State v. White

Decision Date12 January 1962
Docket NumberNo. 289,289
Citation123 S.E.2d 483,256 N.C. 244
PartiesSTATE, v. Glenn WHITE.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., Harry W. McGalliard, Asst. Atty. Gen., for state.

H. J. Hatcher, Morganton, and Anglin & Bailey, Burnsville, for defendant.

MOORE, Justice.

Defendant's first assignment of error is based on exception to the order of the court consolidating the bills of indictment for trial.

Each bill charged a felony of the same nature--receiving stolen goods of the value of more than one hundred dollars, knowing them to have been stolen. G.S. § 14-71. The indictments allege separate offenses, two occurring on December 1, 1959, one on October 17, 1960, and one on December 7, 1960. The goods received belonged to four different persons, a different person on each occasion. The State's evidence tends to show that on the first three occasions the goods were stolen and delivered to defendant by Oscar Draughan, and on the last occasion by Jimmy Roper.

The solicitor moved that the indictments be consolidated 'for the purpose of saving time.' The motion was allowed. Defendant contends that this was error. He says that the offenses were separate and distinct transactions, not connected in time or place, and that 'evidence at the trial of one of the indictments would not be admissible at the trial of each of the others.' Defendant strongly insists that in trying the cases together the State's evidence on each of the charges tended to corroborate and strengthen the evidence on each of the others to his prejudice.

G.S. § 15-152 (Ch. 168, P.L. 1917) provides, in part, that 'When there are several charges against any person for the same act or transaction or for two or more acts or transactions connected together, or for two or more transactions of the same class of crimes or offenses, which may be properly joined, instead of several indictments the whole may be joined in one indictment in separate counts; and if two or more indictments are found in such cases, the court will order them to be consolidated.' (Emphasis ours.)

'Where separate indictments against the same defendant are consolidated, the counts in the separate bills will be treated as separate counts in one bill.' 1 Strong: N.C. Index, Criminal Law, s. 87, p. 757; State v. Austin, 241 N.C. 548, 85 S. E.2d 924; State v. Braxton, 230 N.C. 312, 52 S.E.2d 895.

Defendant seems to rely upon the following language in State v. Combs, 200 N.C. 671, 674, 158 S.E. 252, 254: 'The court is expressly authorized by statute in this state to order the consolidation for trial of two or more indictments in which the defendant or defendants are charged with crimes of the same class, which are so connected in time or place as that evidence at the trial of one of the indictments will be competent and admissible at the trial of the others.' Defendant interprets this to mean that two or more indictments may not be consolidated for trial, in any event, unless all of the evidence to be adduced be relevant and competent as to the charges in all of the indictments. We do not agree that the rule stated in Combs is so inclusive. It must be interpreted in the light of the situations in which it has been applied. It has been applied in determining whether indictments should be consolidated when two or more defendants are involved. State v. Cruse, 253 N.C. 456, 117 S.E.2d 49; State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177, 111 S.E.2d 1; State v. Bryant, 250 N.C. 113, 108 S.E.2d 128; State v. Spencer, 239 N.C. 604, 80 S.E.2d 670; State v. Norton, 222 N.C. 418, 23 S.E.2d 301; State v. Truelove, 224 N.C. 147, 29 S.E.2d 460. It has also been applied where one defendant was involved and several distinct offenses of the same or different grades or classes grew out of the same act or transaction or acts or transactions connected together. State v. Chapman, 221 N.C. 157, 19 S.E.2d 250; State v. Maplass, 189 N.C. 349, 127 S.E. 248.

In Combs two defendants were involved, and they were charged jointly in two indictments, it being alleged that they, acting together, broke and entered separate buildings, owned by different persons, on the same day and stole property from each. In our opinion the rule quoted above was invoked only because two defendants were involved. As to each defendant, considered alone, the case was somewhat analogous to the one at bar, and the court approved the consolidation. The offenses were of the same class and identical in character, but were separate offenses. Some of the evidence of the acts constituting one of the offenses would not have been relevant, competent and admissible upon a separate trial of the other unless, perhaps, to show scienter, 'knowledge, intent, motive, plan or design, and identity * * *.' Stansbury: North Carolina Evidence, s. 91, p. 174. It is true that defendants failed to object at the time of the order of consolidation, but the decision seems to have been based both on the failure to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • State v. Fox
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • July 31, 1970
    ...consolidate them for trial. State v. Arsad, 269 N.C. 184, 152 S.E.2d 99; State v. Hamilton, 264 N.C. 277, 141 S.E.2d 506; State v. White, 256 N.C. 244, 123 S.E.2d 483. In this case the facts required to convict defendant of murder would necessarily have convicted him of the burglary charged......
  • State v. Jarrette
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 25, 1974
    ...criminal episode. See: State v. Frazier, 280 N.C. 181, 185 S.E.2d 652; State v. Turner, 268 N.C. 225, 150 S.E.2d 406; State v. White, 256 N.C. 244, 123 S.E.2d 483; State v. Chapman, 221 N.C. 157, 19 S.E.2d 250. They were so related in time and circumstance as to permit the admission in evid......
  • State v. Frazier
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 14, 1972
    ...269 N.C. 184, 152 S.E.2d 99; State v. Turner, 268 N.C. 225, 150 S.E.2d 406; State v. Morrow, 262 N.C. 592, 138 S.E.2d 245; State v. White, 256 N.C. 244, 123 S.E.2d 483; State v. Brown, 250 N.C. 209, 108 S.E.2d The defendant next contends that there was error in allowing challenges for cause......
  • State v. Madden
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 7, 1977
    ...State v. King, 287 N.C. 645, 215 S.E.2d 540 (1975); State v. Overman, 269 N.C. 453, 466, 153 S.E.2d 44 (1967); State v. White, 256 N.C. 244, 123 S.E.2d 483 (1962); State v. Bryant, 250 N.C. 113, 108 S.E.2d 128 (1959); State v. Combs, 200 N.C. 671, 158 S.E. 252 The defendants are not entitle......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT