{
  "id": 8547129,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: DAVID DUNSTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Dunston",
  "decision_date": "1971-07-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 719DC367",
  "first_page": "33",
  "last_page": "34",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 33"
    }
  ],
  "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": "174 S.E. 2d 865",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 N.C. App. 589",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554057
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/8/0589-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 S.E. 2d 751",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 N.C. 40",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8617275
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/252/0040-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 188,
    "char_count": 2136,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.577,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3198182662171996e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6263201059212332
    },
    "sha256": "5444ffec383166c2bfd4f4624da1a22fef6a73593a81d02e8c5a8d242c00398f",
    "simhash": "1:1d9a7cc4094738b9",
    "word_count": 353
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:50:27.087613+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Britt concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF: DAVID DUNSTON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GRAHAM, Judge.\nRespondent contends that the court\u2019s findings were based upon hearsay evidence. It is true that some of the testimony offered was hearsay. However, respondent, who was represented by counsel at the hearing, made no objection or motion to strike. The testimony was therefore competent and could be considered. Abbitt v. Bartlett, 252 N.C. 40, 112 S.E. 2d 751; State v. Davis, 8 N.C. App. 589, 174 S.E. 2d 865.\nMoreover, there was other competent evidence to support the court\u2019s findings. The victim'of the assault testified that he was sitting on the commode in the boy\u2019s bathroom of Louisburg High School when respondent and some other students came in and turned off the lights. The lights remained off for a minute or more and during that time the witness was kicked in the neck. When the lights came back on respondent was seen walking toward the door. The witness testified, \u201cI am able to say which one kicked me. David Dunston. He was the only one near enough to do it.\u201d\nThe findings and conclusions of the Juvenile Court are specific and are technically sound. We have reviewed the complete record and conclude that no prejudicial error appears therein.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Campbell and Britt concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GRAHAM, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Weathers for the State.",
      "Clayton & Ballance by Theaoseus T. Clayton for appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: DAVID DUNSTON\nNo. 719DC367\n(Filed 14 July 1971)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 30; Infants \u00a7 10\u2014 juvenile hearing \u2014 consideration of hearsay testimony\nHearsay testimony was competent and could be' considered in a juvenile hearing where the respondent, who was represented by counsel, made no objection or motion to strike.\nAppeal by respondent from Bcmzet, District Judge, 19 November 1970 Session of District Court held in Franklin County.\nAppeal from an order committing respondent to the care of the State Board of Juvenile Corrections.\nRespondent, a 15-year old juvenile, was adjudged a delinquent child within the meaning of G.S. 7A-278 (2) upon a finding by the Juvenile Court that he committed a simple assault upon Steven Johnson, age 14, by kicking him in the neck.\nAttorney General Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Weathers for the State.\nClayton & Ballance by Theaoseus T. Clayton for appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0033-01",
  "first_page_order": 59,
  "last_page_order": 60
}