{
  "id": 12421129,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHAMELE COLLINS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Collins",
  "decision_date": "2016-09-23",
  "docket_number": "No. 66A16",
  "first_page": "60",
  "last_page": "61",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "369 N.C. 60"
    }
  ],
  "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": "782 S.E.2d 350",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12644721
      ],
      "year": 2016,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/782/0350-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "782 S.E.2d 350",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12644721
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2016,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "360-62"
        },
        {
          "page": "358"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/782/0350-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "402 S.E.2d 809",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "814",
          "parenthetical": "\"In order to preserve a question for appellate review, a party must have presented the trial court with a timely request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling sought if the specific grounds are not apparent.\" (citing N.C. R. App. P. 10(b"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 N.C. 409",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2541401
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "420"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/328/0409-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 191,
    "char_count": 2310,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.701,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.25623134785078205
    },
    "sha256": "e76b67a1f75e0d47a6d7642daab0419be3c15a7179a54ccb0d93b0166a775c03",
    "simhash": "1:210b6662732f87db",
    "word_count": 391
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:48:28.411797+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2018-10-24",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHAMELE COLLINS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThis matter is before the Court based upon a dissent at the Court of Appeals. State v. Collins, _ N.C. App. _, _, 782 S.E.2d 350, 360-62 (2016). The majority at the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motion to suppress evidence seized at the time of his arrest, concluding, inter alia, that \u201cdefendant failed to raise the timing of [the police officer\u2019s] observation of powder on the floor\u201d before the trial court. Id. at _, 782 S.E.2d at 358. We agree that defendant failed to preserve his timing argument for appeal because he did not raise this argument before the trial court. See State v. Eason, 328 N.C. 409, 420, 402 S.E.2d 809, 814 (1991) (\u201cIn order to preserve a question for appellate review, a party must have presented the trial court with a timely request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling sought if the specific grounds are not apparent.\u201d (citing N.C. R. App. P. 10(b) (recodified 2009 as N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(1)))). We therefore modify and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals solely on this ground. The remaining issue addressed in the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals concerning defendant\u2019s right to be present at sentencing is unchallenged and unaffected by our decision.\nMODIFIED AND AFFIRMED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Douglas W. Corkhill, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Erik R. Zimmerman for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHAMELE COLLINS\nNo. 66A16\nFiled 23 September 2016\nAppeal and Error\u2014preservation of issues\u2014failure to object below\u2014failure to raise on appeal\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals on an evidence question in a criminal prosecution was affirmed by the Supreme Court where defendant did not raise the issue at trial and so did not preserve it for appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeals on the remaining issue was not affected.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals,_N.C. App._, 782 S.E.2d 350 (2016), finding no error in the trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motion to suppress, but vacating the judgment entered on 8 September 2014 by Judge William Z. Wood in Superior Court, Forsyth County, and remanding for resentencing. Heard in the Supreme Court on 29 August 2016.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Douglas W. Corkhill, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.\nErik R. Zimmerman for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0060-01",
  "first_page_order": 136,
  "last_page_order": 137
}