{
  "id": 8548143,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MAX V. ROGERS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Rogers",
  "decision_date": "1971-08-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 7127SC469",
  "first_page": "160",
  "last_page": "161",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 160"
    }
  ],
  "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": "177 S.E. 2d 301",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 702",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553833
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/9/0702-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 196,
    "char_count": 2686,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.378885445065879e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7966138180256841
    },
    "sha256": "86a1d3af3cbd39e5dd473faede756cc7692567d384b281d5cf0a01cfe46b56e7",
    "simhash": "1:31890c5200b75c61",
    "word_count": 431
  },
  "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. MAX V. ROGERS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Judge.\nDefendant has been supplied with court-appointed counsel for two trials and two appeals. Counsel was successful in obtaining a new trial for defendant after his first conviction but defendant nevertheless undertook to vilify counsel and undertook to partially represent himself on his second trial. Despite defendant\u2019s conduct counsel has diligently pursued this appeal. Indigent defendants are constitutionally entitled to have counsel to represent them, but this constitutional right in no way gives a defendant the right to insult and degrade counsel merely because he is unable to obtain a verdict of acquittal. Defendant\u2019s conduct produces the evidence upon which the jury passes, and he has no one to blame but himself if his conduct constitutes a crime of which he is found' guilty.\nDefendant assigns as error the admission of certain testimony and certain exhibits in evidence. We have examined these carefully and conclude that no prejudicial error is shown.\nDefendant assigns as error certain portions of the judge\u2019s charge to the jury. We have carefully reviewed the charge and in our opinion it fairly submits the case to the jury upon appropriate principles of law. Prejudicial error is not shown.\nDefendant assigns as error that the trial judge allowed defendant to examine and cross-examine some of the witnesses himself. This was at defendant\u2019s request, and so long as defendant conducted himself within customary rules it was discretionary with the trial judge to allow defendant to examine witnesses. No prejudicial error or abuse of discretion has been shown.\nDefendant had a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan, by Staff Attorney Sauls, for the State.",
      "Jeffrey M. Gutter, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MAX V. ROGERS\nNo. 7127SC469\n(Filed 4 August 1971)\nConstitutional Law \u00a7 32\u2014 allowing defendant to examine witnesses\nNo prejudicial error or abuse of discretion has been shown by fact that trial court, at defendant\u2019s request, allowed defendant, who was represented by appointed counsel, to examine and cross-examine some of the witnesses himself.\nAppeal by defendant from Thornburg, Judge, 1 February 1971 Session of Superior Court held in Gaston County.\nDefendant was charged in two counts in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with the felony of breaking and entering and the felony of larceny by breaking and entering.\nThe facts are sufficiently set out in an opinion of this court upon a former appeal by defendant. See State v. Rogers, 9 N.C. App. 702, 177 S.E. 2d 301.\nUpon this second trial defendant was again found guilty as charged, and again appeals.\nAttorney General Morgan, by Staff Attorney Sauls, for the State.\nJeffrey M. Gutter, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0160-01",
  "first_page_order": 186,
  "last_page_order": 187
}