{
  "id": 8547558,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BONNIE LEE DAYE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Daye",
  "decision_date": "1972-03-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 7214SC155",
  "first_page": "166",
  "last_page": "168",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 N.C. App. 166"
    }
  ],
  "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": "174 S.E. 2d 534",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.C. 714",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563418
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/276/0714-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 S.E. 2d 416",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.C. 123",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560350
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/276/0123-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 209,
    "char_count": 2693,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.509,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530423588402259
    },
    "sha256": "2b97a85139753da97d5ea58f13e3e4adac31216c63ccdd74911200f1eeca5e87",
    "simhash": "1:9184d2b1b62e1973",
    "word_count": 427
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:48.650385+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BONNIE LEE DAYE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nIn his brief, defendant states his two assignments of error brought forward thusly:\n(1) \u201cThe trial Court erred in failing to grant the defendant appellant\u2019s Motion for mistrial based on the gross and well calculated plan by the Solicitor to prejudice the jury against the defendant by (propounding) improper and incompetent questions, by prejudicial responses of State\u2019s witnesses and by the Solicitor\u2019s argument to the jury.\u201d\n(2) \u201cThe Solicitor by a gross and well-calculated plan propounded improper and incompetent questions calculated to prejudice the jury against the defendant which led to the jury\u2019s finding of guilt.\u201d\nIt is well settled in this jurisdiction that an assignment of error which attempts to present several questions of law is broadside and ineffective. State v. Kirby, 276 N.C. 123, 171 S.E. 2d 416 (1969) ; State v. Blackwell, 276 N.C. 714, 174 S.E. 2d 534 (1970); Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina. A review of the exceptions grouped under defendant\u2019s two assignments of error discloses that numerous legal questions are raised including failure of the court to sustain defendant\u2019s objections to certain testimony, failure of the court to strike certain testimony, the validity of portions of the solicitor\u2019s argument to the jury, and the failure of the court to allow defendant\u2019s motion for a mistrial interposed after the jury returned its verdict but before judgment was pronounced. However, as indicated in the assignments of error, defendant contends that considering the triad of the case as a whole, he did not receive a fair trial.\nAlthough defendant\u2019s assignments of error are broadside, we have carefully reviewed the record before us, not only with respect to the specific exceptions but in the light of defendant\u2019s contentions, and conclude that he had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Richard B. Conely, Associate Attorney, for the State.",
      "Newsom, Graham, Strayhorn, Hedrick & Murray by E. C. Bryson, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BONNIE LEE DAYE\nNo. 7214SC155\n(Filed 29 March 1972)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 161\u2014 broadside assignment of error\nAn assignment of error which attempts to present several questions of law is broadside and ineffective.\nAppeal by defendant from McKinnon, Judge, 14 October 1971 Session of Durham Superior Court.\nBy indictment proper in form, defendant was charged with (1) possession of seven bindles of heroin and (2) selling seven bindles of heroin. The plea was not guilty, the jury found defendant guilty as charged and from judgment imposing prison sentences, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Richard B. Conely, Associate Attorney, for the State.\nNewsom, Graham, Strayhorn, Hedrick & Murray by E. C. Bryson, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0166-01",
  "first_page_order": 192,
  "last_page_order": 194
}