Chapman v. State, 6927SC138
| Decision Date | 30 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 6927SC138,6927SC138 |
| Citation | 166 S.E.2d 873,4 N.C.App. 438 |
| Parties | Roger Dale CHAPMAN, Petitioner, v. STATE of North Carolina, Respondent. STATE of North Carolina v. Roger Dale CHAPMAN. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Robert Morgan, Atty. Gen., by James F. Bullock, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.
Clark & Randall by Charles D. Randall, Lincoln, for defendant.
Defendant was represented upon his pretrial petition, upon his trial, and upon this appeal by court-appointed counsel, and Lincoln County will pay the costs of the record.
Defendant's appeal from the dismissal of his pretrial petition:
Defendant's primary argument is that a preliminary hearing is a critical stage of the proceedings, and that he was entitled to counsel at that time. It seems that Gasque v. State, 271 N.C. 323, 156 S.E.2d 740, should have laid to rest any argument upon this point. While it may be true that the facts in Gasque are different from the facts of this case, the principles are the same. In this case defendant was arrested on 18 July 1968 and was advised at the time of his arrest that he was entitled to counsel. He told the arresting officer that he did not want appointed counsel, that he would get his own. Nevertheless he made no effort to contact an attorney until the morning of 20 July 1968. Upon his request on the 20th he was taken from his cell to the lobby of the jail in order to allow him to use the telephone. He talked with one attorney on the telephone, and unsuccessfully called to talk with another. The preliminary hearing was held during the afternoon of 20 July 1968, and defendant now complains that it should not have been held until 22 July 1968. When defendant was taken to the preliminary hearing before a justice of the peace, he again asked to call an attorney, and one of the officers called the attorney requested by defendant. For reasons not disclosed by the record neither of the attorneys appeared.
Defendant was not required to plead to the charges, he made no statement, and did not testify. He was allowed to cross-examine the State's witnesses. No record of anything done or said at the preliminary hearing was offered upon defendant's trial. The only prejudice urged by the defendant to have resulted from his failure to have counsel is that there is a 'possibility that a witness for the State may have received some information from the defendant having to conduct the cross-examination of the witnesses without the aid of counsel.'
Upon the principles and reasoning clearly set forth in Gasque v. State, Supra, the order denying and dismissing defendant's pretrial petition is affirmed.
Defendant's appeal from the verdicts and judgments entered thereon:
The State's evidence tended to show the following: During the night of 17 June 1968 the building used by Century Theater, a motion picture theater in the town of Lincolnton, was broken into, the manager's private office was broken into, and the safe containing approximately two hundred dollars was broken open, and the money taken. The combination dial had been partially knocked off, and 'the safe had been prized or ripped.' Latent fingerprints were taken from the safe and forwarded to the Identification Laboratory of the State Bureau of Investigation and were found to match fingerprints of defendant already on file, and also were found to match fingerprints of the defendant taken later at the time of his arrest. The State's evidence further tended to show that on the night in question (17 June 1968) defendant came to Lincolnton with his girl friend about 11:15 p.m. That they parked behind the hospital and defendant went 'uptown,' leaving his girl friend in the car. Defendant returned in about two hours with approximately two hundred dollars, and they went back to Newton to their motel. Defendant was an escapee from the North Carolina Department of Correction,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vance v. State of North Carolina
...denied, 390 U.S. 1030, 88 S.Ct. 1423, 20 L.Ed.2d 288 (1968); State v. Pulley, 5 N.C.App. 285, 168 S.E.2d 62 (1969); Chapman v. State, 4 N.C.App. 438, 166 S.E.2d 873 365, 161 S.E.2d 650 But for Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387 (1970), decided on June 22, 1970, we......
-
State v. Accor
...and photographs of defendants. Moreover, we approve the holding in recent decisions of the Court of Appeals (Chapman v. State, 4 N.C.App. 438, 166 S.E.2d 873; State v. Strickland, 5 N.C.App. 338, 168 S.E.2d 697) that this statute did not create an exclusionary rule of evidence. State v. McG......
-
State v. Strickland
...part of the criminals, reporting such conditions, and to cooperate with all officials in detecting and preventing.' In State v. Chapman, 4 N.C.App. 438, 166 S.E.2d 873, this Court considered the statute now relied on by defendant. In Chapman we 'G.S. 114--19, which was enacted in 1965, has ......