{ "id": 8565090, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ERNEST ELDON WOOD alias JOHNNY JOHNSON alias WILLIAM ARTHUR ARNOLD alias CHARLES WATTS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wood", "decision_date": "1974-12-11", "docket_number": "No. 65", "first_page": "248", "last_page": "254", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "286 N.C. 248" } ], "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": "194 S.E. 2d 19", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566644 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0431-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 N.C. 349", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8682704 ], "year": 1857, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/49/0349-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 785", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 131", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573974 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0131-01" ] }, { "cite": "200 S.E. 2d 169", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 N.C. 137", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560586 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/284/0137-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 678, "char_count": 14243, "ocr_confidence": 0.594, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.5330875625009783e-08, "percentile": 0.28434823806330023 }, "sha256": "dc7ae3a4005703a5f57948fba450d818f7e2a9bbfe4875ab6bee5b834a5c60fe", "simhash": "1:ac6450be65db4c87", "word_count": 2401 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:13.966890+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Justice Bobbitt not sitting." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ERNEST ELDON WOOD alias JOHNNY JOHNSON alias WILLIAM ARTHUR ARNOLD alias CHARLES WATTS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "SHARP, Justice.\nDefendant\u2019s assignments of error raise only the question whether the trial judge erred in refusing to grant his motions for nonsuit. In his brief, however, defendant advances no reason or argument in support of his exception to the judge\u2019s refusal to dismiss the charge of felonious larceny. He states the question presented to be \u201cwhether or not there was sufficient evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt of the offense of first degree burglary to be submitted to the jury.\u201d\nTo sustain a conviction of burglary in either the first or second degree it must appear that the defendant broke into and entered a dwelling or sleeping apartment during the nighttime with intent to commit a felony therein. If the burglarized dwelling is occupied the crime is burglary in the first degree; if unoccupied, it is burglary in the second degree. G.S. 14-51; State v. Frank, 284 N.C. 137, 200 S.E. 2d 169 (1973) ; State v. Cox, 281 N.C. 131, 187 S.E. 2d 785 (1972).\nDefendant contends that the burglary charge should have been dismissed because the State\u2019s proof does not conform to the allegation in the indictment that the breaking and entering occurred \u201cduring the nighttime between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.\u201d; that the time of the entry is left to conjecture; and that the State offered no evidence as to when nighttime ended and daylight began on 20 November 1971. This contention is without merit.\nAlthough the common law required an indictment for burglary to allege the hour the crime was committed, today \u201cit is sufficient to aver that the crime was committed in the nighttime.\u201d 13 Am. Jur. 2d, Burglary \u00a7 34 (1964). The allegation is sustained by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the breaking and entering occurred \u201cduring the nighttime,\u201d and the time of the offense may be proved by circumstantial evidence. 12 C.J.S., Burglary \u00a7\u00a7 13, 60 (1938). See State v. Frank, supra; State v. Whit, 49 N.C. 349 (1857).\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant broke into Mr. Arnold\u2019s bedroom sometime after 11:00 p.m. and took, among other things, Arnold\u2019s driver\u2019s license and the keys to the Buick automobile in which he left Fayetteville \u201cthat night\u201d for California. Defendant\u2019s statement, that at the time he entered the motel room he knew it was occupied because he thought he heard a shower running, is evidence tending to show the burglary occurred shortly after 11:00 p.m., the time Arnold testified he took a shower. However, SBI Agent Davis testified that his inquiry at the cafe for Johnny Johnson was made about midnight. This was the occurrence which prompted defendant\u2019s decision to burglarize the motel room and then leave town. In any event, defendant himself said that, after entering the motel room, he left Fayetteville that night.\nIn our view the evidence set forth in the preliminary statement supports the verdict rendered and is consistent only with a breaking and entering during the nighttime. In defendant\u2019s trial we find\nNo error.\nChief Justice Bobbitt not sitting.", "type": "majority", "author": "SHARP, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "James H. Carson, Jr., Attorney General, and Lester V. \u2022Chalmers, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "James C. MacRae for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ERNEST ELDON WOOD alias JOHNNY JOHNSON alias WILLIAM ARTHUR ARNOLD alias CHARLES WATTS\nNo. 65\n(Filed 11 December 1974)\n1. Burglary and Unlawful Breakings \u00a7 1\u2014 burglary defined\nTo sustain a conviction of burglary in either the first or second degree it must appear that the defendant broke into and entered a dwelling or sleeping apartment during the nighttime with intent to commit a felony therein; if the burglarized dwelling is occupied, the crime is burglary in the first degree, but if it is unoccupied, the crime is burglary in the second degree.\n2. Burglary and Unlawful Breakings \u00a7 3\u2014 burglary \u2014 time of crime \u2014 sufficiency of allegation\nAlthough the common law required a burglary indictment to allege the hour the crime was committed, today it is sufficient to aver that the crime was committed in the nighttime.\n3. Burglary and Unlawful Breakings \u00a7 5\u2014 first degree burglary \u2014 entry during nighttime \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence in a first degree burglary case was sufficient to support a jury finding that the breaking and entering occurred during the nighttime where it tended to show that defendant told officers that he entered the victim\u2019s motel room while the shower was running and that he left town \u201cthat night\u201d for California, and that the victim took a shower at 11:00 p.m. on the night in question.\nChief Justice Bobbitt not sitting.\nAppeal by defendant from Braswell, /., 10 June 1974 Criminal Session, Superior Court of Cumberland.\nIn a bill containing two counts defendant was indicted for (1) first degree burglary and (2) felonious larceny.\nThe first count charged that on 20 November 1971, \u201cduring the nighttime between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.,\u201d Ernest Eldon Wood, alias Johnny Johnson, alias William Arthur Arnold, alias Charles Watts, with the felonious intent to steal, take and carry away the chattels of William A. Arnold, did feloniously break and enter room 323 of the Downtowner Motel in Fayetteville, North Carolina, which room was used as a sleeping apartment and then actually occupied by William A. Arnold.\nThe second count charged that on 20 November 1971 in Fayetteville, North Carolina, Ernest Eldon Wood (aliases omitted here), with the intent to steal, feloniously broke into and entered room 323 of the Downtowner Motel at a time when the room was occupied by William A. Arnold, and did feloniously steal, take and carry away $150.00 in money, a man\u2019s gold Gruen watch, an American Express credit card issued to William A. Arnold, and one 1972 Buick automobile, serial number 4D37H26105179, the personal property of William A. Arnold of the value of $3,200.00.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tends to show the facts summarized below:\nOn 20 November 1971, William A. Arnold, a resident of Tucson, Arizona, and a field service engineer for an electrical corporation providing service and training to the Army, was the only occupant of room 323 at the Downtowner Motel in Fayetteville. He had been in the room for about two weeks. At approximately 11:00 p.m. Mr. Arnold took a shower and went to bed after folding the bedspread \u201cdown to the foot of the bed.\u201d When he went to sleep his Gruen watch, worth about $50.00, his billfold containing about $150.00 in cash, a cashier\u2019s check for $425.00 made payable to William A. Arnold, an American Express credit card, his Arizona driver\u2019s license, and the car keys to a two-door, 1972 Buick Sky Lark were on the nightstand. The Buick automobile, which carried Pennsylvania license plates, was leased to Arnold\u2019s employer, and he had it with him at the motel. When Arnold went to bed the motel room door, which locked automatically, was closed. The window was also closed.\nWhen he awoke the next morning at approximately 7:30, Arnold noticed that his billfold, watch, and car keys were gone. The bedspread was in the area toward the bathroom; it had been moved approximately fifteen feet. The door to the room was closed. The 1972 Buick Sky Lark was also gone. Arnold had given no one permission to come into his room or to take the automobile.\nArnold immediately reported the thefts to the motel management and to the Fayetteville Police Department, which sent officers to investigate. He also reported the theft of the Buick automobile to the FBI for the reason that it contained property belonging to the government.\nOn 7 June 1973, Donald McMullen, a special agent for the FBI and two other agents (Yates and Thom) assigned to the Los Angeles FBI office, talked with defendant in the Los An-geles County Jail, where he was being detained upon a \u201cburglary and weapons charge.\u201d At that time these agents were unaware of the events which had occurred in Fayetteville on 20 November 1971. They had come to question defendant about his identity and certain other charges they thought might be pending against him in Los Angeles and North Carolina.\nBefore permitting Agents McMullen and Yates to testify before the jury as to the statement which defendant made to them, Judge Braswell conducted a voir dire, on which the testimony of Agent McMullen tended to establish the following facts:\nAfter Agents McMullen, Yates, and Thom had identified themselves to defendant as FBI agents and shown him their credentials, McMullen advised him of his constitutional rights in the words of the Miranda formula. Defendant then informed the agents that he had finished high school; that he could read and knew his rights. Notwithstanding, they had him read aloud a portion of the FBI form entitled \u201cInterrogation Advice of Rights, Your Rights.\u201d After doing so, defendant said that he wished to talk to the agents and that he did not want a lawyer at that time. He then signed a \u201cWaiver of Rights\u201d using the name \u201cWilliam Arthur Arnold,\u201d and the three agents witnessed his signature. No threats or promises of any kind were made to defendant, and the agents detected no odor of alcohol about defendant and no evidence that he was under the influence of any drug or stimulant.\nAt the time the agents interviewed defendant they had with them \u201can FBI flyer.\u201d This was an identification order containing a photograph which Agent McMullen recognized as being that of defendant. The name on the flyer was Ernest Eldon Wood, but it showed the following aliases: John Junior Johnson, Charles Arnold Rivenbark, Charles Arnold Watts, and Butch. Before McMullen had asked defendant his name, defendant told him it was William Arthur Arnold, and that he had been born on 30 May 1939 at Tucson, Arizona. When McMullen showed him the flyer, defendant looked at the picture and said, \u201cThat is me.\u201d He also said he did not know that \u201cone of these had been put out.\u201d After the interview McMullen asked defendant if he still had the scars shown on the flyer. Defendant showed him the scars.\nDefendant offered no evidence upon the voir dire. At the conclusion of the State\u2019s evidence Judge Braswell found as a fact (1) that during McMullen\u2019s interview with defendant he used the name William Arthur Arnold; and (2) that defendant\u2019s statements to the FBI agents were freely and voluntarily given after he had been warned of his constitutional rights in full conformity with all the requirements \u201ccurrently known to the law.\u201d\nBefore the jury McMullen repeated in substance the testimony he had given on voir dire. In addition he testified that defendant gave him and the other two FBI agents the following account of his activities since October 1971:\nDefendant came to Fayetteville in October 1971 from Louisiana. From then until the latter part of November 1971 he sojourned in Fayetteville at a \u201cboarding room\u201d under the name of Johnny Johnson. During that time he sustained himself by committing several burglaries. Shortly after his arrival in Fayetteville, he had walked through the Downtowner Motel and \u201cobserved a key in a room.\u201d He took it with the idea of returning later to remove \u201ccertain items from the room\u201d and, for about two weeks, he observed the occupant of the room coming and going. Thereafter defendant was in his aunt\u2019s cafe in Fayetteville when two men came in and inquired for Johnny Johnson. He thought they were looking for him \u201cand that he should leave town.\u201d At that time he decided to use the motel key.\nDefendant then went to the Downtowner Motel and entered the room from which he had taken the key. \u201cHe said he went to the motel after nighttime, after the sun had gone down.\u201d When he entered the room he knew it was occupied because he thought he heard a shower running. From a dresser he took a watch, some money, a billfold, and a set of car keys. Upon leaving the room (defendant said) he used the car keys \u201cthat night\u201d and proceeded out of town. He drove the 1972 Buick Sky Lark to Hollywood, California, where he abandoned the automobile. Taking advantage of the necessary identifications contained in the billfold, defendant assumed the name of William Arthur Arnold because \u201cthey were nearly the same age and the same physical description.\u201d He had used \u201cthat identification until he was picked up in June of 1973.\u201d\nAt the end of the interview defendant told the FBI agents that his real name was Ernest Eldon Wood; that he had also used the name Charles Arnold Rivenbark, Charles Arnold Watts, Johnny Johnson, and William Arthur Arnold; that he was born on 30 April 1944 in Fayetteville. He showed McMullen three small scars on the inside of his left wrist and a three-inch sear across his inner right palm. After the interview with defendant, McMullen reported defendant\u2019s statement by telephone to W. A. Newsom, who was then a member of the Fayetteville Police Department.\nMr. Ray Davis, an agent of the North Caroina State Bureau of Investigation, testified that about midnight on Friday, 19 November 1971, he and Captain Studer of the Fayetteville Police Department, went to a restaurant which was operated by Mrs. Geneva Grice, and inquired of her manager if Johnny Johnson was employed there. At that time they observed two white males seated on the right side of the restaurant as they went in, but the officers paid no particular attention to them. They had no picture of Johnny Johnson, and were able to obtain no information about him at the cafe.\nDefendant offered no evidence. At the conclusion of the State\u2019s evidence, he moved to nonsuit each count in the bill of indictment upon the ground that \u201cthere was no evidence of a break-in\u201d and that \u201cthere was no evidence that any entry was made during the nighttime.\u201d The motion was overruled and defendant excepted.\nThe jury returned a verdict finding defendant guilty as charged in each count. The crimes charged having been committed prior to 18 January 1973, the date of the decision in State v. Waddell, 282 N.C. 431, 194 S.E. 2d 19, upon defendant\u2019s conviction of first degree burglary, the court imposed the sentence of life imprisonment, from which defendant appealed to the Supreme Court under G.S. 7A-27 (a). His appeal from the ten-year sentence imposed for felonious larceny was certified for initial appellate review by the Supreme Court under G.S. 7A-31 (a).\nJames H. Carson, Jr., Attorney General, and Lester V. \u2022Chalmers, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nJames C. MacRae for defendant." }, "file_name": "0248-01", "first_page_order": 268, "last_page_order": 274 }