{
  "id": 8548122,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHNNY WARD, alias JOHNNY SPARROW",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ward",
  "decision_date": "1971-08-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 713SC502",
  "first_page": "159",
  "last_page": "160",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 159"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 168,
    "char_count": 2081,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.575,
    "sha256": "dafe0fe32e1ec881587059fc614a10ac84c74159646f98d9d39954375274ecb2",
    "simhash": "1:972d8d3a9c1e10ef",
    "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 Vaughn and Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHNNY WARD, alias JOHNNY SPARROW"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Judge.\nDefendant assigns as error the denial of his motion for judgment of nonsuit, and the portion of the Court\u2019s charge to the jury relating to the doctrine of recent possession. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, as we must upon a motion for nonsuit, we think that the evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury under the doctrine of recent possession. The portion of the charge to which defendant excepts was a correct statement of the law.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan, by Staff Attorney Giles, for the State.",
      "John H. Harmon for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHNNY WARD, alias JOHNNY SPARROW\nNo. 713SC502\n(Filed 4 August 1971)\nLarceny \u00a7 7\u2014 automobile larceny \u2014 recent possession\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient for submission to the jury under the doctrine of recent possession in this prosecution on an indictment charging larceny of an automobile and temporary larceny of an automobile.\nAppeal by defendant from Rouse, Judge, 10 May 1971 Session of Superior Court held in Craven County.\nDefendant was charged in an indictment with larceny of a motor vehicle, receiving a motor vehicle knowing the same to have been stolen, and unlawful taking of a vehicle.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show the following. The automobile in question, a 1967 model Oldsmobile belonging to Charles F. Bolden, Jr., was stolen from in front of the Psychedelic Shack in the city of New Bern, North Carolina, at sometime between the hours of 12:30 a.m. and 3:30 a.m. on 14 November 1970. About 7:00 a.m. on the same date, the automobile was found in a ditch in the town of Bridgeton, North Carolina, a short distance from New Bern. As the automobile was being towed from the ditch, the defendant arrived in a truck and informed Mr. Joseph Hamilton, the Chief of Police of Bridgeton, that it was his car and that he had been driving.\nDefendant offered no evidence. From a verdict of guilty of unlawful taking of a vehicle, and judgment entered thereupon, defendant appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General Morgan, by Staff Attorney Giles, for the State.\nJohn H. Harmon for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0159-01",
  "first_page_order": 185,
  "last_page_order": 186
}