{ "id": 4754314, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HAZEL MAE JOLLEY", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Jolley", "decision_date": "1984-11-06", "docket_number": "No. 237A84", "first_page": "296", "last_page": "303", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "312 N.C. 296" } ], "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": "314 S.E. 2d 134", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "68 N.C. App. 33", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526620 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/68/0033-01" ] }, { "cite": "452 U.S. 692", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1313927 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/452/0692-01" ] }, { "cite": "392 U.S. 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6167798 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "16" }, { "page": "903" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/392/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "201 U.S. 43", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 345076 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1906, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "76" }, { "page": "666" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/201/0043-01" ] }, { "cite": "293 S.E. 2d 569", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "crime scene that had been cordoned off and secured by police was within the possession and control of the state" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 151", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567859 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "crime scene that had been cordoned off and secured by police was within the possession and control of the state" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0151-01" ] }, { "cite": "444 U.S. 883", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11375978, 11376076, 11375788, 11375920, 11375857, 11376030, 11376127 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/444/0883-04", "/us/444/0883-06", "/us/444/0883-01", "/us/444/0883-03", "/us/444/0883-02", "/us/444/0883-05", "/us/444/0883-07" ] }, { "cite": "274 N.W. 2d 893", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10689130 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nw2d/274/0893-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Or. App. 341", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Or. App.", "case_ids": [ 2123839 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "345", "parenthetical": "\"officers were entitled to photograph and seize evidence in plain view\"" }, { "page": "493", "parenthetical": "\"officers were entitled to photograph and seize evidence in plain view\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/or-app/40/0341-01" ] }, { "cite": "446 U.S. 920", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6230405, 6229544, 6230154, 6229195, 6227916, 6227566, 6229903, 6228533, 6228854, 6228221, 6227261 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "proper to maintain control of scene three hours and then record scene with videotape camera where \"officers photographed only what was in plain view\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/446/0920-11", "/us/446/0920-08", "/us/446/0920-10", "/us/446/0920-07", "/us/446/0920-03", "/us/446/0920-02", "/us/446/0920-09", "/us/446/0920-05", "/us/446/0920-06", "/us/446/0920-04", "/us/446/0920-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Or. App. 29", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Or. App.", "case_ids": [ 2099247 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/or-app/42/0029-01" ] }, { "cite": "434 A. 2d 532", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "case_ids": [ 7988991 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "police who initially entered secured the premises and then waited outside until medical examiner and lab technician arrived, and then all entered; held, this a permissible reentry; \"the police conducted a very limited search, seizing only items that were in plain view\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/a2d/434/0532-01" ] }, { "cite": "413 A. 2d 931", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "case_ids": [ 7958495 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "934" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/a2d/413/0931-01" ] }, { "cite": "374 So. 2d 630", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 9601818 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "weapons in plain view near body" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/374/0630-01" ] }, { "cite": "398 So. 2d 963", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 9584847 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "stressing seizure was of \"items of evidence which were in plain view\" and that there \"was no inspection of drawers or closets\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/398/0963-01" ] }, { "cite": "620 P. 2d 245", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "case_ids": [ 10442587 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "bloodstained wallpaper and bloodstained housecoat properly seized as evidence \"in plain view\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/p2d/620/0245-01" ] }, { "cite": "403 U.S. 443", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12027286 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "plurality opinion" }, { "parenthetical": "plurality opinion" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/403/0443-01" ] }, { "cite": "389 U.S. 347", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11339173 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "351", "parenthetical": "\"What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home ... is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.\"" }, { "page": "582", "parenthetical": "\"What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home ... is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/389/0347-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 L.Ed. 2d 85", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "case_ids": [ 6194938 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "98", "parenthetical": "\"The agent's viewing of what a private party had freely made available for his inspection did not violate the Fourth Amendment.\"" }, { "page": "94", "parenthetical": "footnote omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/466/0109-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 L.Ed. 2d 1003", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "case_ids": [ 6200096 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1010", "parenthetical": "\"[0]nce police are lawfully in a position to observe an item first-hand, its owner's privacy interest in that item is lost. . . .\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/463/0765-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 S.E. 2d 565", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "267 N.C. 599", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560001 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/267/0599-01" ] }, { "cite": "169 S.E. 2d 858", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "863" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 537", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559179 ], "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "545" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0537-01" ] }, { "cite": "460 U.S. 730", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6199658 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "739", "parenthetical": "\"[I]f, while lawfully engaged in an activity in a particular place, police officers perceive a suspicious object, they may seize it immediately.\"" }, { "page": "512", "parenthetical": "\"[I]f, while lawfully engaged in an activity in a particular place, police officers perceive a suspicious object, they may seize it immediately.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/460/0730-01" ] }, { "cite": "437 U.S. 385", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6180644 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "392-93" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/437/0385-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 786, "char_count": 16102, "ocr_confidence": 0.827, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.5384304364652977e-07, "percentile": 0.6724156504877311 }, "sha256": "d9e6da651eefcb95572251b605a0469865806c9d6a8c4e35fa3ff10dcade7d70", "simhash": "1:6542307a2b41636f", "word_count": 2768 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:10:57.145273+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HAZEL MAE JOLLEY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Justice.\nThe sole issue in this appeal is whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the rifle transported to the Rutherford County Jail by Major Philbeck was improperly admitted into evidence at trial. We hold that the Court of Appeals did so err, and thus we reverse.\nAs the opinion of the Court of Appeals notes, on 20 April 1983 defendant filed a motion to suppress the .22-caliber rifle and any test results from the gun. The basis of this motion was stated as follows:\nIts exclusion is required by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of North Carolina in that it resulted from an unreasonable search and seizure and in addition, it was obtained as a result of a substantial violation of the provisions of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes in that the sworn testimony of the officers involved at the probable cause hearing clearly show that the defendant was arrested at her home on December 28, 1982 and was taken to the Rutherford County Jail; thereafter, other officers proceeded to her residence without the authority of a search warrant and under no recognized exception to the requirement of a search warrant and entered the defendant\u2019s premises without the consent of the defendant and without her being present and in violation of law and thereafter, seized the .22 rifle, J. C. Higgins model, which the defendant now seeks to suppress, together with any test results relating to said rifle; that said intrusion into the defendant\u2019s home without the authority of a search warrant was unlawful and a substantial violation of her rights and in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and in violation of Chapter 15A of the North Carolina General Statutes.\nAfter a hearing the trial court made the following findings of fact:\nThat on December 28, 1982 at 3:00 p.m., Deputy Michael Summers of the Rutherford County Sheriffs Department went to the home of John Preston Jolley and Hazel Mae Jolley to investigate a possible shooting; that he found John Jolley in the den on the floor and EMT personnel were working on him.\nThat he saw a .22 rifle in a chair in the den area.\nThat the Defendant, Hazel Mae Jolley, was in the kitchen area in a squatting position.\nThat Summers asked her to sit in the patrol car, that he thought getting her out of the house would help her emotional state, that he thereafter helped rope the area off to secure the scene, that he spoke with the defendant in his patrol [car] and advised her of her rights, on a form used by the Rutherford County Sheriffs Department.\nThat Detective David Philbeck had arrived at the Jolley residence about five minutes after 3:00, and Summers turned control of the premises over to him.\nThat Philbeck went inside the residence where he made photographs, seized the rifle, spent cartridges, a lead fragment, made a diagram, and visually observed the premises.\nThe trial court then denied defendant\u2019s motion to suppress the gun and test results.\nThe Court of Appeals held that Philbeck had conducted a warrantless search not justified under either the consent to search or exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution. See, e.g., Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 57 L.Ed. 2d 290 (1978). Therefore the Court of Appeals concluded that his removal of the gun was an illegal seizure and the gun and test results from it should not have been permitted into evidence.\nWhile the Court of Appeals\u2019 discussion of the two exceptions to the warrant requirement is interesting, it is irrelevant to the present set of facts. The Court of Appeals erred in failing to focus upon the key issue in the case: At what point was the rifle in question seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment?\nWe hold that when a law enforcement officer enters private premises in response to a call for help and thereby comes upon what reasonably appears to be the scene of a crime, and secures the crime scene from persons other than law enforcement officers by appropriate means, all property within the crime scene in plain view which the officer has probable cause to associate with criminal activity is thereby lawfully seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment. Officers arriving at the crime scene thereafter and while it is still secured can examine and remove property in plain view without a search warrant. As the Supreme Court of the United States observed in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392-93, 57 L.Ed. 2d 290, 300:\nWe do not question the right of the police to respond to emergency situations. Numerous state and federal cases have recognized that the Fourth Amendment does not bar police officers from making warrantless entries and searches when they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate aid. . . . And the police may seize any evidence that is in plain view during the course of their legitimate emergency activities.\n(Citations and footnotes omitted.) Accord Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 739, 75 L.Ed. 2d 502, 512 (1983) (\u201c[I]f, while lawfully engaged in an activity in a particular place, police officers perceive a suspicious object, they may seize it immediately.\u201d). The present case is also similar to State v. Robbins, 275 N.C. 537, 545, 169 S.E. 2d 858, 863 (1969), in which this Court stated:\nIn the instant case the officer was not engaged in a search for evidence to be used in a criminal prosecution. He entered defendant\u2019s dwelling at the request of defendant\u2019s brothers, who were very apprehensive and worried about defendant. Under the present law the officer would not have had any basis to request a search warrant since he could not allege a particular object which he sought. State v. Bullard, 267 N.C. 599, 148 S.E. 2d 565. He was simply lending the strong arm of the law to a distressed family who feared that harm had come to their brother and sister-in-law. The officer\u2019s presence was lawful and his testimony as to things in plain view was properly admitted into evidence.\nSee also Illinois v. Andreas, \u2014 U.S. \u2014, \u2014, 77 L.Ed. 2d 1003, 1010 (1983) (\u201c[0]nce police are lawfully in a position to observe an item first-hand, its owner\u2019s privacy interest in that item is lost. . . .\u201d). Cf. United States v. Jacobsen, \u2014 U.S. \u2014, \u2014, 80 L.Ed. 2d 85, 98 (1984) (\u201cThe agent\u2019s viewing of what a private party had freely made available for his inspection did not violate the Fourth Amendment.\u201d); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351, 19 L.Ed. 2d 576, 582 (1967) (\u201cWhat a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home ... is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.\u201d). See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 29 L.Ed. 2d 564 (1971) (plurality opinion).\nThis holding is in accord with the following post-Mincey cases: People v. Harding, 620 P. 2d 245 (1980) (bloodstained wallpaper and bloodstained housecoat properly seized as evidence \u201cin plain view\u201d); Wooton v. State, 398 So. 2d 963 (Fla. App. 1981) (stressing seizure was of \u201citems of evidence which were in plain view\u201d and that there \u201cwas no inspection of drawers or closets\u201d); Grant v. State, 374 So. 2d 630 (Fla. App. 1979) (weapons in plain view near body); State v. Johnson, 413 A. 2d 931, 934 (Me. 1980), appeal after remand, 434 A. 2d 532 (Me. 1981) (police who initially entered secured the premises and then waited outside until medical examiner and lab technician arrived, and then all entered; held, this a permissible reentry; \u201cthe police conducted a very limited search, seizing only items that were in plain view\u201d); State v. Anderson, 42 Or. App. 29, 599 P. 2d 1225 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 920 (1980) (proper to maintain control of scene three hours and then record scene with videotape camera where \u201cofficers photographed only what was in plain view\u201d); State v. Eacret, 40 Or. App. 341, 345, 595 P. 2d 490, 493 (1979) (\u201cofficers were entitled to photograph and seize evidence in plain view\u201d); State v. Martin, 274 N.W. 2d 893 (S.D.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 883 (1979).\n\u201cA \u2018seizure\u2019 of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual\u2019s possessory interests in that property.\u201d United States v. Jacobsen, \u2014 U.S. \u2014, \u2014, 80 L.Ed. 2d 85, 94 (1984) (footnote omitted). When an officer secures a crime scene he has limited the ability of persons other than law enforcement officers to remove items from within the secured area. State v. Brown, 306 N.C. 151, 293 S.E. 2d 569 (1982) (crime scene that had been cordoned off and secured by police was within the possession and control of the state); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-903(d) (1983). Such items have thus been \u201cseized.\u201d See Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 76, 50 L.Ed. 652, 666 (1906). Seizure of evidence in plain view by the securing of a crime scene is also analogous to seizure of a person: \u201c[WJhenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has \u2018seized\u2019 that person.\u201d Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16, 20 L.Ed. 2d 889, 903 (1968). See also Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 69 L.Ed. 2d 340 (1981).\nIt is clear that in the instant case Deputy Summers lawfully entered the Jolley residence reasonably believing that a person inside was in need of immediate aid. Defendant herself called the telephone operator to ask specifically that help be sent quickly. When Summers first entered the Jolley house, the rifle at issue was in plain view, six feet from where the victim was felled. Deputy Summers had probable cause to associate the rifle with criminal activity. Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 75 L.Ed. 2d 502. He thereupon secured the residence by roping it off and posting signs. He thereby lawfully seized the rifle. Because the rifle was lawfully seized, it was properly admitted into evidence. Philbeck, as a law enforcement officer who also arrived at the scene as a result of defendant\u2019s call for help, had every right to enter the area secured by Deputy Summers. Once lawfully inside this area he then properly transported to the county jail the rifle which was in plain view and which had been seized by the securing of the crime scene. It follows that the test results were likewise admissible.\nWe need not decide whether the additional items identified by Major Philbeck were competent as evidence, as defendant is not contesting their admission into evidence. The evidence at issue in this case was not obtained by a search, but was seized by being in plain view within the crime scene when it was secured by Deputy Summers. See Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 57 L.Ed. 2d 290.\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals is\nReversed.\n. The record reveals that defendant did not object to Officer Summers\u2019 testimony about the gun. Thus she has waived all objections concerning the gun and its test results. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1446(b) (1983). Nevertheless, in our discretion we have decided to review the matter.\n. It was not necessary that the officer knew the rifle was evidence of a crime in order to comply with the \u201cimmediately apparent\u201d requirement of Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 29 L.Ed. 2d 564 (1971). It is sufficient if the facts available to the officer would warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the rifle may be useful as evidence of a crime. Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 75 L.Ed. 2d 502 (1983).", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by Roy A. Giles, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "Walter H. Dalton for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HAZEL MAE JOLLEY\nNo. 237A84\n(Filed 6 November 1984)\nSearches and Seizures \u00a7 10\u2014 evidence in plain view at crime scene \u2014no warrant necessary\nWhere a law enforcement officer enters private premises in response to a call for help, thereby comes upon what reasonably appears to be the scene of a crime, and secures the crime scene from persons other than law enforcement officers by appropriate means, all property within the crime scene in plain view which the officer has probable cause to associate with criminal activity is thereby seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Officers arriving at the crime scene thereafter and while it is still secured can examine and remove property in plain view without a search warrant.\nOn appeal of right by the State of North Carolina from the decision of the Court of Appeals, 68 N.C. App. 33, 314 S.E. 2d 134 (1984), reversing judgment entered by Brown, J., at the 25 May 1983 Session of Superior Court, Rutherford County. Heard in the Supreme Court 8 September 1984.\nEvidence for the state tended to show that on 28 December 1982 defendant shot and killed her husband, John Preston Jolley, at the Jolley residence on Oak Grove Road in Ellenboro. Mr. Jolley was shot with a .22 semi-automatic rifle. Immediately after shooting her husband, defendant dialed a telephone operator and asked that help be sent to the Jolley residence.\nMembers of a volunteer rescue squad and deputies from the Rutherford County Sheriffs Department responded to defendant\u2019s call for help. The rescue personnel arrived first and began performing emergency cardiopulmonary resuscitation procedures on Mr. Jolley. Deputy Summers of the sheriffs department was the first law enforcement officer to arrive. He arrived about 3:00 p.m. and saw the rescue technicians working on the victim, who was lying on the floor in front of a couch in the den-kitchen area of the house. Deputy Summers observed a .22 semi-automatic rifle leaning against a chair about six feet from the victim. He also observed defendant kneeling on the floor of the kitchen, sobbing. Officer Summers decided to escort defendant out of the house because he felt that it would help her emotionally to be away from her husband\u2019s body. He took her outside and placed her in the front seat of his patrol car. He then returned to the house as rescue personnel were carrying the victim out to an ambulance. Deputy Summers testified that after the victim and the emergency personnel left, \u201cI secured a rope and crime scene poster out of the trunk of my patrol car and roped off the residence the best I could. Officer Bill Watts came at that time and about that time Major Philbeck arrived. I had been there ten or fifteen minutes when Major Philbeck arrived.\u201d Major Philbeck went into the house as Summers and Watts were advising defendant of her Miranda rights. Summers then went into the house and conferred briefly with Philbeck, after which Summers drove defendant to the Rutherford County Jail.\nMajor Philbeck testified that when he entered the house he saw a .22-caliber rifle lying in a chair next to a wall. He also found some spent cartridges and shells in the house. Philbeck stayed at the Jolley residence for six hours, after which he took the .22-caliber rifle and the cartridges and shells to the Rutherford County Jail. These items were introduced into evidence during defendant\u2019s trial.\nDefendant\u2019s evidence tended to show that on 28 December 1982 her husband was resting on the sofa in their den when defendant decided to go shopping. Defendant intended to buy some bullets and took a rifle out of its gun rack in the den to see what kind of bullets it required. Defendant testified:\nI got it down and came in front of the T.V. and started toward the kitchen where the light was on where I could see to take one of the bullets out of the thing. The next thing I remember is that he was lying on the floor hurt. I threw the gun behind me and went to him. I don\u2019t remember the gun going off.\nAfter the gun went off defendant dialed the telephone operator for help.\nDefendant also introduced evidence to the effect that multiple discharges are common in the kind of gun used to shoot the victim.\nDefendant was convicted of murder in the second degree and was sentenced to ten years in prison. Defendant appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals, which reversed and remanded for a new trial. Because there was a dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the state was entitled to an appeal of right to this Court pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-30(2).\nRufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by Roy A. Giles, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nWalter H. Dalton for defendant.\n. The den and kitchen comprised one large room partially separated by a bar." }, "file_name": "0296-01", "first_page_order": 326, "last_page_order": 333 }