State v. Basden
| Decision Date | 24 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 7018SC344,7018SC344 |
| Citation | 8 N.C.App. 401,174 S.E.2d 613 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Frank Levitt BASDEN. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan and Staff Atty. James L. Blackburn, Raleigh, for the State.
Joseph D. Franks, Jr., Poteat & Franks, Greensboro, for defendant appellant.
All of appellant's assignments of error are directed to the trial court's rulings overruling his objections to testimony of the police officers concerning who and what they discovered in the Carr residence including particularly the testimony as to the discovery of the defendant himself therein, the discovery of the money in his pockets, and his incriminating statement concerning the money. All of the assignments of error are based upon appellant's contention that the search of the Carr residence, which was admittedly made without a search warrant, was illegal and that therefore all evidence obtained as a result of the search was inadmissible at the trial. The validity of this contention presents the sole question to be decided on this appeal.
G.S. § 15--44 provides as follows:
'If a felony or other infamous crime has been committed, or a dangerous would has been given and there is reasonable ground to believe that the guilty person is concealed in a house, it shall be lawful for any sheriff, coroner, constable, or police officer, admittance having been demanded and denied, to break open the door and enter the house and arrest the person against whom there shall be such ground of belief.'
G.S. § 15--41(2) provides as follows:
'A peace officer may without warrant arrest a person:'
'(2) When the officer has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony and will evade arrest if not immediately taken into custody.'
In this case the crime of armed robbery, a felony, had been committed. Because of the alertness of the witness, Betty Jones, in observing and making prompt report to the police concerning the suspicious activities of defendant Basden and his companions, and because of the prompt and effective action of the police themselves, the Chevrolet car, which the police had reasonable grounds to believe had been used by the robbers, was located in the driveway to Carr's residence only a few minutes after the robbery occurred. All curtains on the residence windows were drawn. Under these circumstances the police clearly had reasonable ground to believe that the persons guilty of committing the felony were concealed in the house. Uniformed police officers, some of whom had arrived in front of the house in clearly marked police patrol cars, went to the front door and knocked, thereby seeking admittance. Failure of the occupants to respond to the request for admittance would constitute an effective denial of the request. Only after these events occurred did Sergeant Pegram proceed to the unlocked back door, open it, and enter the house. Thus, uncontradicted evidence in this case establishes the existence of all of the factors required by G.S. § 15--44 for a lawful entry and arrest.
Furthermore, the uncontradicted evidence establishes that the owner of the residence, Robert Carr, opened the front door from the inside, thereby admitting into the residence the officers who had been standing at the front door demanding admittance. It was after these officers had entered the residence through the door opened to them by the householder himself that the defendant Basden was found concealed in the attic. Under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Agee, 44476
...People v. Duncan, 176 Colo. 427, 498 P.2d 941 (1971); People v. Steele, 29 Ill.App.3d 574, 331 N.E.2d 175 (1975); State v. Basden, 8 N.C.App. 401, 407, 174 S.E.2d 613 (1970). Many, many other courts, while recognizing that findings and conclusions subsequent to a suppression of evidence hea......
-
State v. Munoz, COA99-1338.
...judge must make findings of fact to show the basis of his rulings on the admissibility of the evidence offered." State v. Basden, 8 N.C.App. 401, 407, 174 S.E.2d 613, 617 (1970) (emphasis added). A judge does not have to make findings summarizing all of the evidence before him in a voir dir......
-
State v. Wingerd
...under the Fourth Amendment. State v. Wood, 8 N.C.App. 34, 173 S.E.2d 563; State v. Harr (W.Va.1973), 194 S.E.2d 652; State v. Basden, 8 N.C.App. 401, 174 S.E.2d 613; Compton v. People, 166 Colo. 419, 444 P.2d 263. I agree with such reasoning. Hence, I would hold that the trial court erred i......
-
State v. Shue, 7220SC719
...102, 159 S.E.2d 334; State v. Wood, 8 N.C.App. 34, 173 S.E.2d 563; State v. Fowler, 3 N.C.App. 17, 164 S.E.2d 14.' State v. Basden, 8 N.C.App. 401, 174 S.E.2d 613 (1970). Upon defendants' motion to suppress the evidence resulting from a search of defendants' residence, the court conducted a......