State v. Green

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Green

370 S.E.2d 604, 91 N.C. App. 127, 1988 N.C. App. LEXIS 705

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedAugust 2, 1988

DocketNo. 8710SC1229

StatusPublished

This text of 370 S.E.2d 604 (State v. Green) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Green, 370 S.E.2d 604, 91 N.C. App. 127, 1988 N.C. App. LEXIS 705 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PHILLIPS, Judge.

Defendant was convicted of conspiring with Claude Enoch and/or Randolph Fryar to traffic in more than 400 grams of cocaine in violation of G.S. 90-95. The trials of the three alleged conspirators were severed and Enoch had been tried and acquitted when defendant was tried. Nevertheless, in defendant’s trial the court received into evidence out of court statements made by Enoch, refused to receive evidence of Enoch’s prior acquittal, and charged the jury that it should find defendant guilty of the conspiracy if they found that he agreed with either Claude Enoch or Randolph Fryar to traffic in more than 400 grams of cocaine as charged in the indictment. These grave errors require a new trial and defendant’s other contentions need not be discussed.

[128]*128Inasmuch as a criminal conspiracy requires the agreement of two or more conspirators to the same criminal scheme it is inherent, as our Supreme Court held in State v. Tom, 13 N.C. (2 Devereaux) 569 (1830), that one cannot conspire with a non-conspirator. In that case, quite similar to this one, the defendant’s conspiracy conviction was set aside because the trial judge instructed the jury that they could convict him if they found that he had conspired with an alleged co-conspirator who had been acquitted by another jury. In this case, since it had been determined that Claude Enoch was not a conspirator in the conspiracy defendant was being tried for, defendant’s trial should have been conducted on that judicially established premise, rather than upon the foundationless and fictitious theory that Enoch was such a conspirator. We vacate defendant’s conviction and remand the case to the Superior Court for a retrial consistent with this opinion.

Vacated and remanded.

Judges Johnson and Smith concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PHILLIPS, Judge.

Defendant was convicted of conspiring with Claude Enoch and/or Randolph Fryar to traffic in more than 400 grams of cocaine in violation of G.S. 90-95. The trials of the three alleged conspirators were severed and Enoch had been tried and acquitted when defendant was tried. Nevertheless, in defendant’s trial the court received into evidence out of court statements made by Enoch, refused to receive evidence of Enoch’s prior acquittal, and charged the jury that it should find defendant guilty of the conspiracy if they found that he agreed with either Claude Enoch or Randolph Fryar to traffic in more than 400 grams of cocaine as charged in the indictment. These grave errors require a new trial and defendant’s other contentions need not be discussed.

[128]*128Inasmuch as a criminal conspiracy requires the agreement of two or more conspirators to the same criminal scheme it is inherent, as our Supreme Court held in State v. Tom, 13 N.C. (2 Devereaux) 569 (1830), that one cannot conspire with a non-conspirator. In that case, quite similar to this one, the defendant’s conspiracy conviction was set aside because the trial judge instructed the jury that they could convict him if they found that he had conspired with an alleged co-conspirator who had been acquitted by another jury. In this case, since it had been determined that Claude Enoch was not a conspirator in the conspiracy defendant was being tried for, defendant’s trial should have been conducted on that judicially established premise, rather than upon the foundationless and fictitious theory that Enoch was such a conspirator. We vacate defendant’s conviction and remand the case to the Superior Court for a retrial consistent with this opinion.

Vacated and remanded.

Judges Johnson and Smith concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

370 S.E.2d 604, 91 N.C. App. 127, 1988 N.C. App. LEXIS 705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-green-ncctapp-1988.