Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. White
Citations: 203 S.E.2d 644; 21 N.C. App. 173; 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1750Docket: 7410SC156
Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina; April 3, 1974; North Carolina; State Appellate Court
In the case of State of North Carolina v. Eddie White and Otis Dexter Kearney, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding motions for nonsuit and motions to suppress evidence. The appellate court found that there was sufficient evidence to submit the cases to the jury, and the trial court's denial of the motions to suppress evidence obtained from a search at the police station was justified. The court conducted a voir dire examination that included the testimony of two police officers, which was uncontradicted. Although the trial judge did not make formal findings of fact, this omission was deemed non-fatal due to the lack of conflicting evidence. Key facts included Officer Broadwell's encounter with the defendants after he discovered a collapsed victim, Bouchett, and subsequently received a radio description of two escapees that matched the defendants. The officers stopped the defendants based on this description, leading to their arrest as escapees and a lawful search. The court emphasized that the defendants were apprehended legally as they were escapees from the prison system, and the officers possessed sufficient information from the radio broadcasts to justify their actions. An escapee from the State's prison system can be seized and held by police without probable cause. To lawfully return the escapee to custody, apprehension is sufficient; no charges for escape are necessary, as the original commitment is still valid. The issue of probable cause arises only if individuals are mistakenly identified as escapees. In this case, the defendants were correctly identified and were in lawful custody when searched at the police station, making the search reasonable and the evidence obtained admissible. The court ruled that the defendants did not have standing to contest the probable cause for their arrest, though this does not imply that probable cause was lacking. The evidence supported a finding that officers reasonably believed the defendants were committing escape. Arrest without a warrant was justified under G.S. 15-41(1). There was no error in the trial court's decision not to submit jury issues regarding lesser included offenses of assault and larceny, as no evidence suggested the defendants committed these lesser offenses. The court found no prejudicial errors in other parts of the charge, concluding that the trial and judgments had no errors. Judges Britt and Vaughn concurred.