{
  "id": 8552244,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENNIE HARRELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Harrell",
  "decision_date": "1971-12-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 713SC688",
  "first_page": "243",
  "last_page": "244",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "13 N.C. App. 243"
    }
  ],
  "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": "173 S.E. 2d 897",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.C. 499",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562301
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/276/0499-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 S.E. 2d 309",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 N.C. 45",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559563
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/266/0045-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 200,
    "char_count": 2509,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.553,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.7492960360752035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29872668252087287
    },
    "sha256": "2fa94cccc7feaf9098956ac38a5bac63b1265268e1f55fbee852eebc6b766674",
    "simhash": "1:e50cfaaa02b6fbe2",
    "word_count": 429
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:15.024983+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Brock and Britt concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENNIE HARRELL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nDefendant, through his court-appointed counsel, brings forward two assignments of error. He first contends that the court erred in not dismissing the action for lack of a speedy trial. \u201cThe burden is on the accused who asserts the denial of his right to a speedy trial to show that the delay was due to the neglect or wilfulness of the State\u2019s prosecution. The right to a speedy trial is not violated, by unavoidable delays nor by delays caused or requested by defendants.\u201d State v. Hollars, 266 N.C. 45, 145 S.E. 2d 309. The record discloses that for at least a substantial part of the time between his trial in recorder\u2019s court and the trial in superior court, defendant was a fugitive from justice. In fact defendant makes no contention that the State was responsible for any delay in trial from 25 May 1970 to the date of his trial on 21 June 1971. Defendant offered no evidence that he had requested an earlier trial or that he was prejudiced by the delay and, indeed, offers no argument as to how he contends he might have been prejudiced. This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant also assigns as error the fact that he received greater punishment in the superior court than in the recorder\u2019s court. For the reasons stated in State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 173 S.E. 2d 897, this assignment of error is overruled.\nNo error.\nJudges Brock and Britt concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorneys Christine A. Wit cover and William Lewis Sauls for the State.",
      "John H. Harmon for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENNIE HARRELL\nNo. 713SC688\n(Filed 15 December 1971)\nConstitutional Law \u00a7 30 \u2014 right to speedy trial \u2014 delay between trials in recorder\u2019s court and superior court\nA delay of almost three years between defendant\u2019s trial in the recorder\u2019s court and his trial de novo in the superior court did not violate his right to a speedy trial, especially where defendant was a fugitive from justice for much of the intervening time.\nAppeal by defendant from Bowman, Special Judge, 21 June 1971 Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Craven County.\nOn 24 September 1968 in the Recorder\u2019s Court of Craven County defendant was convicted of three counts of assault with a deadly weapon. He received three six (6) month sentences which were to have been served concurrently. He gave notice of appeal to the superior court. After trial by jury in the superior court on 21 June 1971, he received three consecutive 18-24 month sentences. Defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorneys Christine A. Wit cover and William Lewis Sauls for the State.\nJohn H. Harmon for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0243-01",
  "first_page_order": 267,
  "last_page_order": 268
}