{
  "id": 8554098,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BONNIE LEE DAYE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Daye",
  "decision_date": "1972-01-12",
  "docket_number": "No. 7114SC690",
  "first_page": "435",
  "last_page": "436",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "13 N.C. App. 435"
    }
  ],
  "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": "166 S.E. 2d 53",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 N.C. 141",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558175
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/275/0141-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 S.E. 2d 39",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 N.C. App. 51",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547776
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/7/0051-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 178,
    "char_count": 2227,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.551,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.1072770030865e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9099264088369631
    },
    "sha256": "b5bc96728f21e9c66ccc4c60a2b86fc272e01a287860eb843b0bf4d1a6c28d73",
    "simhash": "1:a76e1c2b34b3199a",
    "word_count": 372
  },
  "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. BONNIE LEE DAYE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s first assignment of error is that the court erred in failing to grant his motion for mistrial due to the prejudicial responses of a State\u2019s witness and improper questioning by the solicitor. \u201cAs a general rule, a motion for a mistrial is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and the ruling thereon is not reviewable on appeal in the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion.\u201d State v. Williams, 7 N.C. App. 51, 171 S.E. 2d 39. The record before us discloses no abuse of discretion. It suffices to say that, in almost every instance, the able trial judge ruled with the defendant when defendant elected to enter timely objections to the solicitor\u2019s questions or moved to strike the responses now alleged to constitute prejudicial error.\nDefendant finally contends that the court erred in failing to require the police officer who purchased the heroin from defendant to disclose the identity of a confidential informer. At trial defendant did not contend, and there is nothing in this record to show, that the identity of the informer would be relevant or helpful to the defense. This assignment of error is overruled. State v. Moore, 275 N.C. 141, 166 S.E. 2d 53. In the trial from which defendant appealed we find no prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Brock and Britt concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorneyr General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney Thomas W. Earnhardt for the State.",
      "A. H. Borland and Ronald H. Ruis for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BONNIE LEE DAYE\nNo. 7114SC690\n(Filed 12 January 1972)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 128 \u2014 motion for mistrial \u2014 discretion of court\nA motion for a mistrial is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and the ruling thereon is not reviewable on appeal in the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion.\n2. Constitutional Law \u00a7 31 \u2014 identification of informer\nPolice officer in a possession of heroin prosecution was not required to disclose the identity of a confidential informer.\nAppeal by defendant from Hobgood, Judge, 12 April 1971 Session of Superior Court held in Durham County.\nDefendant was convicted on bills of indictment charging felonious possession and sale of heroin. From the judgments entered the defendant appealed.\nAttorneyr General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney Thomas W. Earnhardt for the State.\nA. H. Borland and Ronald H. Ruis for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0435-01",
  "first_page_order": 459,
  "last_page_order": 460
}