Case Name: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARTHA ANN INSCOE
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1979-01-02
Citations: 39 N.C. App. 326
Docket Number: No. 789SC735
Parties: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARTHA ANN INSCOE
Judges: Chief Judge MORRIS and Judge MARTIN (Harry C.), concur.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 326–328

Head Matter:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARTHA ANN INSCOE
No. 789SC735
(Filed 2 January 1979)
Criminal Law §§ 145, 154— consolidated trial oi defendant — two records on appeal —taxing of costs against attorney
Where an attorney representing two defendants in an appeal from a consolidated trial caused two separate records on appeal to be filed in the appellate court when only one was required by App. R. 11(d), the attorney will be taxed with a portion of the costs. App. R. 9(b)(5).
APPEAL by defendant from Thornburg, Judge. Judgments entered 20 April 1978 in Superior Court, VANCE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 December 1978.
In Case No. 78CRS427 defendant, Martha Ann Inscoe, was indicted for assault upon Florine Cooper with a deadly weapon, to wit: a knife, with intent to kill inflicting serious injuries. In Case No. 78CRS1775 defendant, Martha Ann Inscoe, was indicted for conspiring with one Jane Cooper Rhyne to murder Florine Cooper and Nancy Parham Cooper. Defendant Inscoe pled not guilty to both charges.
By separate indictments, Jane Cooper Rhyne was charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injuries upon Nancy Parham Cooper and with conspiring with Martha Ann Inscoe to murder Florine Cooper and Nancy Parham Cooper. Jane Cooper Rhyne pled not guilty to those charges.
All charges against both defendants were consolidated for purposes of trial. The jury found each defendant guilty as charged. From judgments sentencing her to prison for a term of twenty years in Case No. 78CRS427 and for a consecutive suspended term of ten years in Case No. 78CRS1775, defendant Martha Ann Inscoe appeals.
Attorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Jo Anne Sanford for the State.
J. Henry Banks for defendant appellant.

Opinion:
PARKER, Judge.
This is an appeal by the defendant, Martha Ann Inscoe, from the same trial at which her co-defendant, Jane Cooper Rhyne, was also found guilty. Both defendants appealed. Both were represented at trial by the same attorney, who also represents each of the defendants upon their separate appeals to this Court. The attorney caused two separate records on appeal to be filed in this Court. There should have been but one. Rule 11(d), North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure; State v. Kessack, 32 N.C. App. 536, 232 S.E. 2d 859 (1977); State v. Cottingham, 30 N.C. App. 67, 226 S.E. 2d 387 (1976); State v. McKenzie, 30 N.C. App. 64, 226 S.E. 2d 385 (1976). The filing of two records when there should have been but one has placed an unnecessary burden on this Court. Pursuant to Rule 9(b)(5) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, defendant's counsel will be personally taxed with a portion of the costs in this case in the sum of $79.55. State v. Montgomery, 291 N.C. 91, 229 S.E. 2d 572 (1976); State v. Monk, 291 N.C. 37, 229 S.E. 2d 163 (1976); State v. Bryson, 30 N.C. App. 71, 226 S.E. 2d 392 (1976); State v. Ashe, 30 N.C. App. 74, 226 S.E. 2d 398 (1976); State v. Cottingham, supra; State v. McKenzie, supra.
The brief filed by the attorney for the defendant in this case is identical with the brief which he filed in connection with the appeal of the co-defendant, Jane Cooper Rhyne, and defendant in this case seeks to raise the same questions for appellate review as are presented by the appeal of the co-defendant even though not all of the questions raised by the appeal of the co-defendant are applicable to the case of this defendant. By opinion filed simultaneously herewith the panel of this Court which passed upon the appeal of the co-defendant, Jane Cooper Rhyne, has found no error in the trial. State v. Rhyne, 39 N.C. App. 319, 250 S.E. 2d 102 (1979). For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, we find no error in the trial of the charges against the defendant, Martha Ann Inscoe. There was ample evidence to require submission of the charges against defendant Inscoe to the jury.
In the trial of the defendant Inscoe and in the judgments from which she has appealed, we find
No error.
Chief Judge MORRIS and Judge MARTIN (Harry C.), concur.