{ "id": 8557872, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SEARS WILLIAM SAULS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Sauls", "decision_date": "1976-12-07", "docket_number": "No. 54", "first_page": "253", "last_page": "264", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "291 N.C. 253" } ], "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": "224 S.E. 2d 702", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "29 N.C. App. 457", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8556272 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/29/0457-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 S.E. 2d 613", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "267 N.C. 653", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560291 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/267/0653-01" ] }, { "cite": "34 S.E. 2d 146", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1945, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "147" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "225 N.C. 217", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8603976 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1945, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "219" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/225/0217-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 S.E. 2d 374", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "244 N.C. 459", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2219509 ], "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/244/0459-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 S.E. 2d 333", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "259 N.C. 249", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559945 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/259/0249-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 S.E. 2d 767", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "264 N.C. 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570869 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/264/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 S.E. 2d 169", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 704", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627899 ], "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/254/0704-01" ] }, { "cite": "215 S.E. 2d 94", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "287 N.C. 436", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563025 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/287/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "215 S.E. 2d 123", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "287 N.C. 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563955 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/287/0470-01" ] }, { "cite": "229 S.E. 2d 179", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "291 N.C. 137", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8557412 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/291/0137-01" ] }, { "cite": "161 S.E. 81", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1931, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N.C. 620", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627240 ], "year": 1931, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0620-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 S.E. 2d 657", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1941, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "219 N.C. 15", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8620542 ], "year": 1941, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/219/0015-01" ] }, { "cite": "147 S.E. 2d 555", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "267 N.C. 121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558619 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/267/0121-01" ] }, { "cite": "183 S.E. 2d 661", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 435", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569459 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0435-01" ] }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 783", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "803" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "196 S.E. 2d 250", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "255" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 289", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558710 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "297" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0289-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 S.E. 2d 295", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "248 N.C. 327", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622698 ], "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/248/0327-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 S.E. 2d 608", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "250 N.C. 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622053 ], "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/250/0252-01" ] }, { "cite": "191 S.E. 2d 745", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 92", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562785 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0092-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 S.E. 746", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1914, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "747" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "165 N.C. 519", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8660095 ], "year": 1914, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "522" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/165/0519-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 406", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "412" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "268 N.C. 225", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561067 ], "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "233" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/268/0225-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 874", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "880" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 366", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572031 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "374" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0366-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 S.E. 2d 353", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 633", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568083 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0633-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 S.E. 2d 85", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1943, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "86" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 446", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611078 ], "year": 1943, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "447" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0446-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 N.C. (3 Ired.) 504", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 1842, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 S.E. 2d 509", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 227", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558344 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0227-01" ] }, { "cite": "208 S.E. 2d 506", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 746", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569924 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0746-01" ] }, { "cite": "204 S.E. 2d 641", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 274", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563971 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0274-01" ] }, { "cite": "220 S.E. 2d 495", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "288 N.C. 514", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570236 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/288/0514-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 S.E. 2d 580", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "587" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "255 N.C. 42", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567053 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "51-52" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/255/0042-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 965, "char_count": 24975, "ocr_confidence": 0.684, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.7831957890688437e-07, "percentile": 0.8966468701457112 }, "sha256": "e360e0a9590536a21bfbf1f0c514b3302e67cdb89ce6989884b0143aabe9654d", "simhash": "1:0450bc6a2516085e", "word_count": 4256 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:35:26.216351+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SEARS WILLIAM SAULS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MOORE, Justice.\nDefendant strongly contends that the Court of Appeals correctly held that a nonsuit should have been granted in this case. The basis of this contention is that the evidence is insufficient to show that defendant is an accessory before the fact to the crimes of forgery and uttering forged instruments.\nG.S. 14-5, in pertinent part, provides:\n\u201cIf any person shall counsel, procure or command any other person to commit any felony . . . the person so counseling, procuring or commanding shall be guilty of a felony, and may be indicted and convicted ... as an accessory before the fact to the principal felony. ...\u201d\nIn State v. Bass, 255 N.C. 42, 120 S.E. 2d 580 (1961), this Court analyzed the elements necessary to be proved under G.S. 14-5 in order to sustain a conviction for accessory before the fact. These elements were: (a) that under G.S. 14-5 defendant counseled, procured or commanded the principal to commit the offense; (b) that defendant was not present when the principal committed the offense; and (c) that the principal committed the offense.\nIn Bass, the Court further stated:\n\u201cTo render one guilty as an accessary before the fact to a felony he must counsel, incite, induce, procure or encourage the commission of the crime, so as to, in some way, participate therein by word or act. ... It is not necessary that he shall be the originator of the design to commit the crime; it is sufficient if, with knowledge that another intends to commit a crime, he encourages and incites him to\ncarry out his design. ...\u201d 255 N.C. at 51-52, 120 S.E. 2d at 587. See also State v. Branch, 288 N.C. 514, 220 S.E. 2d 495 (1975); State v. Spicer, 285 N.C. 274, 204 S.E. 2d 641 (1974).\nUnder the principles stated in State v. Bass, supra, we hold that there is sufficient evidence to withstand a motion for non-suit on defendant\u2019s charges of accessory before the fact to forgery and to the uttering of forged instruments. A motion to nonsuit is properly denied if there is any competent evidence which will support the charges contained in the bill of indictment or warrant, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and drawing every reasonable inference, deducible from the evidence, in favor of the State. See also State v. Bell, 285 N.C. 746, 208 S.E. 2d 506 (1974); 4 Strong, N. C. Index 3d, Criminal Law \u00a7 106 (1976).\nIn present case, evidence for the State tends to show the following:\n1. Busby and McVey went to defendant in the last week of November 1973 and told him they needed to get a North Carolina driver\u2019s license in a fictitious name in order to cash stolen checks.\n2. Defendant gave Busby and McVey directions to the license bureau and instructed them that in order to get the licenses, they would be required to take a written test and show identification.\n3. Defendant loaned the men a car to drive to the license bureau.\n4. At the license bureau, Busby obtained a North Carolina driver\u2019s license in the name of Irvin R. Squires and McVey obtained a North Carolina driver\u2019s license in the name of Hugh C. Harrison.\n5. On 27 November 1973, Busby filled out a check in the name of E. E. Boone, Jr., a member of the law firm from which the checks had been stolen, as maker. The next day McVey cashed this check at the First Union National Bank in Greensboro, signing the name Hugh C. Harrison and presenting his North Carolina driver\u2019s license in the name of Hugh C. Harrison.\n6. Defendant personally received $2,000 in cash from Busby and McVey in return for the checks which were forged and cashed.\n7. Busby stated to the police: \u201cThe price for this [the identification cards and checks from Frasier] was $3,000.00 plus taking care of Sears Sauls with some of the money from the cashing of the blank checks in North Carolina.\u201d\n8. When Busby relayed his worry to defendant that a patrolman had taken down the license plate number of their car while at the license bureau, defendant told him \u201cnot to worry about anything, that if anybody came by, he\u2019d cover up for [him].\u201d\n9. Some days later, defendant called Busby to inform him that the police \u201cknow who you are\u201d and advised him to get out of town.\nConsidering the facts outlined above, it is established for the purpose of a motion for nonsuit: (a) that defendant was not present at the time of the forgery and uttering of the instruments; (b) that Busby and McVey in fact committed the crimes of forgery and uttering as principals; and (c) that defendant by his acts encouraged, participated in, and contributed to the commission of the crimes. We hold, therefore, that there was ample evidence to go to the jury.\nWe turn now to the other assignments of error brought forward by defendant. He first argues that certain testimony admitted at trial was hearsay and prejudicial. As is stated in 1 Stansbury, N. C. Evidence \u00a7 138 (Brandis Rev. 1973) :\n\u201c [Wjhenever the assertion of any person, other than that of the witness himself in his present testimony, is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, the evidence so offered is hearsay. If offered for any other purpose, it is not hearsay.\u201d\nThis is the general rule and has been applied by this Court in cases too numerous to list. To be hearsay, the evidence must be offered to prove the truth of what the declarant said. The evidence is not hearsay if offered only to prove that the declarant made the statement or for any other purpose. State v. Bryant, 283 N.C. 227, 195 S.E. 2d 509 (1973); State v. Griffis, 25 N.C. (3 Ired.) 504 (1842).\nDefendant makes numerous assignments of error to testimony which he contends was hearsay. We find no merit in these contentions. In most instances, the witness was testifying as to what he personally saw or what he said to someone else. This a witness may properly do.\nDefendant strenuously argues that witnesses Busby and McVey should not have been permitted to testify that they told defendant that Frasier had sent them to see defendant. As stated in State v. Dilliard, 223 N.C. 446, 447, 27 S.E. 2d 85, 86 (1943) : \u201cThis was a statement made to defendant in explanation of the visit by prosecutrix. Its probative force does not depend, in whole or in part, upon the competency and credibility of any person other than the witness. [Citations omitted.]\u201d See also State v. Miller, 282 N.C. 633, 194 S.E. 2d 353 (1973). Likewise, in present case, the testimony by Busby and McVey was merely an explanation of why they had come to see defendant. The probative force of the evidence depended upon the credibility of witnesses Busby and McVey, not Frasier. Thus, these assignments are overruled.\nDuring the trial, the following exchange took place:\n\u201cQ. When you indicated that you were going to buy the checks, what did he say?\nMr. Ray: Objection.\nThe Court: Who are you talking about \u2014 he?\nMr. Idol: Referring to Mr. Frasier.\nThe Court: Sustained.\nMr. Idol: Your Honor, this is where perhaps a voir dire would be appropriate to establish conspiracy.\nMr. Ray : I respectfully move that the jury be instructed to disregard his statement.\u201d\nFollowing a conference at the bench, no further request was made by defendant for an instruction to the jury to disregard the comment and defendant did not make a motion to strike the statement made by the district attorney.\nIn State v. Gainey, 280 N.C. 366, 185 S.E. 2d 874 (1971), defendant stated that a witness was not in court and would not testify because \u201che didn\u2019t want to come to court.\u201d The prosecutor then asked the question: \u201cHe didn\u2019t want to go on the stand and perjure himself, did he?\u201d Defendant did not object to the statement and made no motion to strike the statement. This Court held that the solicitor\u2019s question was objectionable, but further stated: \u201cHowever, it is inconceivable that it affected the outcome of the case, and under all the circumstances, it cannot be held prejudicial error. [Citations omitted.]\u201d 280 N.C. at 374, 185 S.E. 2d at 880. In instant case, defendant lodged an objection to the solicitor\u2019s request. However, he did not make a motion to strike. After a conference at the bench, the request for the jury instruction was not renewed. Further, we do not feel that the statement was prejudicial to defendant. It is not sufficient grounds for a new trial that there is an error in the trial, \u201cunless ... it appears that there is a reasonable basis for the belief that, had this error not been committed, a different verdict would have been rendered.\u201d State v. Turner, 268 N.C. 225, 233, 150 S.E. 2d 406, 412 (1966). In the case at bar, there was more than sufficient evidence to convict defendant and the district attorney\u2019s comment could not have had any material effect upon the verdict reached by the jury. Thus, we find no merit in this assignment.\nDuring his testimony, witness Busby read to the jury a written statement which he had previously made to police concerning the forgery and uttering of the checks. He testified that to the best of his knowledge the statement was true. His testimony on the stand was in substantial agreement with the written statement. Over a general objection, the written statement was introduced into evidence. Defendant contends this was error.\nA prior consistent statement of the witness to strengthen his credibility is admissible. \u201cAnd it makes no difference, in this State at least, whether such evidence appears in a verbal or written statement, nor whether verified or not.\u201d Bowman v. Blankenship, 165 N.C. 519, 522, 81 S.E. 746, 747 (1914). See also 1 Stansbury, N. C. Evidence \u00a7 51 (Brandis Rev. 1973), and cases cited therein.\nWhen a defendant does not specifically request an instruction restricting the use of evidence which corroborates the testimony of a witness, the admission of the evidence and the failure of the trial judge to give a limiting instruction is not error. State v. Bryant, 282 N.C. 92, 191 S.E. 2d 745 (1972); State v. Corl, 250 N.C. 252, 108 S.E. 2d 608 (1959); State v. Lee, 248 N.C. 327, 103 S.E. 2d 295 (1958).\nIn State v. Sawyer, 283 N.C. 289, 297, 196 S.E. 2d 250, 255 (1973), statements made bv the witness Ward were admitted over defendant\u2019s general objection and were introduced to corroborate the witness\u2019s testimony. In Sawyer, Chief Justice Bobbitt stated:\n\u201c \u2018The general admission of evidence competent for a restricted purpose will not be held r ever sib1 e error in the absence of a request at the time that its admission be restricted.\u2019 7 Strong N. C. Index 2d, Trial \u00a7 17. See also Rule 21, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, '254 N.C. 783, 803. Obviously, the testimony to which these assignments refer was offered as tending to corroborate the testimony of Ward. Undoubtedly, if defendant had so requested, the trial judge would have given an explicit instruction to the effect that this evidence was competent for consideration only as corroborative testimony.\u201d\nAlthough Rule 21, relied upon in Sawyer, has been superseded, we feel that the comment of Dean Brandis is instructive:\n\u201cThe new Rules of Appellate Procedure supersede but contain nothing comparable to former Rule 21. . . . However, existing case law rather clearly indicates that the disappearance of Rule 21 will work no change.\u201d 1 Stans-bury, N. C. Evidence \u00a7 52 at 52, n. 59 (Brandis Rev. Supp. 1976).\nIn the case at bar, defendant failed to request a limiting instruction when the corroborative written statement was admitted. Therefore, this assignment is overruled.\nDefendant assigns as error the trial court\u2019s denial of his motion to set aside the verdict as against the greater weight of the evidence. Such motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its refusal to grant the motion is not reviewable on appeal. State v. Mason, 279 N.C. 435, 183 S.E. 2d 661 (1971); State v. Bridgers, 267 N.C. 121, 147 S.E. 2d 555 (1966); State v. Wagstaff, 219 N.C. 15, 12 S.E. 2d 657 (1941). This assignment of error is therefore without merit.\nAfter verdict, but before sentence was imposed, defendant moved to set aside the verdict based upon newly discovered evidence. Apparently, defendant intended to move for a new trial based upon this newly discovered evidence. The prerequisites for such motions are set out by Stacy, Chief Justice, in the oft-cited case of State v. Casey, 201 N.C. 620, 161 S.E. 81 (1931). See also State v. Beaver, 291 N.C. 137, 229 S.E. 2d 179 (1976). One prerequisite is that the newly discovered evidence be competent, material, and relevant.\nDefendant, in support of his motion, first offered the testimony of an expert in the field of polygraph. This witness testified that he gave defendant a lie detector test and that this test showed defendant was telling the truth when he testified he did not receive $2,000 from Busby or McVey for assisting them in obtaining North Carolina identification. The witness further testified that the test also showed that defendant was telling the truth when he said that he did not in any way help Busby or McVey obtain North Carolina identification for illegal purposes.\nCharlene Handy, the other witness who testified at the hearing on this motion, stated that she had entered a plea of guilty for cashing some of the forged checks for Busby and McVey. She further testified that she did not know Frasier and that she did not know that there was a case against defendant until she read about it in the Greensboro newspaper.\nThe testimony concerning the lie detector examination would not have been competent. State v. Jackson, 287 N.C. 470, 215 S.E. 2d 123 (1975); State v. Brunson, 287 N.C. 436, 215 S.E. 2d 94 (1975); State v. Foye, 254 N.C. 704, 120 S.E. 2d 169 (1961). The testimony of Charlene Handy was immaterial and it could not have affected the verdict. Moreover, a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and the refusal to grant the motion is not reviewable in the absence of an abuse of discretion. State v. Morrow, 264 N.C. 77, 140 S.E. 2d 767 (1965); State v. Dixon, 259 N.C. 249, 130 S.E. 2d 333 (1963); State v. Williams, 244 N.C. 459, 94 S.E. 2d 374 (1956). No abuse of discretion appears on this record. This assignment is overruled.\nAfter verdict, the trial judge, Judge Collier, ordered that prayer for judgment be continued until 7 July 1975, the next criminal term. On 7 July 1975, Judge Lupton, the presiding judge, conducted a hearing and then entered judgment that defendant be imprisoned for a term of three years in the State Prison. Defendant contends it was error for Judge Lupton, who was not the trial judge, to pronounce judgment. In support of this contention, defendant\u2019s counsel, in his brief, states: \u201cCounsel is frank to admit that after carefully researching the law in this case, he has found no authority to support this position.\u201d This Court considered a similar contention in State v. Graham, 225 N.C. 217, 34 S.E. 2d 146 (1945). In that case, defendant had been tried before Burney, J., at the January 1944 Term of Bladen Superior Court. Prayer for judgment was continued and defendant was sentenced by Nimocks, J., at the January 1945 Term of Bladen Superior Court. The judgment discloses that Judge Nimocks heard evidence before imposing sentence. Defendant contended that the court, having failed to pronounce judgment at the January Term 1944, at which the defendant was convicted, was without jurisdiction; to impose a sentence at a subsequent term. This Court held otherwise, stating:\n\u201cIn the absence of a statute to the contrary, sentence does not necessarily have to be imposed at the same term of court at which the verdict or p\u2019ea of guilty was had, and courts of general jurisdiction, having stated terms for the trial of criminal actions, have the power to continue the case to a subsequent term for sentence.\n\"... It is sometimes found to be expedient, if not necessary, to continue a prayer for judgment and when no conditions are imposed, the judges of the Superior Court may exercise this power with or without the defendant\u2019s consent. [Citation omitted.]\u201d 225 N.C. at 219, 34 S.E. 2d at 147. See also State v. Thompson, 267 N.C. 653, 148 S.E. 2d 613 (1966).\nIn the case at bar, Judge Lupton conducted an extensive hearing before passing sentence. He heard the statement made by Busby to the officers and other testimony for the State. Several witnesses, including the defendant, testified in defendant\u2019s behalf. Defendant denied accepting any money from Busby or McVey, or in any manner assisting them in obtaining fictitious driver\u2019s licenses or in the cashing of forged checks. Further, evidence was introduced that defendant was on federal probation, having been convicted in two cases involving the interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle. His probation officer testified concerning defendant\u2019s good behavior while on probation. Other witnesses testified as to defendant\u2019s good character.\nWe hold that the sentence, which was determined after hearing, and was within the limits prescribed by statute, was properly imposed by Judge Lupton.\nA careful review of the entire record discloses no prejudicial error in the trial in the superior court. The decision of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed.\nReversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "MOORE, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Rufus L. Edmisten and Assistant Attorney General Archie W. Anders for the State appellant.", "William C. Ray for defendant appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SEARS WILLIAM SAULS\nNo. 54\n(Filed 7 December 1976)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 10 \u2014 accessory before the fact \u2014 elements\nThe elements necessary to be proved under G.S. 14-5 in order to sustain a conviction for accessory before the fact are: (a) that defendant counseled, procured or commanded the principal to commit the offense; (b) that defendant was not present when the principal committed the offense; and (c) that the principal committed the offense.\n2. Forgery \u00a7 2 \u2014 accessory before the fact to forgery \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nEvidence was sufficient to withstand a motion for nonsuit on defendant\u2019s charges of accessory before the fact to forgery and to the uttering of forged instruments where it tended to show that two men went to defendant and told him they needed to get N. C. driver\u2019s licenses in fictitious names in order to cash stolen checks; defendant gave them directions to the license bureau and instructed them that, in order to get licenses, they would be required to take a written test and show identification; defendant loaned the men a car to drive to the license bureau; the men obtained the licenses and forged and cashed checks using the licenses; defendant personally received $2000 in cash from the men in return for the checks which were forged and cashed; one of the men stated to police that a third man provided fictitious identification cards and the stolen blank checks for $3000 \u201cplus taking, care of [defendant] with some of the mon^y from the cashing of the blank checks in N. C.\u201d; when one of the men relayed his worry to defendant that a patrolman had taken down the license plate number of their car while at the license bureau, defendant told him \u201cnot to worry about anything, that if anybody came by, he\u2019d cover up for [him]\u2019\u2019; and some days later, defendant called one of the men to inform him that the police knew who he was and advised him to get out of town.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 73 \u2014 hearsay testimony \u2014 definition\nTo be hearsay, evidence must be offered to prove the truth of what the declarant said, and it is not hearsay if offered only to prove that the declarant made the statement or for any other purpose.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 102 \u2014 statement of district attorney \u2014 no motion to strike \u2014 no prejudice to defendant\nDefendant was not prejudiced where the district attorney stated that \u201cthis is where perhaps a voir dire would be appropriate to establish conspiracy,\u201d defendant requested that the jury be instructed to disregard the statement, there was a conference at the bench, the request for the jury instruction was not renewed, and defendant made no motion to strike.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 89\u2014 corroborative statement \u2014 failure to request limiting instruction\nThe trial court did not err in allowing a witness\u2019s written statement to be introduced into evidence over defendant\u2019s general objection, since defendant failed to request an instruction restricting the consideration of the statement to corroboration of the witness\u2019s testimony.\n6. Criminal Law \u00a7 131\u2014 incompetent and immaterial evidence \u2014 new trial on ground of newly discovered evidence properly denied\nIn a prosecution for accessory before the fact to forgery and uttering forged checks, defendant was not entitled to a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence which consisted of (1) testimony by a polygraph expert concerning results of tests administered defendant and (2) testimony by a witness who stated that she had cashed some of the forged checks for the principals, since the first would have been incompetent in a new trial and the second would have been immaterial.\n7. Criminal Law \u00a7 134 \u2014 prayer for judgment continued \u2014 sentencing at subsequent term of court proper\nWhere the trial judge after verdict ordered that prayer for judgment be continued until the next criminal term, and the presiding judge at that term conducted a hearing before entering judgment that defendant be imprisoned for three years, such sentence was properly imposed.\nAppeal by the State pursuant to G.S. 7A-30(2) from the decision of the Court of Appeals, reported in 29 N.C. App. 457, 224 S.E. 2d 702 (1976), which reversed the conviction of the defendant before Collier, J., at the 5 May 1976 Criminal Session of Guilford Superior Court.\nDefendant was tried on an indictment, proper in form, with the offenses of forgery and uttering a forged instrument. He was convicted as an accessory before the fact to forgery and an accessory before the fact to uttering a forged instrument. From judgment imposing a prison sentence, defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals held that there was not sufficient evidence to go to the jury and reversed. One member of the panel dissented, and the State appealed. Defendant, by his brief, brought forward other assignments of error not passed upon by the Court of Appeals.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that Edward George Busby and Ronald McVey purchased some stolen checks and fictitious credit cards from a man named Frasier in Portsmouth, Virginia. Some of the checks had been stolen from a law firm in Greensboro, North Carolina, and others from a construction company. At the time of the purchase of the checks (on or about 1 November 1973), Frasier told the men to go see defendant in Greensboro for help in getting North Carolina driver\u2019s licenses for use in cashing the checks,\nBusby and McVey went to Greensboro during the last week of November and located defendant, whom Busby had known for over a year. The men told defendant that they needed a car in which to take a driver\u2019s test to secure driver\u2019s licenses in the fictitious names shown on the credit cards. They told defendant that they needed the identification to enable them to cash stolen checks. Defendant loaned them a car from the car lot at which he was employed and gave the men directions to the license bureau. Busby and McVey successfully procured North Carolina driver\u2019s licenses in the fictitious names shown on the credit cards. When they returned from the license bureau, Busby stated to defendant that he was concerned because the highway patrolman who administered the driving test had taken down the license number of the car. Defendant told Busby that if anything ever came of it he would \u201ccover up\u201d for Busby.\nBusby and McVey then began cashing forged checks throughout Greensboro, using the North Carolina driver\u2019s licenses for identification. After several days, the two men returned to the car lot where defendant was employed and purchased and paid cash for two cars from defendant. At this time, McVey placed an additional $2,000 in defendant\u2019s pocket which, as stated by McVey, was \u201cin return for these checks.\u201d Busby stated to the police: \u201cThe price for this [the identification cards and checks from Frasier] was $3,000.00 plus taking care of Sears Sauls with some of the money from the cashing of the blank checks in North Carolina.\u201d\nOn or about 11 December 1975, defendant phoned Busby and told him that the FBI had been making an investigation concerning the vehicle which defendant had loaned Busby and McVey. Defendant further stated that the FBI knew who they were and that the two men had \u201cbetter split.\u201d\nDefendant did not testify but offered evidence tending to show that he was employed by Leith Lincoln-Mercury and that he sold two cars to two gentlemen for cash. He also offered testimony that it was not unusual for a car from this lot to be loaned to an individual. Defendant further introduced testimony tending to show he was a man of good character.\nOther facts necessary to the decision of this case will be discussed in the opinion.\nAttorney General Rufus L. Edmisten and Assistant Attorney General Archie W. Anders for the State appellant.\nWilliam C. Ray for defendant appellee." }, "file_name": "0253-01", "first_page_order": 277, "last_page_order": 288 }