{
  "id": 8576451,
  "name": "STATE v. WILLIAM LEWIS CARROLL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Carroll",
  "decision_date": "1965-11-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "592",
  "last_page": "594",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "265 N.C. 592"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 291,
    "char_count": 4330,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.566,
    "sha256": "18e14f90e60b524fa26655326b51d15bcda3b1b78b33c5f20040027fd7b3fbf6",
    "simhash": "1:c887cf9b2321f953",
    "word_count": 699
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:31:16.118019+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. WILLIAM LEWIS CARROLL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER Cueiam.\nDefendant\u2019s brief brings forward his Assignments of Error Nos. 4 and 9 and Nos. 5 and 8.\nUnder Assignments Nos. 4 and 9, defendant contends the court erred in overruling his motion for judgment as of nonsuit and his motion to set aside the verdict.\nThere was evidence that, within an hour from the time Mr. Watts\u2019 automobile was removed, without his knowledge or consent, from the parking lot at his place of business, it was discovered in the possession of defendant, a person unknown to Mr. Watts; and the evidence as to the circumstances of defendant\u2019s possession was sufficient to support a jury finding that defendant had taken Mr. Watts\u2019 automobile unlawfully and with felonious intent. Suffice to say, there was ample evidence to support the verdict. Assignments Nos. 4 and 9 are without merit.\nUnder Assignments Nos. 5 and 8, defendant contends the court (1) failed to explain and apply the legal principle that the requisite felonious intent in larceny must exist at the time of the unlawful taking and (2) failed to give equal stress to the contentions of defendant as required by G.S. 1-180.\nIt is noted that defendant did not testify or offer evidence. Under the circumstances, we perceive no prejudicial error in the court\u2019s review of the respective contentions.\nThe court\u2019s final instruction, consistent with prior instructions, required, as a prerequisite to a verdict of guilty, that the State satisfy the jury from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did take and carry away Mr. Watts\u2019 automobile on February 7, 1965, and that he did so with the felonious intent to permanently deprive said owner of his property and to apply it to his, the taker\u2019s, own use.\nIt is suggested that the court should have stated as a contention of defendant that defendant may have unlawfully taken possession of Mr. Watts\u2019 automobile for some undisclosed temporary purpose and thereafter conceived the idea of appropriating it permanently to his own use. Assuming, without deciding, that the statement of such a contention would have been appropriate if specifically requested by defendant, the failure to give such instruction absent request therefor was not prejudicial to defendant.\nIn our view, Assignments Nos. 5 and 8 are without merit.\nNo reason or argument is stated and no authority is cited in defendant\u2019s brief bearing upon the other assignments of error. Hence', they are deemed to have been abandoned.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton, Deputy Attorney General Lewis and Staff Attorney Wood for the State.",
      "M. Marshall Happer, III, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. WILLIAM LEWIS CARROLL.\n(Filed 10 November, 1965.)\nAppeal by defendant from Carr, J., March 1965 Regular Criminal Session of WaKE.\nCriminal prosecution on a bill of indictment containing two counts, to wit: First, the larceny of a described automobile, the property of one Marvin Terry Watts, of the value of $2,000.00; and second, the receiving of said automobile with knowledge it had been stolen and with felonious intent. The indictment alleged said criminal offenses were committed in Wake County, North Carolina, on February 7, 1965.\nOn March 5, 1965, the court, in accordance with G.S. 15-4.1, appointed counsel to represent defendant. At the trial session, which convened March 15, 1965, defendant, represented by his court-appointed counsel, pleaded not guilty; and a jury was duly chosen, sworn and impaneled.\nThe only evidence was that offered by the State. At the conclusion thereof, the court allowed defendant\u2019s motion for judgment as of nonsuit with reference to the receiving (second) count.\nWith reference to the larceny (first) count, defendant\u2019s motion for judgment as of nonsuit was overruled; and at the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of \u201cGuilty of Larceny of an Automobile as charged.\u201d\nThe court pronounced judgment imposing a prison sentence \u201cof Not Less Th\u00e1N Theee YeaRs Nob MoRE ThaN Five Years,\u201d and recommended that defendant \u201cbe placed in a Youthful Offenders Camp.\u201d Defendant excepted and appealed.\nAn order was entered (1) permitting defendant to appeal in forma pauperis, (2) appointing defendant\u2019s trial counsel as his counsel in connection with his appeal, and (3) requiring that Wake County provide the necessary transcript and printing incident to defendant\u2019s appeal.\nAttorney General Bruton, Deputy Attorney General Lewis and Staff Attorney Wood for the State.\nM. Marshall Happer, III, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0592-01",
  "first_page_order": 632,
  "last_page_order": 634
}