{
  "id": 8553382,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOE JAMES BRAXTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Braxton",
  "decision_date": "1968-06-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "407",
  "last_page": "408",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 N.C. App. 407"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "128 S.E. 2d 389",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "258 N.C. 349",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560779
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/258/0349-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 198,
    "char_count": 2794,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.576,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20596162170072463
    },
    "sha256": "60e744ac3f5ed5b74931f80d8f04a9ef532af154660b82046791434f1d9689af",
    "simhash": "1:7bc0d1c83f311627",
    "word_count": 481
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:01.747951+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Britt and Morris, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOE JAMES BRAXTON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mallard, C.J.\nDefendant\u2019s main assignment of error, upon which this case turns, is that the court committed error in the denial of defendant\u2019s request for a continuance after the appointment of counsel, to enable counsel to obtain witnesses.\nOn 31 October 1967 the defendant signed an affidavit in which he asserted that he was an indigent and requested the appointment of counsel. On the same date he was found by the court to be an indigent, and C. E. Gerrans, an attorney at law, was assigned to represent him.\nIn \u201capproximately ten minutes\u201d after the appointment of counsel, the defendant\u2019s case was called for trial. Before pleading to the charges contained in the bill of indictment, defendant\u2019s counsel made a motion to continue the case in order to obtain witnesses for the defendant. The motion was denied.\nIn ruling on the motion the court said, \u201cIn view of the fact that the case was called last week and the court gave the defendant time to get ready the court denies the request.\u201d The record does not reveal what else, if anything, occurred the week before. There is nothing in the record to indicate that defendant\u2019s counsel had knowledge of what had occurred the prior week, and if he had known about it, he was under no obligation to act in this case until he became attorney for the defendant.\nWe hold that ten minutes after his appointment was not sufficient time for the defendant\u2019s lawyer to procure witnesses or to prepare the case for trial by jury. The failure to continue the case under these circumstances was prejudicial error. State v. Lane, 258 N.C. 349, 128 S.E. 2d 389.\nThe defendant made other assignments of error. However, in view of what is said above, these need not be discussed, except we deem it proper to add that there was sufficient evidence in this case for it to be submitted to the jury.\nFor the reasons stated, it is ordered that there be a new trial.\nNew trial.\nBritt and Morris, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mallard, C.J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General T. W. Bruton and Deputy Attorney General James F. Bullock for the State.",
      "C. E. Gerrans for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOE JAMES BRAXTON.\n(Filed 12 June 1968.)\nConstitutional Law \u00a7 81; Criminal Law \u00a7 91\u2014\nTlie denial of motion for continuance made by indigent defendant\u2019s attorney ten minutes after bis appointment to represent the defendant is prejudicial error, there not being sufficient time for the attorney to procure witnesses or to prepare the case for trial by jury.\nAppeal by defendant from Cowper, ./., 23 October 1967 Regular Criminal Session of LeNOIr Superior Court.\nDefendant was charged with the felonies of forgery and uttering a forged instrument in a bill of indictment returned by the Grand Jury at the October 1967 Session of court.\nFrom a verdict of guilty and judgment of imprisonment, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General T. W. Bruton and Deputy Attorney General James F. Bullock for the State.\nC. E. Gerrans for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0407-01",
  "first_page_order": 429,
  "last_page_order": 430
}