{
  "id": 8572976,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA V. DANIEL WAYNE CHRISTMAS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Christmas",
  "decision_date": "1982-05-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 136A81",
  "first_page": "654",
  "last_page": "656",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "305 N.C. 654"
    }
  ],
  "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": "278 S.E. 2d 535",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Martin, Robert M., J., with Clark and Martin, Harry C., JJ., concurring"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 N.C. App. 186",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12170114
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Martin, Robert M., J., with Clark and Martin, Harry C., JJ., concurring"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/52/0186-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 188,
    "char_count": 2704,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.79,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39450639786335034
    },
    "sha256": "4af6177d609a4e9c7ed1e6b1c3892d39cae57f92c583860635b681693e34e12d",
    "simhash": "1:07e353eb6a01296f",
    "word_count": 433
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:52:50.465071+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA V. DANIEL WAYNE CHRISTMAS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nDefendants Daniel Wayne Christmas, Charles Edsol Thomas, Jr., and Mark Ashley King were convicted of first-degree burglary. We allowed defendant Christmas\u2019s petition for discretionary review for the limited purpose of reviewing the question of \u201cwhether the trial court erred in failing to grant defendant\u2019s Motion for Discovery of the statement of Ned Diggs, Jr., who was originally a co-defendant.\u201d\nG.S. 15A-903(b) provides:\nUpon motion of a defendant, the court must order the prosecutor:\n(1) To permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph any written or recorded statements of a codefendant which the State intends to offer in evidence at their joint trial; and\n(2) To divulge, in written or recorded form, the substance of any oral statement made by a codefend-ant which the State intends to offer in evidence at their joint trial. (Emphasis added.)\nOn 14 March 1980 defendant\u2019s counsel forwarded a letter to the Assistant District Attorney pursuant to G.S. 15A-902 requesting divulgence of the substance of any oral statements made by the defendant or any codefendant which the State intended to use or offer in evidence at trial.\nAn Assistant District Attorney filed a response on 25 March 1980 which stated \u201cthere are no statements of codefendants which the State intends to introduce in the joint trial.\u201d On the same date the charges against Diggs were dismissed.\nDefendant Christmas formally moved for discovery on 3 April 1980 pursuant to G.S. 15A-903, specifically requesting the substance of any oral statement made by a codefendant which the State intended to use or offer at trial.\nThe Court of Appeals found no error in this assignment of error reasoning that Diggs was not a codefendant on 3 April 1980, the date on which the formal motion for discovery was filed, and that the State is not required to produce statements made by witnesses or prospective witnesses who are not codefendants.\nAfter a careful examination of the record and after considering the reasoning of the Court of Appeals and the oral arguments of counsel, we conclude that defendant\u2019s petition for discretionary review was improvidently allowed. Therefore, the order allowing discretionary review is hereby vacated.\nDiscretionary review improvidently allowed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by Henry T. Rosser, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "J. Samuel Williams for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA V. DANIEL WAYNE CHRISTMAS\nNo. 136A81\n(Filed 4 May 1982)\nON discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 to review an opinion of the Court of Appeals, 52 N.C. App. 186, 278 S.E. 2d 535 (1981) (Martin, Robert M., J., with Clark and Martin, Harry C., JJ., concurring).\nRufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by Henry T. Rosser, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nJ. Samuel Williams for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0654-01",
  "first_page_order": 686,
  "last_page_order": 688
}