{
  "id": 8551443,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HILDA RANKIN ROBINSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Robinson",
  "decision_date": "1971-12-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 7112SC685",
  "first_page": "200",
  "last_page": "202",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "13 N.C. App. 200"
    }
  ],
  "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": "147 S.E. 2d 548",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "267 N.C. 90",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558414
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/267/0090-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 S.E. 2d 772",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 N.C. 99",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567626
      ],
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/263/0099-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 S.E. 2d 75",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 349",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575289
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0349-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 268,
    "char_count": 4136,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.586,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.7492960360752035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2987262963979753
    },
    "sha256": "156d12dbd25d7eebe9091a3b855daa826fe5dd3c19f2ccf63e0094a0e4cb0c66",
    "simhash": "1:d3b2b07b4bcd51d8",
    "word_count": 713
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:15.024983+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HILDA RANKIN ROBINSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CAMPBELL, Judge.\nThe defendant raises two questions on appeal:\n1. Did the trial court commit error in denying defendant\u2019s motions for directed verdict at the close of the State\u2019s evidence and at the close of all the evidence?\n2. Did the court commit error in its instructions to the jury?\nAn examination of the record before us reveals that defendant did not make any motions, either for nonsuit or for directed verdict, at the close of the State\u2019s evidence and at the conclusion of all the evidence. Nevertheless, pursuant to G.S. 15-173.1, we have reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. State v. Davis, 273 N.C. 349, 160 S.E. 2d 75 (1968). We find that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence was sufficient to go to the jury and sustain a verdict against the defendant.\nIn brief summary the evidence for the State reveals that law enforcement officers armed with a search warrant went to the defendant\u2019s residence and after knocking on the door were admitted by a man who was in the house. On gaining admission the officers went through the house to a rear bedroom where the defendant was in the process of getting out of bed and putting on a housecoat. On the floor at the feet of the defendant they found fourteen capsules which, on subsequent laboratory examination, proved to be heroin. The defendant denied any knowledge of the capsules. The jury found the defendant guilty of possession of heroin.\nThe defendant next argues that the trial court committed prejudicial error in its charge to the jury. The exceptions to the charge are not properly set out in the record. Despite this, we have examined the charge to the jury with care.\nThe charge to the jury must be read as a whole and not in detached parts. State v. Shaw, 263 N.C. 99, 138 S.E. 2d 772 (1964). When the charge presents the law fairly and clearly to the jury, it will afford no ground for reversing the judgment, although some of the expressions, when standing alone, might be regarded as erroneous. State v. Hall, 267 N.C. 90, 147 S.E. 2d 548 (1966). While there may be minor technical errors in the charge, when taken as a whole, it is accurate as to the law and fair to the defendant. The charge is free from prejudicial error.\nIn the entire trial we find,\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CAMPBELL, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General I. Beverly Lake, Jr., for the State.",
      "Anderson, Nimocks & Broadfoot by Stephen H. Nimocks for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HILDA RANKIN ROBINSON\nNo. 7112SC685\n(Filed 15 December 1971)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 164\u2014 motion for nonsuit \u2014 necessity for exception.\u2014 review on appeal\nThe Court of Appeals reviews the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict in a criminal case, notwithstanding the defendant failed to make motions for nonsuit or directed verdict at the close of the State\u2019s evidence and at the conclusion of all the evidence. G.S. 15-173.1.\n2. Narcotics \u00a7 4\u2014 possession of heroin \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nIssue of defendant\u2019s guilt of the possession of heroin was properly submitted to the jury.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 168\u2014 instructions \u2014 review on appeal\nThe charge to the jury must be read as a whole and not in detached parts.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 168\u2014 instructions \u2014 review on appeal\nWhen the charge presents the law fairly and clearly to the jury, it will afford no ground for reversing the judgment, although some of the expressions, when standing alone, might be regarded as erroneous.\nOn certiorari to review a trial before Bailey, Judge, April 5, 1971 Session of Cumberland Superior Court.\nThe defendant was charged in a bill of indictment with possession of heroin. At trial the defendant was found guilty by a jury and judgment was entered imposing a prison sentence. Defendant gave notice of appeal.\nOn July 13, 1971, the Solicitor moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that defendant had failed to serve the case on the Solicitor within the time allowed. The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed.\nThe defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with this Court. The petition was allowed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General I. Beverly Lake, Jr., for the State.\nAnderson, Nimocks & Broadfoot by Stephen H. Nimocks for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0200-01",
  "first_page_order": 224,
  "last_page_order": 226
}