and Vines is represented in this Court by his present (appellate) counsel.\nAttorney General Bruton and Deputy Attorney General McGalliard for the State.\nE. E. Hollowell for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0747-01", "first_page_order": 791, "last_page_order": 793 }