Title: State v. Haney
Citation: 140 S.E.2d 544, 263 N.C. 816
Docket Number: 169
State: north-carolina
Issuer: north-carolina Supreme Court
Date: March 3, 1965

140 S.E.2d 544 (1965)
263 N.C. 816
STATE of North Carolina
v.
James S. HANEY.
No. 169.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
March 3, 1965.
*546 T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., Richard T. Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Dolley &amp; Harris, Gastonia, for defendant.
PER CURIAM
Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, as we must in considering a motion for nonsuit, it was amply sufficient to establish that defendant Haney, if not the owner, was the operator and controller of the Pontiac, the automobile in which one robbery was perpetrated and another attempted. Defendant Haney stopped the Pontiac while Tomberlin took the dollar bill from Sims at knifepoint. Haney drove the car back to the bowling alley where the Volkswagen was parked and stopped the Pontiac while the Sims automobile was searched. The record does not reveal whether it was Haney or Cantrell, or both, who made the search. Haney then transported Sims to Charlotte while Tomberlin held the knife on Sims and threatened his life if he tried to escape. Furthermore, defendant Haney admitted receiving the dollar which Sims said had been taken from him with the threatened use of a knife, and the keys to the Volkswagen were found in the "Haney car" immediately after his arrest. Clearly, Haney was not a disinterested bystander; he was an active participant in a conspiracy to rob Sims and in the consequent robbery. The motion for nonsuit was properly overruled. State v. Holland, 234 N.C. 354, 67 S.E.2d 272.
When Sims was asked which of the men demanded his money when Tomberlin hit him, his reply was, "I believe Haney said that." Defendant contends that this evidence was merely the expression of an opinion or a guess and was therefore incompetent. This contention cannot be sustained. The witness was speaking of his first-hand observation. His expression, "I believe," merely connoted "an indistinctness of perception or memory." Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence § 122 (2d ed. 1963).
The evidence was competent; its weight was for the jury.
Defendant next contends that the search which revealed the Volkswagen keys in the Pontiac was illegal because conducted without a search warrant some twenty minutes after Haney's arrest. Defendant was under lawful arrest. G.S. § 15-41. The police had the privilege to search his person. State v. Grant, 248 N.C. 341, 103 S.E.2d 339. Under the circumstances of this case they had the privilege, also, to search his automobile without a warrant.
In Allgaier v. State, 200 Ind. 583, 164 N.E. 315, "after the arrest was made, appellant was taken to the jail, where the automobile was searched. This search was made soon after the arrest and was incident to same." The search revealed two bottles of whiskey, which, the court held, were properly introduced in evidence. Accord People v. Garrett, 232 Mich. 366, 205 N.W. 95; State v. Williams, 328 Mo. 627, 14 S.W.2d 434; State v. Cyr, 40 Wash. 2d 840, 246 P.2d 480; Gray v. State, 243 Wis. 57, 9 N.W.2d 68. In Commonwealth v. Cockfield, 411 Pa. 71, 190 A.2d 898, defendant's automobile was searched without a warrant 57 hours after he had been arrested for arson. In the trunk were found gasoline and a charred roll of toilet paper. In holding the evidence competent, the court said:
Defendant's other assignments of error have been considered. They are without merit. In the trial below, we find
No error.