{
  "id": 139679,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES CURTIS ROGERS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Rogers",
  "decision_date": "1997-06-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 367PA96",
  "first_page": "262",
  "last_page": "264",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "346 N.C. 262"
    }
  ],
  "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": "473 S.E.2d 696",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 N.C. App. 359",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 N.C. App. 530",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523430
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/70/0530-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 N.C. App. 177",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8519872
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/79/0177-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 N.C. 502",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4705675
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/308/0502-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "320 S.E.2d 409",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "346 S.E.2d 144",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 N.C. 338",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4773478,
        4779950,
        4779312,
        4771955,
        4780246
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/317/0338-04",
        "/nc/317/0338-03",
        "/nc/317/0338-05",
        "/nc/317/0338-02",
        "/nc/317/0338-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "339 S.E.2d 56",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "302 S.E.2d 779",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "784"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "295 S.E.2d 619",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "621"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 N.C. App. 84",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525758
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "87"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/59/0084-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 N.C. App. 530",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523430
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/70/0530-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 N.C. App. 177",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8519872
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/79/0177-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 N.C. 502",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4705675
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "511"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/308/0502-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 305,
    "char_count": 5912,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.726,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.233605815818256e-08,
      "percentile": 0.38545007836364203
    },
    "sha256": "b7bd3a6eaf5ad00764f8407b8fb587b82e3d8abcdc9089a2212ad8fb24a34da2",
    "simhash": "1:7df4b66207bba26e",
    "word_count": 955
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:00.247328+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES CURTIS ROGERS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MITCHELL, Chief Justice.\nDefendant, James Curtis Rogers, was found guilty by a jury of the felony of obtaining property by false pretenses and of being an habitual felon. Judge Cobb sentenced defendant to a minimum term of 100 months and a maximum term of 129 months.\nEvidence presented at trial tended to show that defendant paid for a motorcycle and accessories with a check written on an account in his name at the State Employees\u2019 Credit Union. The check was returned to the seller because it had been written on a closed account. Defendant admitted that he knew the account was closed at the time he wrote the check. The trial court denied defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the false pretenses charge for insufficiency of the evidence and denied defendant\u2019s request that the crime of obtaining property in return for a worthless check be submitted as a lesser-included offense of obtaining property by false pretenses.\nIn an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals vacated the judgments against defendant after concluding as a matter of law that a person cannot be prosecuted on an indictment for obtaining property by false pretenses where the indictment alleges nothing more than the defendant\u2019s passing of a worthless check in exchange for property. Because the judgment for obtaining property by false pretenses was vacated, the Court of Appeals also vacated the habitual felon judgment. We allowed the State\u2019s petition for discretionary review on 10 October 1996.\nThe sole issue on appeal is whether the writing and passing of a worthless check in exchange for property, standing alone, is sufficient to uphold a conviction for obtaining property under false pretenses. We conclude that it is and reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.\nIn State v. Freeman, 59 N.C. App. 84, 295 S.E.2d 619 (1982), rev\u2019d on other grounds, 308 N.C. 502, 302 S.E.2d 779 (1983), the defendant argued that he could not be prosecuted under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-100 (obtaining property under false pretenses) because N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-106 (obtaining property in return for worthless check, draft, or order) or N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-107 (worthless check) more specifically fit his alleged activities. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that \u201c[a] single act or transaction may violate different statutes.\u201d 59 N.C. App. at 87, 295 S.E.2d at 621. On discretionary review, this Court also rejected the defendant\u2019s argument that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the false pretense charge where the evidence merely showed that the defendant uttered a worthless check in violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-106 or \u00a7 14-107. Freeman, 308 N.C. at 511, 302 S.E.2d at 784.\nThis Court\u2019s decision in Freeman has been misinterpreted by the Court of Appeals as holding that prosecution for false pretense rather than a worthless check offense is permissible only if there is an additional misrepresentation beyond the presentation of a worthless check. We expressly disavow and disapprove any language in this Court\u2019s opinion in Freeman to the extent it may tend to indicate that an additional misrepresentation beyond the presentation of a worthless check in exchange for property is required to uphold a conviction for obtaining property by false pretenses in violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-100. In addition, we overrule the Court of Appeals\u2019 decisions in State v. Freeman, 79 N.C. App. 177, 339 S.E.2d 56, cert. denied, 317 N.C. 338, 346 S.E.2d 144 (1986), and State v. Hopkins, 70 N.C. App. 530, 320 S.E.2d 409 (1984), insofar as they require proof of some additional misrepresentation beyond the presentation of a worthless check in such cases.\nIn the opinion below, the Court of Appeals relied upon Hopkins to vacate defendant\u2019s conviction of the felony of obtaining property by false pretenses. Having overruled Hopkins, we reverse the unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to that court for further remand to the Superior Court, Rowan County, for reinstatement of the judgments against defendant both for obtaining property by false pretenses and for being an habitual felon.\nREVERSED AND REMANDED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MITCHELL, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State-appellant.",
      "Thomas M. King for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES CURTIS ROGERS\nNo. 367PA96\n(Filed 6 June 1997)\nFalse Pretenses, Cheats, and Related Offenses \u00a7 39 (NCI4th)\u2014 obtaining property by false pretenses \u2014 writing and passing a worthless check in exchange for property\u2014 sufficient\nAn unpublished opinion by the Court of Appeals was reversed where that opinion vacated judgments after concluding as a matter of law that a person cannot be prosecuted on an indictment for obtaining property by false pretenses where the indictment alleges nothing more than the defendant\u2019s passing of a worthless check in exchange for property. Writing and passing a worthless check in exchange for property, standing alone, is sufficient to uphold a conviction for obtaining property under false pretenses and language in State v. Freeman, 308 N.C. 502, is disavowed and disapproved to the extent it may tend to indicate that an additional misrepresentation beyond the presentation of a worthless check in exchange for property is required to uphold a conviction for obtaining property by false pretenses in violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-100. In addition, State v. Freeman, 79 N.C. App. 177 and State v. Hopkins, 70 N.C. App. 530, are overruled insofar as they require proof of some additional misrepresentation beyond the presentation of a worthless check in such cases.\nAm Jur 2d, Property \u00a7 36.\nOn discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 of an unpublished decision of a unanimous panel of the Court of Appeals, 123 N.C. App. 359, 473 S.E.2d 696 (1996), vacating judgments entered by Cobb, J., on 6 December 1995 in Superior Court, Rowan County. Heard in the Supreme Court 19 March 1997.\nMichael F. Easley, Attorney General, by William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State-appellant.\nThomas M. King for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0262-01",
  "first_page_order": 300,
  "last_page_order": 302
}