{
  "id": 4726011,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE B. MELVIN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Melvin",
  "decision_date": "1987-07-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 482A86",
  "first_page": "508",
  "last_page": "510",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "320 N.C. 508"
    }
  ],
  "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": "354 S.E. 2d 724",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 N.C. 399",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4739511
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/319/0399-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "329 S.E. 2d 404",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "313 N.C. 505",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4722307
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/313/0505-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 238,
    "char_count": 3570,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.841,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.4916476050659184e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2815698907542486
    },
    "sha256": "8144619e923514a13f5c2ef62e94815a7fe0ccd2ac6f4691a85ecdd230eed820",
    "simhash": "1:0dc868e0343a1939",
    "word_count": 586
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:33:25.134905+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE B. MELVIN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORDER\nTHIS case was heard on 12 May 1987 on defendant\u2019s appeal from a judgment of life imprisonment entered at the 7 April 1986 Criminal Session of Superior Court, CUMBERLAND County, Johnson, J., presiding.\nDefendant contends on appeal that two of the principal witnesses against him, James Rhone and Anthony Rhone, were so intimidated by the prosecutor into giving their testimony that defendant\u2019s constitutional rights to present a defense and to due process have been violated to his prejudice.\nAt defendant\u2019s trial the witnesses James and Anthony Rhone both testified that they, with the defendant, Willie Melvin, conspired to and did rob the victim in this case, Joseph Panzullo, at Panzullo\u2019s residence on 1 July 1985. Both witnesses also testified, however, that they had initially planned to testify that defendant, who was their cousin, had nothing to do with the robbery and had so advised an investigator for the defendant.\nAnthony Rhone testified that when the prosecutor learned of his planned testimony, the prosecutor in the hall of the courthouse exchanged harsh words with him, pushed him and used profanity toward him. Gregory Rhone testified that after the prosecutor learned he intended to testify in favor of the defendant, the prosecutor explained to him what the penalties for perjury were, reminded him of an earlier statement he had given to the state inculpating the defendant in the crime, and told him that if he testified differently from that statement, he would be prosecuted for perjury.\nAt trial after the testimony of Anthony Rhone defendant moved for a mistrial on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct. At the close of all of the evidence defendant moved for dismissal of all charges on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct. Both motions were summarily denied.\nOn appeal defendant contends that the charges against him should be dismissed or that he should be awarded a new trial at which the testimony of Anthony and Gregory Rhone would not be admitted on the ground of improper prosecutorial intimidation of these witnesses.\nThe Court is of the opinion that before determining this issue, the matter should be remanded to the Superior Court in Cumberland County for a factual determination of the prosecutor\u2019s conduct with regard to the witnesses Anthony and James Rhone. As yet, no such factual determination has been made and the Court has merely the testimony of these witnesses at trial before it.\nIt is, therefore, ORDERED, in the exercise of the Court\u2019s supervisory powers over the trial divisions, that the case be remanded to the Superior Court, Cumberland County. There the court shall conduct a hearing in the nature of a hearing on a post trial Motion for Appropriate Relief. Both the state and defendant, duly represented, shall be present. Both the state and defendant shall be given opportunity to offer evidence relevant to the issue of the trial prosecutor\u2019s conduct toward the witnesses James Rhone and Anthony Rhone in connection with their testimony given at defendant\u2019s trial. Based upon this evidence the trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the prosecutor\u2019s conduct and shall have the Clerk of Superior Court certify these findings and conclusions to this Court with reasonable dispatch. See State v. Richardson, 313 N.C. 505, 329 S.E. 2d 404 (1985); State v. Sanders, 319 N.C. 399, 354 S.E. 2d 724 (1987).\nDone by the Court in Conference this 28th day of July 1987.\nWHICHARD, J.\nFor the Court",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WHICHARD, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE B. MELVIN\nNo. 482A86\n(Filed 28 July 1987)"
  },
  "file_name": "0508-01",
  "first_page_order": 540,
  "last_page_order": 542
}